I SEE that Ian Barker has popped up on your letters page again. Intriguing - I thought he'd fled the field of combat for good.

This time he's banging on about waste of local tax payers' money. In theory, of course, we ought to be able to take him seriously on the subject. He knows all about throwing away tax payers' money. In fact, it would be hard to find someone more expert than Barker at shovelling our money down the drain, although a few of his Labour colleagues might run him close.

In practice, what we've got is yet another example of Barker's instant hysteria. This is remarkable invention. A small quantity of Barker's instant hysteria powder will inflate into a huge amount of waffle and nonsense, and you don't even have to add water, just wind. And for good measure, he's thrown in a handful of spurious financial crises, the presentation of which seems curiously to be seen as a career-enhancing move by some at Dalton Square and Common Garden Street. Happily even Barker's leader and colleagues have found it necessary to put the record straight and reveal his nonsense for what it is. Let's not forget the true measure of Barker's concern for the tax payers' finances. In 1994 he found out the grisly truth about one of the scandals of Blobbygate. Instead of taking the proper action, he sat on the facts (for several years, actually) and allowed the Labour group to lead the council into a hopeless lawsuit which cost us £950,000 plus costs.

While on the subject of Blobbygate, Hilton Dawson is reported still to be protesting that he never saw anyone doing anything wrong. We have to take him at his word, but it doesn't half raise some interesting questions. Bear in mind that he chaired the principal committee, Economic Development, from the beginning to the end of the affair, and that, even by the most charitable interpretation, a lot of serious skulduggery took place.

What we need to know is was he 1. asleep during all the meetings, or 2. wearing blinkers and ear plugs, or 3. in a trance, or 4. unbelievably naive? Perhaps he wasn't at any of the meetings at all, but was represented by a cardboard cut-out or painted inflatable doll, and no-one could tell the difference. Or, even more worrying, perhaps he doesn't know what wrong means.

I know that, in an earlier statement, he at least had the grace to admit that perhaps he should have paid more attention. Well, I still think "Oops, sorry, I wasn't looking," isnt an adequate response when you've presided over the frittering away of £2,000,000 of your constituents' hard earned cash. Resignation might be more appropriate.

Mike Ford

Silvedale