Non-job of the week

For all of those who criticised our Council Spending Uncovered paper on publicity spending, take a look at our non-job of the week:

“Publications Editor
£26,067 - £27,584 (pay award pending)

This is your chance to get involved in producing our Council publications.

In our county, effectively communicating and engaging with our residents is crucial. The quarterly Your County publication plays a huge part in this - providing important news updates, advice and features. As the Editor, you can expect real freedom to develop your ideas and take the magazine forward. This will involve liaising with the full range of council departments, sourcing, writing and editing stories and overseeing the full production process. We’ll also look to you to produce other council publications and your expertise will enable you to offer advise [Tim edit: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear] to colleagues. Inspirational and highly motivated, you’ll bring a proven editorial background, exceptional relationship building skills and an ambitious approach. Ref: QO1094.”

Clearly they didn’t edit this ad.  Someone better advise East Sussex Council to check over their work in future. 

Councils are under an obligation to inform taxpayers of its essential services, letting us know when the pharmacies are open for example.  They're not obliged, however, to produce expensive, glossy magazines propagandizing at our expense - they can save that for their party-funded leaflets. 

On Monday we challenged councils to reduce their publicity, middle management and pensions by 10% to produce real tax cuts next year.  East Sussex Council could start by axing this job and work that bit harder to give us some of our money back.

Feel free to recommend this saving to the leader of East Sussex County Council, Peter Jones, by sending an email cllr.peter.jones@eastsussex.gov.uk or drop him a line at the council 01797 226243. 

Comments

[Dan]

This non job also appears on the daily telegraph website

http://jobs.telegraph.co.uk/job-listing/jobs/ss/publications_editor.aspx

but you wont hear that on this blinkered, sh*t spouting, tory-apologist rant site.

And for a website claiming to make taxpayers more aware of waste, how come so little coverage of farming subsidies?

I think I know why.

[Tim]

No comment from Dan as to whether taxpayers in East Sussex need more taxpayer-funded Town Hall propaganda?

I think I know why...

[Dan]

Tim,

I never doubted that. (I still referred to it as a non job)

I was highlighting the fact that the Guardian is made out to be the only paper advertising these vacancies when it is clearly not.

[Mick MOOR]

I think the ignoramus who commented about farm subsidies would be better understood if he explained exactly what farming subsidies he refers to, and why they are given. I have a suspicion he is just another ill-informed bigot. By the way, I am not a farmer.

[Penny]

I'm not sure what Dan's point is. The Telegraph advert is for someone to manage a number of titles at a commercial publishing firm. It's obvious to me that trade or commercial magazines need to be bought to survive. If the copy doesn't sell, the title folds and the manager loses his or her job. East Sussex is employing somebody to write the kind of glossy junk mail that is pushed through letterboxes regardless of whether or not people are disposed to read about their glorious leaders. The stuff gets written and posted (and recycled or dumped) at public expense and with no quality control. I think there's a big difference between this and the Telegraph job. Council employment habits have nothing whatever to do with farming subsidies, so Dan's argument just doesn't hold water.