A strange one to be sure. She continually makes stupid statements and when you ask her to back them up she goes and does a tortoise on us. Surely no idiot is actually paying her to work let alone over 80k?

She's all over the forum like a rash today but thinks we will be fobbed off with pointing out that rock and film stars have PR's.

We know all sorts of people and organisations have em Karla but the question remains why does a council need to get its "message" out?

With regard to what appears to have caused these right-wing types so much concern, the reason I didn't respond is because the answer is so patently obvious. All organisations that have PR deparments do so to communicate their message. I find it impossible to believe that the people asking don't know the answer. Big companies, politicians, some charities, celebrities, councils and many other entities have PR departments, I honestly don't know why they have made such a big deal of this. Odd people.


There's the answer then, strangely provided on another thread.

I am someone who had in the past worked for several years in Local Government and who has for several years also paid business rates. Karla just doesn't get it. She seems to think Councils use their own money. What do Chief Executives, Chief Officers and their own entourages actually do? Anyway it won't alter. Unfortunately the older I get, the more resigned I am to the fact that the waste and self service will never change.

Fk me, but I've just done a google and found that Britain's second best university has a PR department ( called a Public Affairs office ).
http://www.ox.ac.uk/public_affairs/about_us/index.html
'responsible for developing public understanding of the aims and activities of the collegiate University'
They've cleverly joined it with Events, Press and Publications so it's not as obvious. It looks like every big organisation paid for by the taxpayer and borrowing is at it, and it smells.

If only they could adopt the Star Trek principle, and just tell you in one minute or less what they do, how they do it ( answer: 'boldly' ) and how long it will take ( answer: '5 years' ). Then we could all have done with this charade of added-on cost.

I have not got particularly involved in this discussion.

All big organisations have a public relations officer or department.

I have worked in big organisations.
I mentioned I did a radio interview, well the BBC went to the PR department who then found me out and whenever BBC or press approached for an interview or information they would go through the PR department.

That is my personal experience of the situation.

Ideally they should monitor and vet what is asked and what is said to avoid foot in the mouth jobs and the potential fallout from this. I just said what I said but that is what they should be doing.
They should co-ordinate the output of the various parts of the organisation when they interface with the public/media.

How important and active the PR department is depends on the organisation and what roles they adopt. They might be involved in promotions and publicising activities, services and events.

I think the best way to deal with the title of the thread is for Karla to describe what her PR department does and then the issue is sorted once and for all.

"Do you have any comprehension of the work undertaken by social workers, probations officers, outreach workers and their various support staff? Do you really have the faintest idea what they do, what they encourage, or what they prevent?"

Yes, yes - very good.  Social workers are wonderful and need to be there.  We get it.

But.............why do they need a PR department?  Why don't they just go where they are needed?

"To communicate their message. Is this some kind of right-wing tease that's going over my head?"

Wow - if ever their was a statement that demonstrates how you just don't get it this is it.  It's probably not your fault and many public sector bureaucrats think like this.

Why on earth should taxpayers pay money for a department that allows social workers to "communicate their message". 

It's beyond ludicrous and worrying that your think this is perfectly normal.

Why on earth should taxpayers pay money for a department that allows social workers to "communicate their message".


The council, not social workers. Stop misdirecting and smearing.

"I have countless opportunities in the private sector. They don't interest me. "

Examples?

Karla.  You are boxing yourself into a corner here.

Lets start from the beginning.  Let's imagine the wonderful situation where you, me, Blackburn, Lampus, Dr J and EO live in the same street.  We notice that while we earn a lot, the road is getting potholes, and is damaging our cars.  However, none of us is willing to cough up the money on our own to fix the road because everyone else will benefit from our investment for free. 

As a result we form a council.  We pay £50 a month each, and once every 6 months Dr J comes along and fixes the potholes using the money we have contributed.

After several years of happiness, Dr J suddenly asks for £80 a month instead of £50 for his service.  We ask why.  He tells us that despite the pothole maintenance still costing £50, he now wants to send us a glossy magazine every month which tells us about the work he is doing on potholes.

Do we
A) Tell him that this idea is complete bollox and our payment remains at £50?
B) Tell him that this is a great idea and we will happily pay £30 extra for him to communicate his message?

Does this help you understand what our objection is????

Myself, Dr J and Lampus would use public transport.
Ridiculous anecdote anyway.

Meaning

"There are no comparable examples to tell you, so I won't"

No, meaning I have numerous options in different fields. I choose not to take them.

"Ridiculous anecdote anyway."

Explain why it is ridiculous?  It gets to the root of what a council should do and what it shouldn't do.

I think it is the linguist who is in PR.
The physicist information is superfluous. Think it is to reinforce his pedigree.

Karla has zero argument here, so instead just switches to rant mode about how important social workers are.  When I then then link the PR issue back to social workers she accuses me of "misdirecting and smearing".

Bizarre creature. 

Without any success I have tried on this thread to question the functions nowadays of Chief Executives, Chief Officers and their own considerable back-up staff with deputies, assistants, PA's etc.

It used to be the case that the role of County Planner, Chief Probation Officer, Director of Social Services, Chief Executive etc etc was in essence a figurehead role that provided PR for the Council.

As I understand it, such posts still exist, so my query is what do these individuals and their immediate staff actually do for their very high salaries if they no longer have to fulfil the PR function.

It seems that Karla is only really interested in trading blows with the insulting and pugilistic posters on this forum, rather than responding to what I at least consider to be a valid question whose answer is not blindingly obvious.

We continue to wait Karla.

You claim councils need a PR department to "communicate their message"

We ask why this is necessary?  Why don't the council just do the tasks it was set up for as efficiently as possible?

Ball in your court as it always is.......

You claim councils need a PR department to "communicate their message"

She can't be any good at PR seeing as she refuses to communicate her message.

it is not for the council to communicate any message. they are supposed to 'serve' the public, they do not, they play their juvenile political games with other peoples money. i wonder what this message is? ive worked for the council ( i was the only one that did) and they are uniformly useless. idle, sixth-rate dickheads with no concept of of realty.

one of my chums has been in hammersmith town hall 20 years. he is the only geezer i know who has never been sacked, made redundant, had to relocate, gone bust or had to take a pay cut. he knows it, but plays the game, and aint going anywhere, at least until he gets a pay-off next year. he estimates that in the private sector he would be lucky to get 3/5 of what he gets now. oh, and he gets 45(!) days leave. one of the absurdities he pointed out was flexi-time, where some people doing the same job take only 30 hours a week to perform their tasks, yet others take 50. mmmm

the problem with a monopoly supplier demanding compulsory payment is that there is no penalty for being useless. my local applied for permission to open a beer garden last summer and submitted his application to a town planner who said he would submit it to the planning committee's next meeting, but he forgot, and the next one was too late for the necessary building works to go ahead, so the poor publcan lost the income it would have brought in but still had to pay his architect.

the council d1ckhead was not even censured. if he had been in private practice, losing a client like that would have resulted in dismissal

I agree. Right here we have Karla who with her attention to detail would make a fine shelf stacker in Tesco currently being wasted doing goodness knows what in the public sector.

Each message from each council will differ. It still has to be communicated. You would have thought it's all pretty self explanatory but I think some of you right-whingers need assistance crossing the road.

Why don't the council just do the tasks it was set up for as efficiently as possible?

That is what we do.