What is it that enables you to assert that this service will spend taxpayers' money in a wasteful manner? Do you have some kind of insight that the rest of us lack?
I would have thought that any service which sets out to help consumers avoid problems or to deal with them when they happen is the best possible use of taxpayers' money. It certainly beats giving cash away to some of the layabouts who can't be bothered to work for a living, and a great deal of that goes on.
because it looks like a whole new setup has been devised. while extra staff (and all the support structure that this implies) will be necessary to do the actual work, its the extra level of beaurocracy that always accompanies governmental efforts that made me comment before. I am of the opinion that such efforts should be fitted into existing departments. We may not have much in the way of rights when it comes to deciding how our tax money is spent, but I durn well think we have the right to know how its spent.
WhiteTruckMan is, of course, entitled to his opinion. For my part I consider it a useful and cost effective use of resources.
He said Trading Standards fulfil this roll, but my trading standards department is many miles away. No, I don`t live in the heart of the country, I live in the London Borough of Harrow, which share trading standards with the London Borough of Brent. Their office is a long way away; you should try calling them; always engaged.
To have a dedicated telephone contact for consumer advice is most useful.
I didnt say trading standards fulfil this role. I asked why couldnt they do it. I'm not against this concept in principle, its the implementation that concerns me. I just dont want my tax money spent on supporting extra layers of middle managers and beaurocrats who are simply duplicating someone elses efforts. Lets not re-invent the wheel here.