Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
£90,000 p.a. available for a new council communications chief
BACK in November, the council advertised for two new senior PR officers at a salary of only £39,000.
Now, the council are advertising for a new "Strategy & Performance Assistant Director, Communications".
Doubtless some PR people wouldn't get out of bed for the kind of wages advertised earlier. Those who may now be interested, at an improved mid-range salary of c. £85,000, should apply here:
Another council PR job
(I'm sure it's a relief to everyone in these times of austerity to know that a lack of funds is not a problem for the council's most essential services.)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I WAS pleased to learn recently that the Council Minority Group intends to have no representation on the selection panel for this new PR role that involves burning approximately £90,000+ every year.
Any prostitute standing for this position ought to know this that role does does not enjoy the support of a significant number of the Council.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I'm starting to get worried, Clive. If the temperature of your anger gets too high we might see spontaneous combustion in Stroud Green. Possibly lifting you off the ground and posing a danger to low flying aircraft.
Are you writing protests about other local councils with their own newspapers and PR teams? These street banners in Uxbridge are to recruit foster parents.
The March/April edition of Hillingdon People magazine carried an article about their fostering campaign. I wonder what Hillingdon Council replied when you contacted them to demand they stop "burning" money on the "prostitutes" who are responsible for communications?
-
-
Alan I think you make the case against the new PR job better than I have.
Others can judge for themselves how dependent is the future of fostering in Haringey, on the creation of this new £90,000++ p.a. "job".
That you have to go to such lengths to justify the new assistant PR position, suggests you can find no closer or better rationale.
One of the ironies is that total cost – say £120k/year? – is all cash not directly applied to Children's Services, including fostering.
Where is the morality in this?
-
-
I'm saying, Clive - and you persist in missing or perhaps avoiding the point - that local councils have a legitimate and necessary range of information giving and campaigning functions.
If any local Council failed to carry out those functions it would in some cases be breaking the law - Planning Consultation and Freedom of Information Act Enquiries are examples.
In others it would be saving pennies and spending thousands of pounds - for example as a consequence of not recruiting foster carers. Even more important, foster care is often the most beneficial option for children "looked after" by a local authority.
The Council's website also comes under the remit of the postholder you describe as a "prostitute". Would you prefer local councils to dispense with their websites? Would that save money? Hardly!
So what do you really object to?
One factor seems to be the intrusion of elected politicians into councils' legitimate information-giving functions. As you know, we agree. I've suggested an alternative: separate the two. My advice to Eric Pickles - or the Labour Minister in 2015 - would be tighter rules to achieve this.
I wonder though if your hatred of Haringey People and council staff in charge of publicity would be quite so sulphurous in the unlikely event that your own LibDem party was running the Council and yours was one of the "cabinet" faces smiling at us?
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Thank you for your reply Alan. Through the ancient process of thesis and anti-thesis we are arriving at a synthesis: a truth borne out of debate.
i.e. I think you've come closer than ever before to acknowledging that Haringey People magazine is a party political publication (AKA, propaganda on the rates).
That HP is far from neutral is shown by majority group councillors who either like it or defend it, while minority group councllors either tolerate it or are openly critical of it.
Would the new £90,000 PR position – also part of the propaganda Ministry Communications Department – become part of biased presentation also? That aspect is of less concern than the sheer waste of money.
I'm not sure if you expect people to believe that the new PR job is vital to advertise fostering, even if you believe the two things are linked. There are currently serious issues in Children's Services.
Do you think that councillors should ever set priorities for spending? Can you honestly think of no better way of spending £90,000 than on yet more PR?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
