YEP Letters: March 20

0
Have your say

Check out today’s YEP letters.

How can they offer no car insurance?

Ernest Lundy, Beeston

We often become acquainted with the way insurance companies demonstrate the iron grip they have on motorists.

It’s something which results in neverending complaints about the way they do it, especially with the often ridiculous premiums they demand, including the number of elements being appended to policies to increase the cost.

Having scoured the web on many occasions seeking a better deal, I have often found that of, say 40 companies, as many as one third or more have declined to offer cover; which I always thought was age related, regardless of being on full no claims bonus and accident free.

However, only today a friend informed me that after phoning around for a cheaper quote, and spending a considerable time with one well-known company, he was told that they are no longer prepared to give cover for motorists living in the Leeds 10 postal district.

This was completely mystifying, as the person in question has lived in the district for many years and never been refused cover.

If insurers refused to offer cover for all motorists in Leeds 10, what would be the result, when insurance for vehicles is obligatory?

This is just one other reason why government should step in and apply regulation to what most of us believe is an out of control and unfair industry; in spite of their claims to the contrary.

Government needs to invest

Mel Smart, Farsley

I AM afraid Nick Keer misses the point regarding renationalisation of the railways (Your Feedback, March 17).

The Government already owns the track, stations and buildings in the name of Network Rail.

It is the simplest thing in 
the world to take over the existing train franchises 
when they expire and at no cost.

The point I make is that the existing train fleet, most of which were built in the 1980s, needs replacing.

The trouble is that there are no facilities to build rolling stock.

It will take between 10 and 20 years to replace the fleet and who has the money to do it other than the Government because it will cost not 
millions but billions in order 
to do so?

Let us face it, whether we like it or not, the railways are a strategic national industry which cannot be dispensed with, so why not invest in their future?

Boths sides have good viewpoints

Alan Harris, Leeds

It is with great interest that I have followed the discussion in your opinion columns over the years.

The comments on pages 10 and 12 (YEP, March 17) crystallised the arguments of the two opposing views concerning the location of the statue of Leeds airman Arthur Aaron.

On one hand there are those who see the Aaron memorial as a work of art to enhance the townscape of a commercial development.

The others see it as a tribute to a brave airman who died heroically saving the lives of his comrades and which ought to be placed in an area relevant to his life.

This latter I believe is the fundamental reason for the statue coming into being .

I have no doubt that our city would be enhanced by works of art, but let these be just that.

They find money for other things

Val Goldthorp, Roundhay

I SEE that the present government finds it 
impossible to fund the NHS 
so that it provides the 
services that people want and need.

Eight top doctors have just published an impassioned plea for the Tories to make £8bn pounds a year available to achieve this.

Strange that government easily found £140bn pounds 
to bail out the banks, much of that finding its way into the pockets of executives who seemed to think they deserved it, and that their greed took precedence over repaying the taxpayers.

The Tories have no problem in finding £50bn pounds to cut 10 minutes off the rail journey from Birmingham to London, etc, etc.

No attempt is being made to collect tax from the evaders and avoiders... probably worth around £140bn a year.

Who decides the priorities?

Don’t assume the worst...

Robert Holman, Headingley

FOLLOWING J Townend’s letter (Your Feedback, March 11) could I please defend the majority of well-behaved, helpful students living in Headingley?

Why do writers assume it is a “student problem”, with over 30 agents advertising double beds in all rooms?

The agents are content to have the properties occupied, so nobody knows if the troublemakers are students or not.

Let Clarkson be a bloke’s bloke

Malcolm Nicholson, Barwick-in-Elmet

Top Gear is like Marmite, 
you either love it or you hate 
it.

Clarkson and his team bring much needed entertainment into the homes of motoring buffs.

If some people don’t like 
the show, then switch channels.

Far more insulting to the BBC licence payer is the £130,000 a year, three-days-a week Rona Fairhead of the BBC Trust.

At least Clarkson earns his salary.

What does Rona Fairhead contribute?

The feminist, politically correct liberal brigade abounding in the corridors of the BBC has been determined to discredit Clarkson simply because he’s the epitome of a “bloke”.

And we can’t have that, can we?

Put attackers in jail on remand

Peter Craggs, Meanwood

Once again we read about a violent attack where the victim was left for dead in a pool of blood,yet the attacker was released on bail (YEP, March 17).

Surely the perpetrator in violent crimes should be held on remand until the trial comes to court?

YEP Letters: April 24