Waste of taxpayers' money

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

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

Sorry charleygirl

[smile ] charleygirl

Expressed well, Margaretm74

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.

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

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.

I have withdrawn my comment about xenophobia and homophobia but stand by what I also said which was that colour/race, gender and sexual orientation should have no place in our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

Couldn't agree more, soutra! Well said.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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.

And lavish entertaining ...

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.

Well, I wouldn't really put it like that, ninny, I just think money shouldn't be wasted on projects that have nothing to do with the job in hand, ie I would be annoyed if he spent money on anything not connected to the environment, such as promoting any type of religion, any sexuality, race or lavish corporate entertainment.

Of course, it's easy to spend it when it is taxpayers' money and not your own. And they all do it. The problem as papaoscar said, is that the system of quangos has resulted in out-of-control chaos.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

A very interesting subject. The only source of revenue for any government is the poor old taxpayer. Government expenditure used to be subject to the authority of parliament and the consent of the taxpayer at the election. Ministers were personally accountable for the conduct of their departments and there was little opportunity to pass the buck. Yes, it was old fashioned and a bit slow, but it worked. That was then.

Now, more and more government functions and strategic requirements have been hived off to a vast network of quangos, boards, committees, spivs, crooks and cheats at enormous public cost. These bodies are often staffed by armies of friends and relations on huge salaries with little control or regulation. The results? Chaos - nobody is responsible for anything, there is little national organisation left and folk in distress are left to fend for themselves. All those mission statements, citizen's charters and other waffle are so much waste paper.

I was proud to be a civil servant in the old days. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole these days!

Yes, if the LAs don't spend all their budget they can't carry it over to next year. At least that used to be the case.
That is why small schemes are hurriedly carried out before the end of the financial year.

Isn't one of the problems that the government still holds the reins, whatever else it says. It gives money to the EA, then tells it how much of that money it can spend on flood defences each year.
It's the same with local councils. and the NHS. They are given money for each year, told not to overspend, but if they underspend are given proportionately less the next year.
The NHS has been told to save money, the Nicholson Challenge, then when it spends less, it has the excess taken away, instead of being allowed to use it to keep nurses, and keep wards open.One good thing about the floods is that EA workers might avoid redundancy for now.
The government has always said it wants less central control, but it has more now in education, the NHS, local government, etc.

I have absolutely no issue with that whatsoever, as I said in the OP. Good kn him for being so honest, but don't use taxpayers' money on your own pet schemes which have no connection to the job in hand.

The EA was just an example which is topical, I am sure there will be many other examples

Thanks ana, yes that is what I meant. With budget constraints why spend money on frivolities.
Eg if you can't afford to feed your children would you splash on new clothes for yourself?

Yes, Ana, I see what you mean. Sorry, Margaret, if that's what you meant.
Haven't looked at the photos, but Chris Smith was the first gay MP to come out without being forced to, I seem to recall.

Surely margaret's response related back to the OP, durhamjen.

I do not understand your response Margaret. The article that Penstemmon talks about shows how many areas in Somerset and Kent were left without flood defences because the government decided to save money in 2010. One of the schemes scrapped was at Dawlish where the railway fell into the sea and now there are no trains in the west country. Do you think that that was a good way to save money? It will now cost much more to put flood defences in those places.