Cornwall Council washes its hands of Public Conveniences

I'm sorry, but it's Friday after a serious week for Parish and Nation.  A proper post on St Paul's should be on stream tomorrow, but tonight I'm stuck on the local news and Cornwall Council's latest cunning plan to save money.  The Council maintains 247 public toilets, we are told, and being no longer flush, plans to dump responsibility for 113 of them.  The precision of this figure has been achieved by the Public Conveniences Informal Working Group, which has left no stone unturned, "visiting different parts of the county" to see for themselves what toilets look like, and preparing "a document for the cabinet", which is not a piece of furniture next to the loo where reading material can be left, but a senior body of councillors whose time is never better spent than poring over the roll of Cornwall's conveniences.

The wonderful world of local government has always baffled me.  I understand that local authorities are facing vicious budget cuts which demand economies across the board, but still, how does it work?  They could probably save the cost of at least 10 toilets by just not having the "Informal Working Group" in the first place. There's also the concern about the £200,000 business rates charges that these loos incur.  This is indeed steep (and odd).  But then who are the rates paid to? That would be Cornwall Council...

Still, I suppose this is the reality of the Big Society, as noted often before on this blog.  The Council plans to palm off the toilets to its little cousins, the parish councils, who it reckons can run them more cheaply (or not at all).  How long before some bright spark launches the first "social enterprise" empowering toilet-use at grassroots level?

OK, enough of that. But Always Hope predicts the rapid return of "spending a penny" as the future of Public Conveniences nationwide.

Comments

Ray Barnes said…
Perhaps the county(Duchy?), could keep its full complement of necessariums if a fee of, say, 10p per p as it were, was made mandatory.
Anyone feeling 'flush' could pay a little extra and their names be placed on a bog-roll of honour.
As an extra inducement to generosity a 'bog-off' could be offered with a ticket for a free visit.
That way the loos would pay for themselves and no-one be inconvenienced.
October 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delia Knox - Miracles and healing, cynicism or wonder?

Today the story of Delia Knox has jumped out of Christian subculture into the mainstream UK media, with this story on the Daily Mail website. Knox is filmed leaving her wheelchair after being prayed for at the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival in Mobile, Alabama. Watch the 13 minute video embedded there, if you can. Most people will have one of two reactions to this: either you will be deeply moved, or you will find yourself overwhelmingly cynical about the whole thing. The second of the two seems to be the reaction of choice for Mail Online readers, who queue in droves in the comments section to pour scorn on the whole thing. Why are people sceptical about spiritual and miraculous healing? Mostly because they simply don't believe it. The prevailing secular atheist worldview has no slot available for this kind of thing - it simply doesn't happen (although a more thoughtful and informed atheist might allow for some kind of psychosomatic factor in healing). But even among those w...
Read more

let the vicar have a day off

I began writing this on Tuesday, my usual day off. Not normally a day when I would be hunched over the keyboard, but this week I had the time because I'm luxuriating in a whole week off. A perfectly usual experience, except in the case of vicars, when the idea of a "week off" becomes quite complex and problematic. Last week on Twitter I intercepted someone's tweet who had spotted a clergy friend who was enjoying an entertaining day out. His reply was along the lines of "blimey, what it is to be a vicar and live the life of Riley" etc. I have no complaint against this person, who is a good guy and obviously meant no harm. It was just a variant on the age-old witticism that every parish priest hears on a more or less weekly basis, "of course you only work on Sundays, don't you?" There are a few versions of this, my personal favourite being "not another holiday?" if one takes leave at any time within about a year of having previously d...
Read more

lessons from the Cornwall B&B case

Comment is called for on the judgement in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull , because it is a significant one, and because of the Cornish connection. While some of the responses have been predictable and stereotyped, most commentators have recognised that Judge Andrew Rutherford has treated the Bulls with respect, even though he has found against them. The case turned on the principle that Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, as civil partners, were entitled to the same rights under law as a married couple. This meant that the Bull's argument that they would equally discriminate against an unmarried heterosexual couple was not accepted, because Hall and Preddy were, for the purposes of this case, married. This is a tricky one. The Bulls didn't really have a strong case, but it's difficult not to have sympathy for them. They come across in the media as a harmless couple just doing what seems right to them. It's also hard to shake off the sneaking suspicion that they have be...
Read more