YEP Letters: September 25

1
Have your say

Check out today’s YEP letters

City’s misguided decision to take refugees

G Grant, Birmingham

While it is no doubt admirable and well intentioned for Leeds to become a City of Sanctuary for refugees, perhaps the decision is somewhat misguided.

Leeds, like the majority of large cities in the UK, faces challenges and problems unique to large urban areas. Mass unemployment, some of the most deprived inner city areas, high rates of child poverty, housing shortages, an ever growing population and a constant stream of council cutbacks.

Perhaps the leaders of Leeds and other big city councils ought to direct their campaigning efforts towards the MPs and councils of the more affluent and wealthy parts of our country.

When the likes of Winchester in Hampshire, Epsom in Surry, Bournemouth, Cheltenham and Stratford upon Avon offer to take and accept the majority of the refugees and asylum seekers, perhaps then, and only then, should the big cities take the remainder.

What good is it to any refugee to be stuck in some deprived inner city area when they could be enjoying a much more fruitful existence in a more prosperous and thriving community?

What benefit is it to anyone for big cities to accept even more people when they cannot cope with all the people and issues they have at present? This makes no sense at all.

I have yet to hear the councils and residents of Cornwall calling for their towns and villages to become places of sanctuary for the refugees. Perhaps their silence speaks louder than words.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE YEP NEWS HEADLINES

Wardens should use cameras

Peter Haddington, Bradford

After reader Mr Lundy’s letter (YEP September 17) about using CCTV cameras to catch people throwing litter from cars, I thought he had some very valid points and I would add that council wardens need to use cameras more.

Cameras are one of the best weapons we have to combat anti-social behaviour. With photographic evidence there is no way someone can deny what they’ve done. This is the proof that should be needed to secure a conviction against someone for an offence. Not everyone realises that Leeds City Council don’t always have the evidence on camera when they fine or prosecute people.

I know a few people who have been fined without the use of cameras, including myself after allegedly missing their dogs who have been prepared to clean up and have been found guilty on the flimsiest of evidence. I smiled at a recent statement from a councillor who said they ‘only fine people as a last resort.’ Then why are people being fined for accidents? Are they classed as a last resort? When the council catches someone for littering, dog fouling or someone is evicted for neighbour nuisance they like to highlight these cases and generally say ‘this type of behaviour will not be tolerated,’ then why are these issues such a problem?

The truth is that for every person they catch there are plenty more people getting away with the same thing. When the public are receiving substantial fines from the council they surely have the right to know that they’ve been proven guilty beyond doubt, photographic evidence would provide this then there is no argument one way or the other.

Thanks to supermarket

Richard Frank, Leeds 16

On behalf of the 43rd North Leeds Scout Troop may I thank all the management and staff of the Horsforth branch of Morrison’s for once again allowing us to spend a day bag packing for their customers on Saturday September 19.

Thanks to the generosity of their customers we raised over £750 - a magnificent total that will enable us to buy tents and other activity equipment that will enable us to continue to provide fun, challenge and adventure for young people of the scout group.

The way to independence?

Mrs V Bedford, Pudsey

In answer to D Boyes’ letter (‘Whatever happened to equality?’ September 21) equality is here, hence the retirement age to be brought up to the men’s age of retirement.

I see more men than women pushing prams. A lot of men are now shopping and cooking - unheard of years ago and yes, women still worked and did all the chores without complaining.

A lot of women chose not to pay a full stamp or did not work enough hours to pay a stamp for their own pension. They were very dependent on men. Now they want equality, they should have worked and paid into a scheme where they have their own money.

That’s what I call being independent.

Cruelty beyond acceptance

T Maunder, Kirkstall

I’ve just read some of the specious comments made about that chef selling “foie gras” (YEP letters September 24) and, as always, feel thoroughly irritated by the “if you don’t like it, go somewhere else” type of attitude.

This food involves animal cruelty that is beyond acceptable boundaries - that is to say, it is suffering to satiate the palates of people who have no reflective skills and think themselves

something special by eating it. Rather like those people who appear on cookery shows and say “I love chicken” as if it makes them really unique.

Making that kind of comment is about as helpful to a proper debate as saying “if you don’t like our voting system, go and live in another country”.

As for making reference to Harvester, good grief, is this some kind of restaurant snobbery comment?

Solution: build more trains

Mel Smart, Farsley

There have been many articles and correspondence regarding railways lately, particularly complaints about overcrowding.

There is only one but simple solution and that is to build more trains. The trouble with that is that no one builds trains any more. It would need billions to set up a train-building division but this is possible either by nationalising the railway or for the government to put out contracts for tender to the private sector. Either way, it will take twenty years to replace the existing fleet , built in the 1980s. Pity no one thought of this before embarking on the idiotic HS2 plan.