Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda
As has been posted before, if the closure was about saving money, a comperative study should have been carried out. Working out if closing the Market Hall or the Peel Street toilets would be most cost effective, before making any decision.
In to the equation they should also have compared which public toilet had the greatest ease of access, especially for those with mobility issues, as well as parents with buggies, and the fact that a whole section of people aren't allowed on to the balcony level of the Market Hall, because of age restrictions.
In the commercial world, a comperative study would have been the very first thing that was carried out, to decide where most savings could be found, with the least inconvenience to the people of the town.
|
There you go again putting common sense before commerce.
At least for one interested party.
