NCC "Couldn't Find its Own Arse on a Foggy Day" Say MPs

An influential House of Commons committee has called into question Nottingham City Council's ability to identify body parts.

The 'Distinguishing Features of Arses and Elbows' Select Committee also slammed the City Council for relying too heavily on advice from consultants when trying to tell the difference between an arse and an elbow.

But in a further twist, the council's advisers, Bums and Joints Inc, claimed they didn't give advice, only 'information'.

"We gave Nottingham City Council more than enough information for them to tell the difference between a typical arse and a typical elbow on many an occasion," said B+J Managing Director Bunty Smellyface. "For example, we pointed out to them last September that an arse will typically have a distinctive cleavage, often with unsightly hair, and a buttock either side which may be firm or wobbly. An elbow on the other hand tends to be sharp and bony with that funny wrinkly skin you get."

But Mr Smellyface's defence cut no ice with the MPs.

"Pull the other one guv" said Eric Trough MP. "This council couldn't find their own arses on a foggy day. Its irresponsible to expect them to tell the difference between an arse and an elbow by themselves, even if they have been supplied with detailed descriptions."

A council spokesdroid said "The MPs' report proves that we're really great. Any mistakes we did make are due to the fact that I was spending too much time on my Twitter account and breaching the staff's privacy by putting videos of them on the internet. By the way, does this sleeve make my bum look big?"

Ok fun's over, of course its the 'Communities and Local Government' Select Committee's report on the Icelandic Banks investment fail. I don't think it actually mentions NCC individually but I've not read all of it. It does however talk about Butlers, the council's advisers quite a lot.

What's interesting is the differing approach of the Evening Post and the BBC reports. The Post goes with the blaming the advisers route while over at the Beeb its the councils that get it in the neck. In truth both get a fairly torrid time in the report itself. Is the Post trying to get back into the Council's good books?

One of the reasons why NCC gets away with not receiving a specific mention is that the Select Committee goes along with the Audit Commission's definition of the worst offenders, those who made further deposits after 30 September 2008 which was the date that credit agencies downgraded the Icelandic Banks ratings. The Audit Commission had to draw a major distinction between such councils, which don't include NCC, and say, councils who LEFT GREAT BIG WADS OF CASH in the Icelandic banks after this date despite the warnings. This is because the latter description would have included the Audit Commission itself (as well as NCC) and that would have been embarrassing.

Oh yes and priceless quote of the day in the Post article;

A city council spokesman said: "The report confirms we responded appropriately to warnings from our advisers prior to the collapse of Icelandic banks."

Erm, no it doesn't actually. It does nothing of the bloody sort. Stop spending so much time on Twitter mate its rotting your brain.