Not everyone is 'happy' councillor

However, I do not agree that the social services department appreciated the work. Also, only one councillor bothered to cross the doorstep of Warthfield during its troubled times.

And contrary to what Coun Audin claims, not every member of staff previously employed at Warthfield is "happy" with their new job, nor are residents happy with their new places.

The residents have had to accept less than they previously had in as much as there are now residents in homes built on more than one level, which have smaller bedrooms, are further from Bury centre and are not as close to public transport.

Warthfield was a much safer environment and was ideally situated. It could even be classed as a "prime site" -- so one might wonder just why it has closed.

Furthermore, the closure was not handled with "sensitivity" nor was there any acknowledgement of how difficult it has been to work there, with staff not being replaced, remaining staff being obliged to work overtime, and the constant threat of closure over the past three years.

Yes, things do "change," but not always for the better and the basic needs of the more vulnerable and elderly never change. They do not need 20-30 minute slots of care from a home carer; they need a more intensive kind of care, and not necessarily medical care. Many elderly do want to live in their own homes -- and who could blame them -- but while in their own minds they think they can see to themselves and to their daily care, many physically can not do it anymore.

Regarding Coun Audin's claims of "93 vacancies" in homes in the borough, may I ask if these are similar to the "vacancies" Warthfield had when it was supposedly half empty because the home was forbidden by social services to use certain rooms.

I still stand by my original comment of "God help the elderly of Bury in the future" -- and that will include you and I, councillor.

DISGUSTED