Oxford City Council has got itself into a pickle over its decision to allow all under 17s in the city free swimming at its pools. It has now had to accept that European Court rulings mean that free swimming must apply to all under 17s whether they come from Oxford, Eynsham, Kidlington, Banbury, or indeed anywhere in the world.

One imagines the city's language schools will see this as an easy and cheap way to entertain the legion of young people that descend on Oxford every year.

We criticised the council for its decision to offer free swimming to under 17s earlier this year because we doubted that it would achieve the council's stated aim of 'addressing health inequalities' in the city. It would mean pensioners subsidising in their council tax free swimming for all children, most of whose parents can afford the modest charges.

Now the Oxford council taxpayer will be subsidising free swimming for everyone, wherever they come from. Given that poverty in Oxford is statistically higher than poverty in the surrounding districts you can argue that the scheme is promoting inequality.

It may also hit income at swimming pools outside Oxford run by other district councils.

After we first criticised the council's decision to offer free swimming we were accused by the city council leader of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

At the risk of sounding like killjoys we ask the same question again. Is this money well spent or could it be spent on other more pressing needs? Many of the city's pensioners, for example, would argue that they should enjoy the same right to concessionary fares for travellling outside the city boundaries as do those living in other districts who travel into the city. Funding that would address inequalities on many levels.