And some people think our council wastes money? Options

[JeffG]

I think this qualifies for the "couldn't make it up if you tried" category.

According to the Daily Telegraph (other reports are available - I first heard it on the London ITV news which I happened to see by accident when my Freesat box was tuned to ITV1 HD), Islington Council paid £4,000 for an "expert" to visit the Democratic Republic of Congo to see if it would be ok to send a boy there for exorcism because his mother said he was possessed.

It's nice to know that there appear to be councils that are much more profligate with their taxpayer's money than ours is!

[spartacus]

Which begs the question, did the expert say it was ok... and if so, how were they planning to get him there?
Surely it would have been easier and more appropriate to get the shaman to come over to do the 'repossession' mumbo-jumbo, rather than send Beelzebub over on EasyJet.

I wouldn't fancy being on THAT flight, sitting next to the Prince of Darkness in human form, not knowing whether the head was going to start spinning and throwing green muck everywhere.....

[Strafin]

Which begs the question, did the expert say it was ok... and if so, how were they planning to get him there?

No, read it!

[John C]

I'M sure the American bridge cost more than that to be used by buses, taxis and pedestrians only

[JeffG]

I'M sure the American bridge cost more than that to be used by buses, taxis and pedestrians only

At least the bridge serves a useful purpose, even if only partly. And I'm sure it didn't invoke a response "Is the world going mad, or is it just me? They built a bridge over the canal?"

[andy1979uk]

At least the bridge serves a useful purpose, even if only partly. And I'm sure it didn't invoke a response "Is the world going mad, or is it just me? They built a bridge over the canal?"

what a waste of money, I bet she was on benefits.

[JeffG]

She who?

[lordtup]

I can see a business opportunity here.
Guaranteed to de-posses ( is that the correct terminology ?), or your ,( read tax payers ), money back.

£ 75 / hour plus expenses.....lot cheaper than an easy jet ticket , and you get nectar points .

[Patience]

Guaranteed to de-posses ( is that the correct terminology ?), or your ,( read tax payers ), money back.

could someone then come along and repossess?

[John C]

At least the bridge serves a useful purpose, even if only partly. "

But at what cost

[JeffG]

But at what cost

Does this have any bearing on the subject under discussion? A bridge is something useful. Spending taxpayers' money to check out some mumbo-jumbo is Victor Meldrew territory.

[John C]

Does this have any bearing on the subject under discussion? A bridge is something useful. Spending taxpayers' money to check out some mumbo-jumbo is Victor Meldrew territory.

Topic heading is And some people think our council wastes money and the jaunt in the article only cost about £4000 and I sure that the bridge cost far more than that only to be used by a privileged few so yes our council wastes money worse than some of the so called barmy London councils

[user23]

Surely anyone can use the bridge, if they're a passenger in taxi or a bus?

[Jayjay]

Topic heading is And some people think our council wastes money and the jaunt in the article only cost about £4000 and I sure that the bridge cost far more than that only to be used by a privileged few so yes our council wastes money worse than some of the so called barmy London councils

So motorways are a waste of taxpayers money as only the priviledged few who have cars can use it? The bypass was a complete waste of money as pedestrians and cyclists are not allowed to use it. The railways are a waste of money as only the priviledged few who dont have cars can use them?

[JeffG]

Topic heading is And some people think our council wastes money

So you think it's OK for a council to spend £4,000 sending an "expert" on a pointless exercise to Africa because the bridge over the our canal cost more than that, and not everyone can drive over it? The two things are totally unrelated.

Put the emphasis on the word "our" in the title, and perhaps you will see what I meant. Or maybe you won't. I'm past caring.

[Berkshirelad]

The bypass was a complete waste of money as pedestrians and cyclists are not allowed to use it.

Erm, yes they are...

[spartacus]

Erm, yes they are...

I had the life scared out of me one evening when I was merrily bombing along the A34 and a group of walkers ambled across the dual carriageway in front of me - exercising their rights over a Public Right of Way no doubt.... There are a number of pedestrian crossings on the A34 but that was the first time I'd seen anyone mad enough to use them.

[andy1979uk]

I had the life scared out of me one evening when I was merrily bombing along the A34 and a group of walkers ambled across the dual carriageway in front of me - exercising their rights over a Public Right of Way no doubt.... There are a number of pedestrian crossings on the A34 but that was the first time I'd seen anyone mad enough to use them.

Yep, the A34 is not a place for people to cross.

[dannyboy]

I was merrily bombing along the A34

Therein lies the root of the problem. The crossing places on the A34 are well signposted to warn drivers to watch out for pedestrians crossing.

[Timbo]

I was merrily bombing along the A34

Therein lies the root of the problem. The crossing places on the A34 are well signposted to warn drivers to watch out for pedestrians crossing.

Therein lies the root of what problem?
The thing is - bombing along is just a euphamism! And I think the problem is pedestrians who think that they can cross what is basically a motorway because it "says it's legal".