Check out today’s YEP letters.
Appalled at sale of Atkinson Grimshaw work
Brian Poulter, Guiseley
To say I was appalled is an understatement when I read your article that Leeds City Art Gallery proposes to sell three Atkinson Grimshaw paintings by auction at Sotherby’s.
There was no explanation as to why this should happen and I can only assume that Leeds needs the estimated return of £500,000 to help to fill in potholes around the city.
No doubt these pictures will bring in far more than the estimate if people like Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber gets his hands on them.
They are going to be put into private collections and may even go overseas. The people of Leeds, where Grimshaw lived and worked will no longer be able to view these iconic landscapes and deserve to have them retained in the Art Gallery.
The day that they are sold will be a very grim day indeed and those that are in charge need to seriously think again.
Leeds has developed its cafe/bar culture but its artistic culture, despite the new and wonderful Arena etc, is lagging behind.
Dispensing with a couple councilors instead would enable the city to break even.
No wonder country in mess
Derek Barker, Moortown
The leaks in the press relating to the Chancellor George Osborne’s so-called emergency Budget, though what the emergency is hasn’t yet been made clear, suggest that, as per usual, the poorest majority of our society are going to have to compensate for the fiscal mess that has been created by the wealthiest few.
In an interview only last week the Prime Minister stated that to end the situation of working poor families paying tax only to receive it back in family tax credits, working tax credits were going to be reduced in order to help save some of the £12bn that the Chancellor was trying to achieve from the welfare budget.
It is clear that the Prime Minister doesn’t have a clue how our own welfare system works, because those who receive working family tax credits don’t pay any income tax to start with, either that or he thinks that the rest of us are stupid.
Then we have the Chancellor being reported as saying that he will announce in his Budget that those living in social housing who are earning more that £40,000 a year in the London area, and earning £30,000 a year outside of London will have to pay higher rents in keeping with those of the private sector.
In my view this is a completely non-productive strategy, not to mention a breach of local government ethical practice as by law they are supposed to be non-profit making organisations.
I can’t think of any better way of encouraging those who can afford it to buy their council house at a discount price, and by doing so depleting council house stocks by potentially a further 350,000 dwellings nationally.
For your benefit, Mr Osborne, the definition of an emergency is ‘an unforeseen event that requires immediate and urgent attention’, such as what has been happening in the Middle East for the last 18 months.
As Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are members of the wealthiest few is it any wonder with their interpretation of what constitutes an emergency that this country is in such a mess?
Attack on the working man
T Maunder, Kirkstall
I have just seen a working man interviewed on BBC whose income, combined with that of his wife, is £23,000.
Of that, £7,000 is from tax credits. Cutting these will have a huge negative impact on him and his family.
Osborne and Cameron claim to be on the side of working people: presumably that does not include working people in social classes four and five on very low pay? What liars they are.
Scrapping maintenance grants will have a huge negative impact on poorer prospective students : what does that say about their values about education?
Yet they (MPs) have accepted a huge pay rise when few of them are actually qualified to do the job (and isn’t that obvious : they’re good at doing hair shampoo adverts, though).
If these Tories are going to scrap the benefit mentality as they claim, why are they attacking the working man mentioned above and not the real benefit scroungers?
Iain Duncan Smith has just been “punished” for accruing expenses on a credit card in Parliament (his Parliamentary credit card has been suspended). Then he tries to demonise people on benefits? Hypocrites, all of them.
‘Lone wolf’ term is unjustifiable
Roger Bates, Shadwell
Commenting on the Tunisian beach massacre in his July 2 Woodward’s World, your reporter quite rightly expressed his tacit disapproval of the unjustifiably colourful term ‘lone wolf’ killer.
Indeed, from Kipling’s ‘Akela’ (echoes of my Wolf Cub days ) to the original Lone Wolf novel of 1914 (featuring a Raffles-like jewel thief) I see no possible connection with the brutal murder of unarmed and defenceless men, women and children.
So, in the interests of cold, descriptive honesty, what term should best be applied to jihadist gunmen like the Tunisian Seifeddine Rezgui – self-motivated and operating (ostensibly) alone?
Well, let me suggest either ‘lonesome psycho’ or perhaps ‘killer zombie’.
New spray to solve problem?
Olga Twist, Leeds 14
One of the letters in the YEP (July 4) was complaining about dog poo.
I quite agree with the letter and I suppose because it’s a distasteful job maybe that’s why so many dogs are becoming strays.
After all, parents don’t clear up after their children like we elderly did – one dozen nappies lasted a year or more.
So I keep wondering, there’s an advert often on TV for some very strong bleach that makes what looks like a stone of limestone melt away, so surely some enterprising chemist or scientist could manufacture a spray that one could carry in one’s pocket, use it on the pile and watch it disappear?
Another bottle could contain some disinfectant to clean the spot.
Maybe that would stop all this unpleasantness that now exists.