Waste of taxpayers' money

LizG Yes you should read the thread or at least the OP or how can you comment, we are talking about the money the EA wasted on a Gay March. Surely any sensible person would think that was inappropriate.

And lavish entertaining ...

You folk might get taken more seriously if actually backed up what you are saying and did not just rely on tabloid mischief making. If this is true you should be able to either cite the page in the EA annual report or a FOA request. Don't suppose the Mail bothers with such things though, as FOA requuests take a few weeks and bashing the EA is flavour of the week right now.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Couldn't agree more, soutra! Well said.

I have withdrawn my comment about xenophobia and homophobia but stand by what I also said which was that colour/race, gender and sexual orientation should have no place in our assessment criteria.

Anyone see the programme about the NHS last night, on Dispatches?
He was at York hospital, and looking at the impact that penalties have on hospitals that miss government targets.
Apparently hospitals have paid over a billion pounds in penalties over the last three years, but not even the boss of NHS England knows where the money has gone.

It was that with which I agreed, and still do.

Well, I hope the comment removed was not aimed at anyone in particular as I made the original OP and am none of those things mentioned in the next post. Money allocated for a certain purpose should be used for that purpose not diverted to other projects better served by other departments.

And I do not have to quote loads of reports or statistics when I am merely asking questions. Having worked in the public sector I know how much it changed over the years and how money was spent and is being spent in ways which were only once known in the corporate world. It is OUR money, we should be able to say 'hang on a minute, that's not right'. But apparently not on here.

Why does everthing degenerate into a DM bashing? not defending that publication and I like to read other publications as well.
And if anyone has a point of view which differs from someone else I have noticed a lot of verbal, well I can only call it bullying. What exactly does the term 'you folk' mean? Those of simple minds compared with those cleverclogs who have every statistic and report ever written at their fingertips? Even dumbos like me are entitled to express an opinion surely?
Cheerio, life's too short, I'll stick to the forums on knitting I think.

Expressed well, Margaretm74

[smile ] charleygirl

Sorry charleygirl

margaret your opinions are as valid as anyone else's. There has always been a temptation by some to patronise but just ignore it, I think most of us do.

You might be in trouble for mentioning the 'b' word though! That usually brings out lots of self righteous comments and much along the lines of 'if you don't like the heat...................'

Some people just like confrontation

Yes, your post of 11.05 came across as patronising, Jess.

As for the 'b' word, I'd say the tone was more hectoring than anything!

I do not know if money that should have been spent on direct environmental works was diverted to try to counter the bullying gay people have to put up with in all walks of life. What I do know is that sloppy journalism, and political propaganda dressed up as journalism, needs to be exposed. I don't care which paper it is all headlines need to be backed up by facts.

I see that there is now evidence that significant flood defence work was cancelled, greatly reduced or postponed by the government against the advice of the Climate Change Committee and EA et al. That had nothing to do with spending a few pounds on 'Some People Are Gay Get Over It ' mugs if that is what happened!

Sorry that you think i sound patronising ana but I think citing that something is in the EA annual report and then not coming back and saying where it can be found (it is very long) does not reassure me that the original story is true. I have stood next to my DH while he was interviewed on the phone by a DM reporter who was trying to get him to corroborate something they were planning to print and heard DH say "That is not true. If you print that it will be a lie." But they printed the scare story anyway which was based on a pack of untruths. So I have first hand evidence that they deliberately lie. There are many other examples that are in the public domain. Not saying other papers don't do it too. The Express runs a shock horror story about the weather about once every 10 days which rarely proves to be true e.g "massive heatwave" turns out to be one day with temperatures in mid 20s.

margaret didn't claim to have read the report, she just said it was online for anyone to view, and presumably examine in minute detail if they were so inclined.

Well ana if someone wants to start a debate, and other people challenge the validity of the basic information which they wish to discuss, not unreasonable to come back with corroborative evidence that supports the information that they assert to be true. Isn't that how debate works?
Makes for a better debate than just carrying on regardless or getting annoyed that the validity of the first source not accepted?

I don't think anyone was getting annoyed about that, Jess.

Can someone let me know where I can read about the Gay March and lavish entertaining please so that I can join in with the debate Cheers!

Just out of interest, what does the Lord Mayor's parade cost?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560300/Why-did-floods-agency-spend-hundreds-equali-tea-gay-awareness-mugs-30-000-gay-pride-marches-As-Britain-counts-cost-shoddy-defences-reveal-bizarre-spending-quango-bosses.html

"Whilst the Show is extremely good value, with a budget of only just over £35032,000; its total cost has been estimated in the region of 3 million pounds, the same as a major West End musical. So, as you watch it from the pavement it passes you at the rate of £60,000 a minute."

Gay Pride is peanuts.

No, I don't get the arithmetic either