UNDER the current economic climate, it is entirely understandable that West Oxfordshire District Council )should look to save money. Indeed, they have no choice.

But what they choose to economise on will inevitably divide people, councillors and residents alike.

It is no surprise then that their current bid to slash the district’s flood defence budget by a third has ignited the touchpaper of public protest and concern.

From the council’s point of view, the aim is to dock flood defence spending from £177,000 to £120,000 as part of its overall strategy to slash the district’s total revenue budget by £500,000 (from £11.4m to £10.9m).

The problem is, numbers on a page never tell the whole story; human cost has always to be counted as well.

And in this instance, the cost to one family has already proved insurmountably high.

Kate Weeden lost her son Max, aged just 17, after he became stuck in a flooded culvert in Witney during 2008.

She, understandably, is alarmed at the proposed cuts. And she is right.

What the council needs to prove is that the proposed cuts will not compromise public safety.

Savings are sadly inevitable, but that should never mean that safety becomes a cheap cop-out.