Council savings?

[observer]

Well it appears in this age of austerity, that the Council could make financial savings on superflous NON-jobs - starting with the "Public Protection Manager"?!

[Peter T]

I wonder if they have consultants overseeing that dept?

[Evil Sid]

you will have to ask the department that oversees the consultants for overseeing departments about that one

[observer]

Maybe they've outsourced it to ASH.

[harry hayes]

I share most peoples concern about vast numbers of non-jobs, but how do you get rid of them without paying out large sums of money to those who are made redundant.

 

Happy days

[Dizzy]

Well until today I had never even heard of the roll of council 'Public Protection Manager' and the chap has already spoken on two issues in one days local news.... maybe it's a new job and at least he's trying

[Paul Kennedy]

For Public Protection, read Trading Standards...with a wider remit. Warrington now has a joint service with Halton.

[observer]

Well, this guy appears to be spouting above his pay grade - politicians are allowed opinions - not officers: but maybe he's trying to fill a vaccum?!

[Dizzy]

Nothing at all wrong with spouting above your pay grade Obs as long as what you are spouting is valid and/or constructive

 

I'm starting to feel quite sorry for the chap though. Ok so the bit about supporting the smoking ban in cars may have not been thought through fully.

 

Anyway I always thought it was the officers who recomended things and who advise the councillors accordingly

 

PS everyone is entitled to an opinion as that is all it is... an opinion

[Peter T]

But some people think theirs should be the only opinion.

[observer]

Elected opinion can be voted out, professional opinion is for the elected not the electors.

[inky pete]

Nothing at all wrong with spouting above your pay grade Obs as long as what you are spouting is valid and/or constructive

 

I don't see much that is valid or constructive about proposing to ban smoking in cars which belong to people without children, and who never carry other peoples children in them, as a way of improving child health.

 

The guy (in common with the medics who originally dreamt up the idea) is clearly an idiot with too little real work to do.

 

If parents chose to smoke in their cars with their own kids on board then that's their choice - not a great choice, but theirs to make. Similarly, if parents allow their kids to be carried by other people in cars where there might be smoking then again, it's their choice and their responsibility.

[Horace]

This thread seems to be wrongly named as it is more to do with smoking in cars than council savings!

I have always thought that smoking in cars should be banned for the same reason as using a mobile phone has been banned - it interferes with the ability of the driver to drive properly.

Actually, of course, smoking will eventually be banned altogether - and the sooner the better!

[Paul Kennedy]

Not when the Exchequer rakes in ?8 billion a year it won't.

[LymmParent]

Not when the Exchequer rakes in ?8 billion a year it won't.

 

Ah yes, but he's in the process of transferring all that to fuel, isn't he?

[observer]

They will tax any and every addiction, including car use.

[inky pete]

Whenever the Exchequer - or any other tax raising body - is involved there's never, ever a question of transfering the tax burden from one thing to another.

 

It's always just about finding more ways to grab more cash from more sources so that spending departments can lash it out on ever more ridiculous boondoggles.