12 comments on “Yes, you\’re paying for this

  1. I actually think it’s a pretty good idea, a fairly imaginative one. And the 30k is for a whole raft of measures, not just the flip-flops. Certainly that would be far too much to spend.

  2. I actually think it’s a pretty good idea, a fairly imaginative one.

    Exactly. After all, I have to put my 3year old’s slippers on each morning. Perhaps for 30 trillion pounds we could have government minders individually spoonfeed each Brit a bowl of Weeties in the mornings as well.

  3. If the state is going to mollycoddle infantile pissheads, it would be more useful if police fitted nappies to incontinent drunks, than worrying about the poor dears getting blisters on their feet.

  4. What shall we do with the drunken trollops?
    What shall we do with the drunken trollops?
    What shall we do with the drunken trollops?
    Early in the morning?

  5. If they are prevented from falling down, how will they know when they’ve had enough to drink?

    This is a risible idea. Not only has it already cost the taxpayers £30K, they will also have to shell out for compensation money when one of these good time gals trips on her flip-flops. Leave them their stilettos. They can break their scrawny necks in their own shoes, and it won’t cost us a penny.

  6. But you might do a study in a year’s time and find that NHS costs – broken and sprained ankles and wrists, ambulance callouts etc – have fallen significantly as a result… in which case it would be money well spent.

  7. It’s said that, after a certain amount of drink, the gals are liable to experience an intense itch right between the big toes.

    Is this condition affected one way or another by the type of footwear?

  8. “It’s said that, after a certain amount of drink, the gals are liable to experience an intense itch right between the big toes.

    Is this condition affected one way or another by the type of footwear?”

    I think you’ll find that’s due to them putting their knickers on back to front.

  9. “I actually think it’s a pretty good idea, a fairly imaginative one. And the 30k is for a whole raft of measures, not just the flip-flops. ”

    Well if you blow 30K on just about anything, there are bound to be SOME benefits. But if the benefits amount to less than 30K then we have lost wealth. And if that 30K could be spent more profitably somewhere else then there is the opportunity cost to consider. At a guess, if there is a spare 30K kicking about to be used on a frivolous scheme like this, it could more profitably spent, left in the poor coucil tax payers own pockets.

    “But you might do a study in a year’s time and find that NHS costs – broken and sprained ankles and wrists, ambulance callouts etc – have fallen significantly as a result… in which case it would be money well spent.”

    Unfortunately you might find that it wasn’t money well spent, and now as well as being down the original 30k, we are down the costs of the study. Using this argument, why stop at 30k. The same argument could be used to justify any arbitrary figure.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.