I TUNED in to watch an episode of Watchdog a few weeks ago and was left stunned.

Not because of the breathtaking arrogance of one of the companies being exposed by Nicky Campbell and the team.

Not even because of the breathtaking arrogance of somebody being interviewed on behalf of a multi-million pound company, which refused to take responsibility for its actions.

No, I was left stunned because somebody told the truth.

The spokesman was representing Marks and Spencer and had been invited on because Watchdog had been inundated with complaints by M&S customers who had received internet goods late.

I thought the spokesman was going to blame the delivery men, the current financial climate, global warming, 4x4s, people who park outside schools, Rafa Benetiz, plastic bags or the cost of fuel, as others tend to do - but he didn't.

He said M&S accepted the criticism, that the service wasn't good enough for its customers and that it would strive to improve.

I nearly fell off my sofa. In fact I was so impressed I went into M&S the next day and bought a sandwich.

Because he put his cards on the table and M&S effectively admitted to its problems I was left feeling that I didn't have one. Everyone makes mistakes, but those who can admit to them make better people.

I only wish other organisations could do the same.

A few weeks ago, in this very column, I pleaded with Hertfordshire County Council not to close the Jubilee Centre. I said closing it was a money-making exercise and added that it was my belief a decision to close it had already been taken. We received the obligatory retort from Sally Newton who claimed my "distorted portrayal" was incorrect. The centre has since been closed.

We knew a decision had been made because it was all so quiet. Only Labour councillor Roma Mills was putting up a fight as far as councillors were concerned, the Tories and Lib Dems at the district council were not saying anything.

At County Hall it seemed that those elected to serve this district didn't have a view. We did finally receive a press release from the district council the Thursday before the decision was taken (it was made the Monday after) in which leader Robert Donald claimed the district council would lobby its county counterpart to either retain the present service or provide an equivalent. Too little, too late.

I would also like to know exactly how the district has "lobbied" the county. If it hasn't done so already, surely such a lobby should have been conducted before last Monday's decision?

And if the district council is so concerned, it owns the building: why not let the county provide the service without charging it rent? Is the centre, as Sally Newton says, really "not fit for purpose"? If so, what is unfit and can it be fixed by the ever-so-keen-to-help landlords? Why is the vehicle access considered unsafe? Have there been any accidents? If so, can the road lay-out be changed?

Surely the centre's users deserve in-depth answers rather than clichés. But it seems responses which answer the question at hand are hard to come by in "local government".

I laughed at the response of the county council's executive member for highways following the news that 3,500 speeding fines will be refunded. It turns out the speeding camera on Lower Luton Road in Harpenden was illegal. Not that you would see that word in a council press release. Not only was it illegal but it remained so for more than a year.

Despite this, Stuart Pile was not in an apologetic mood. "I want to stress that all those people who were convicted of speeding during this time were exceeding the signed 30mph speed limit," he said. Tell us something we don't know, Stewy.

Asked by a local television news crew what he thought about people losing their licences and possibly losing their jobs as a result of this illegal camera, he remained defiant, stating that they should not have been speeding and deserved all they got. Yes Stuart, but you are missing the point, or at least choosing to do so. A driver who was correctly banned from speeding may now get his licence back. Because of the county council's incompetence a dangerous driver could well be back on the roads. What if this driver causes an accident or knocks somebody down? How about addressing that point?

Don't forget this is the man who last week said: "When we first set up Hertfordshire Highways our aim was to make the service as efficient, cost-effective and user-friendly as possible." He also told our sister paper, the Watford Observer, that: "Road safety is paramount", this month.

Well road safety certainly hasn't been improved and I doubt being cost effective includes giving speeding motorists £210,000 back.

But it's not just the county council that has a problem holding its hands up, our friends at the district council suffer as well.

Take our front page article last week. The council sent a letter to five pubs telling them that they fell into a: "Designated Public Place Order". This effectively means that alcohol should not be consumed within this area."

What does this mean to you? It means you can't drink in this area.

Except that you can. White Swan customer Brian Parker investigated and found out that the council had no such powers to issue such bans. Had he not, you can bet your last your pound that the "ban" would still be in place.

So what did the council do? Did it apologise or explain its mistake?

No. Chief executive Daniel Goodwin eventually sent a letter out saying the initial letter "could have been interpreted as banning the consumption of alcohol outside". Could have been interpreted? No Daniel, that's what it meant and if it did not, somebody should really have a word with the author. We were hoping the council would maybe write to the pubs concerned clarifying the situation but the only correspondence we received was from a press officer asking us not to name her in articles.

It is good to know where the council's priorities lie.