That A-Boards Issue I'd Forgotten About

The Post is reporting that NCC have backed down on its rather mindless plan to ban all A-boards in the City.

The Council had previously claimed that all A-boards were deadly agents of death and that any business using one should be bulldozed with the owners inside. They now accept that the problem may just lie with one or two of them and that it was a minor issue that could be sorted out by a chinwag over a cuppa and a biccy.

A dangerous city centre sign, yesterday (see how this selfish business has just placed it in the middle of the thoroughfare with no thought of passers by)

So in a radical step the council met with traders and they talked to each other. After a while they came up with the revolutionary idea of a compromise on the issue and even kept open the possibility of talking to each other again one day.

"We'd never thought of doing that" said council spokesdroid SB1. "All this time we've been handing out diktats telling people what they'll accept and it never occurred to us that one day somebody would be unhappy with that approach."

Apparently 'guidelines' will be 'drawn up' setting out what type of A-Boards are acceptable, although who's going to do the drawing up wasn't mentioned. It remains to be seen whether this touchy feely approach will continue or whether new rules will simply be imposed.

PS I want props for not calling this one 'All A-Board' or somesuch.

Gobbledegook

This has got to be the all time most confused and garbled explanation for refusing a Freedom of Info request on grounds of commercial sensitivity of all time.

Can anyone make head or tail of this bit?

"In considering how the release of this information may prejudice commercial interests we have taken into account any harm that would likely to be caused to this authority. It has been confirmed to me by the relevant department that the bus shelter adverts, CIP adverts, A-Z directory adverts and Arrow adverts are conducted at a preferential rate specifically for the council. Whilst the council produces these publications internally, it does receive funding from external companies, whose commercial interests need to be considered. Releasing details of the preferential rates given to service providers could result in other service providers attempting to “undercut” the current providers, which could effectively damage their business both financially and for future contracts. This would ultimately affect this local authority negatively, as we could lose a service which is for the benefit of the public."

As far as I can tell they are saying that telling us the cost of advertising their 'service' in their own publication would result in upsetting some private company or other. WTF?

As for the public interest case, how can other suppliers offering lower prices harm Nottingham City Council?

And lolz at the "...service which is for the benefit of the public" bit. The 'service' they're talking about was advertising a crackdown on benefit 'cheats'.

Any better understandings of this to the usual address please.

Note; found this giving rates for the 'Arrow'. Implies an opportunity cost of £3000 at least.