Waste of taxpayers' money

I believe that many senior personnel in the Environment Agency received bonuses recently. Further down the line redundancies were being worked out.

I have never understood why government/local authority income is not allocated proportionately to relevant expenditure - road tax going toward maintaining roads, income from selling off LA housing to building more and so on. For those things which have no relevant money-in side, general taxation could be allocated.

I am not sure where the money for lavish entertaining could come from - the tax on alcohol would be more than used up on treatment for the problems caused by the demon drink.

Are you referring to any lavish entertainment or promotional campaigns in particular, Margaret?
A lot of public health campaigns seem to me to be counter-productive, whereas it does concern me that gay people are still sometimes discriminated against, and so a campaign promoting the fact that they have just the same rights as everyone else would seem to be justified.

By the Environment Agency jane? Or by another body more suited to the task? I would not have thought gay rights promotion was an environmental issue. I am not talking about discrimination in the workplace which is wrong and should be checked.

The EA is reportedly hiring expensive venues for entertaining not far from their HQ. I am asking if that is a necessary expense or a waste of public money.
They also reportedly gave £30, 000 of our money to help fund a Gay Pride march. Not part of their brief I would say - and if it is then it shouldn't be when they are making cjts elsewhere.

It's always the same, charley, those at the top give themselves bonuses whereas the people who do the real work get made redundant!

I think there are too many departmental junkets going on all over the place especially in the political arena, from highest to Town Hall . Money ie. our money, should be spent on public good, not trips here there and everywhere or lavish parties.

is this the march you mean margaret?

(Don't look at the pictures - rude!)

Oh bums, no it wasn't! I think it was in Birmingham

Goodness - never mind the rudeness of the photos, what about the final couple of paragraphs of the article, beginning 'Normal people will be shocked...'

Yeah. And they call themselves "Christian voice". I don't think so.

Says the Environment Agency contributed though. Can't quite see why tbh.

Was that "oh bums" deliberate Margaret?

Who are 'normal people'?

Oh, don't take any notice of the actual article.

The London lot do go a bit extreme though. I always think, there's London and then there's the rest of the population.

And then there are the bigots ful of hatred for anyone who is different to them.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!

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

(They probably faked the photos too - outrageous!)

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