• HumanPenguin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Except they do not know the number. 3 county councils are agreeing to try this out. According to the article. But nothing indicates that will lead to all district councils under them being closed.

    The number you give are nationwide. This is not happening nationwide, Only with councils willing to work with them. They do not seem to know that number.

    • FelixCress@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Read again. Instead of saying “dozens of councils” they should have said “number of councils”.

      • HumanPenguin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        They don’t know the number closing. ATM no one dose.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Precisely. Which is why saying “dozens of councils” made no sense. “Number of councils due to close” covers everything from just a couple to 164 or whatever the maximum number is.

          • MexOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            a number of is generally not recommended when “Some councils…” or even “An unknown number of councils” would be better.