Check out today’s YEP letters.
Three steps to making our city a tidier place
Jane Taylor, Shadwell
I HAVE written before and outlined my despair at the behaviour of litter droppers. I have raised the question as to why anyone living in a wonderful city in a wonderful county in a wonderful country would want to despoil the environment in the way that they do.
I have alerted the relevant council department to specific issues and to their eternal credit they have responded but the council cannot do everything and we as human beings must take the lion’s share of responsibility.
Our responsibility amounts to three very small things and if everybody did these then the cost to the council would significantly diminish leaving cash to spend on other urgent things such as the road surfaces and social care and create further resources for our schools, playing fields and green spaces. Maybe even to reduce council tax!! In fact all those things that would really enhance our lives. So what are those three things?
1. To clear up after your dog
2. To not drop litter but to take it to a bin or take it home, and
3. To ensure that your rubbish is securely stored at home in bags that are properly sealed or in wheely bins that are fully closed.
This is not asking too much is it? We can all do that can’t we? We can even pick up the odd piece of litter that we encounter on pavements and put it in a bin can’t we?
Spring is upon us and summer is on the way so this is just the time to make Leeds a really special litter-free place to work and play in?
Making poor nations poorer
Brian Johnston, Burmantofts
AT NO General Election since 1945, did the British people get a chance at the ballot box to vote on immigration, until now with Ukip.
At current levels, every three years, one million is added to the population. Public opinion is broadly right – too many, too soon and unsustainable.
The case against mass immigration remains a moral issue.
It is not racist or unreasonable for the public to be perturbed about the impact on society.
But there is another moral case the pro-immigration lobby prefer to ignore. Societies from which most migrants come from are impoverished by the mass exodus of the brightest, lured by rich nations, that is, unless they return with skills to build up their nation.
The usual case trumpeted for young, vibrant migrants to come and sustain our aging population is flawed and evasive.
Young migrants also grow old, placing more strain on services, so do we then ship in another million to support them?
The host nation has the sole right to limit numbers and say who should come in, and not the other way round. That said, the sensible way to stem the tide of migrants from poor countries is to help them trade with them, to develop their economies, and persuade their talent to stay put to build up their nation.
The case against mass immigration is no less principled than the case for, more so for the former, in helping the ‘left behinds’ not to follow, leaving poor countries even poorer.
Benefit cuts but Trident goes on
Martin Phillips, Cookridge
I NOTE David Cameron plans to spend up to £100bn on a replacement for the Trident nuclear deterrent yet intends cutting the benefit budget by a further £12bn.
I can’t help thinking he has got his priorities wrong.
Who exactly does David Cameron intend to deter with the new nuclear deterrent?
Trident has not deterred Al Qaeda, Islamic State, or the Taliban so why should its replacement?
Nuclear weapons didn’t deter the 2005 London bombers.
To combat the real threat to UK security i.e. terrorism, improved intelligence and conventional armed forces could be put in place for a fraction of the cost of a new nuclear deterrent.
As part of the £12bn cuts in benefits, David Cameron has not ruled out taxing people who receive benefits.
His excuse for re-assessing the benefit entitlements of sick and disabled people was to ensure that those most in need got more help.
This proved to be completely untrue.
People who were still deemed unable to work saw no increase in their benefits.
Now David Cameron intends to cut these benefits still further while giving tax breaks to the very rich.
But I forgot, we’re all in this together!
Get rid of the toytown people
DS Boyes, Rodley
If the Combined West Yorkshire Authority with sweeping new ‘powers’ from Westminster is ever going to work, we have got to get rid of the ‘toytown’ mentality that seems to revolve around ‘Empire building’.
For example, why do we have five individual tax bills, when most of the time any increase is the same, and no local authority in particular charges much different to the rest, unlike pre-1974 when the tiny Pudsey Borough council rates were 50 per cent less than big brother Leeds?
Or why do we have five highly paid (or overpaid in most people’s opinions) CEOs or five council leaders, all refusing to consider an elected mayor?
Presumably because they still want to have the last word.
Surely, with streamlining of Council Tax billing and shared service provision etc they might employ far less staff and councillors, so that for once local government might work for us, the people instead of the obvious vested interests of them, political parties and the unions.
No bus lanes on Boar Lane
Henry Heyworth, Harehills
I REFER to your recent article on bus lanes and traffic cameras (YEP, April 13) and note that you have perpetuated a mistake made in previous reports on the subject.
You make reference to the Boar Lane bus lane. There is no bus lane on Boar Lane.
The one in question is actually in Duncan Street between the Call Lane and Briggate junctions, Boar Lane being a continuation of Duncan Street from the Briggate junction to City Square.