Waste of taxpayers' money

All the more reason not to waste a penny.

I see in the Guardian today that the Env Agency was directed to scrap flood defence programmes as part of cuts to its budget:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/16/flood-area-defences-funding-cuts

I noticed a couple of years ago that the local Housing Association 'sponsored' a bridge near their offices (a small road bridge over a river), paying for boxes full of flowers to be hung along its sides.

My thoughts at the time were much the same as those expressed in the thread title: What a waste of taxpayers' / rent payers' money!

They are answerable to us through the elected government, but the fact remains that nothing they do is done without government approval, the EA is not a department out of control as some of the press seems to be suggesting and if they were then questions should be asked of the department responsible for them and not the EA.

I saw the Severn blocked at the bridge in Worcester on the TV. I wonder if it will cost £30, 000 to clear that debris? Could be an interesting comparison of costs.

I do not think the report in the Sunday paper was lies, despite some people thinking that, I think that it is fact and has been reported previously in the local press.

Perhaps some people don't mind some of their money being spent on alternative schemes by these Quangos but I do. It is our money and they should be answerable to us not using our money on their own agenda which has nothing whatsoever to do with the job in hand.

If this is actually in the annual report margaretm74 then could you let us have a page reference please. It is very long.
It just there are so many shock/horror stories in some parts of the press that it is difficult to take any of them seriously unless the story is backed up by actual facts.
They were telling us that there were hordes of Romanians buying tickets to come to Britain in the first week of January. Which turned out to be complete fiction according to a BBC report a couple of weeks ago.

I can't see why the EA should need to attend events to promote itself. Why? Shouldn't all its funds be spent on the environment?

Surely the only government departments which need to promote themselves are health and those which need to reach people in need of benefits? Maybe more but I think you get the gist.

I don't understand all the minor waste either. I've just received a letter from my MP when I specifically asked her to reply by email to save the environment and money!

Our local floods caused huge blockages under the arches of a bridge and we were told a couple of weeks ago that they couldn't do anything about it while the river was so high. DH said why not reach over from the bridge and get it that way. Yesterday, 2 weeks on and much more debris collected, they did just that. Of course there was so much more collected than if they had removed it and allowed the river to flow properly at the beginning. No common sense or thought about the cost.

Oh Dear! how easy it is for the media to wind us up. Always remember that they are working to an agenda. I am sure that every GN'er can point to a report in the media that later turned out to be totally untrue, so don't let the media treat us as total idiots, and always try to verify reports from another source., and certainly not from another media report!!

I think it was Brum and and I did think 'well, that's years ago' but over those years the money could have been put to more effective use, perhaps used in schools for environmental education if not on flood defence schemes per se.

(I did say no more to be said but DH says "you just can't shut up, can you")

I don't think it appropriate for the EA to be spending money in that way, it's not relevant to their remit IMO. It's unlikely someone's house flooded because the owner was gay.

But I do think it's quite right that the Metropolitan Police have a float at the Gay Pride March because it fosters better relations and shows a commitment to aim for fair policing for minorities.

Maybe the article isn't completely bad. I wouldn't have wanted my grandchildren to have seen that parade if the pictures are genuine, and I'm sure they are.

The Gay Pride round here is much more family friendly!

Like I say, London is always more extreme.

I don't think it was at all appropriate for government money towards that.

I thought there could have been a reasoned debate on the misuse of taxpayers' hard-earned money but it seems to be developing into a MOS-v-Guardian match.

So no more to be said really.

Why would the media lie when the EA'S Annual report and accounts are available online for all to see?
And why waste any money when there was a funding shortfall?

Oh yes. I see. Mr P.

Good grief! Does that really explain it? Is that what it comes down to?

Source of truth? The Guardian? Well, after a fashion, but I'd trust the I and the Independent before any of the others.

(They probably faked the photos too - outrageous!)

Oh no, not more D/SM-bashing! Is the Grauniad really the only source of truth?

How did I guess it would be the Mail. You'll don't want to believe all it says in those noooos papers ya know. Sometimes those naughty journalists lie!

Do we agree human beings are equal? If so which government department do we think should be ensuring that all citizens are afforded equal rights? Seems logical to me that it is the job of the home office. It certainly does not logically fall to the Environment agency I do agree!

If of course there are GNers who do not agree that all people deserve equal rights then no department will be right!

MOS of course.

I do remember when I worked for a government department, later Agency, someone transferred to us from elsewhere (MOD if I remember). This person was most indignant because she had to 'work too hard, too much was expected of me, and why don't we get sent on team-bonding exercises? We used to get sent to a lovely hotel in Torquay to bond quite regularly'.

What a waste of public money and that was years ago.

In response to earlier jingls, yes, of course . Have seen some photos which are more what shall I say? explicit when DD1 went to a gay parade in Sydney!

The original report was in the Mail, Daily or Sunday, cannot remember which, complete with photographs of the mugs, T shirts and posters used in supporting Gay rights.

What is your source folks? All sounds a bit fuzzy to me.

I think public bodies should only spend money on promoting themselves at events relevant to itself. Say, at environmental events, whether for toddlers, or say an open day at a Wildlife Trust, or at a village or town event, like a carnival, where their work is relevant to the local community

I have tried really hard but I cannot think of any aspect of the Environment Agency's work where it can make any difference whether employees or those helped are heterosexual, homosexual or pan-sexual, a term I heard used on the radio today.

I suspect this was done on special pleading from its chairman. Chairmen and chief executives are prone to spend the company's community/pr money on causes dear to their hearts. I used to manage such a budget and priorities changed with each chief executive.

No - bodies like the Environment Agency should not spend large amounts of public money on "junkets", but before we get too wound-up about it, we should remember the old saying about not believing everything you read in the newspapers.

I was a Civil Servant for more than 20 years and I can recall a number of ocassions when I read in the papers that our Chief Executive was in Dubai attending the birthday party of some Saudi dignatary when all the time I could see the man sat at his desk 20 feet from me.