Check out today’s YEP letters.
Overpaid MPs are just a bunch of amateurs
Terry Maunder, Kirkstall
I NOTE that MPs have been awarded a 10 per cent pay rise that, as always, they say they have no control over.
This at a time when public sector staff – such as nurses and teachers who do real jobs with real skills and knowledge that benefit society – are still expected to have minimal or no pay rises.
According to one source this will take David Cameron’s salary to £149,440. Prior to the election he promised that the pay watchdog would be scrapped.
He is obviously keen to keep his reputation with, and support of, his backbenchers by breaking his promise.
Specious and mendacious are words that come to mind.
When it comes to ministers, how qualified are they to do their jobs?
Jeremy Hunt and Alistair Burt, in charge of health and social care between them, have no qualifications in this field.
Nicky Morgan, in education, refused to answer a question about failing academies on television the other day.
She also has no qualifications in education that I can see and clearly has no grasp of what accountability means.
They are being paid to do jobs they have no training in, and this applies throughout the House of Commons.
Many who have inherited wealth they haven’t had to work for even have the cheek to refer to “benefit scroungers”.
As for the myth that public sector workers (many of whom have numerous qualifications beyond the academic level of these MPs) get huge public sector pensions, words fail me.
Surely some mistake on pay
Linda Brady, Crossgates
Please tell me you printed the results of the poll “should MPs receive a 10 per cent pay rise” the wrong way round.
I cannot believe that 86 per cent said yes. How can that be so when so many workers are being denied even a modest one per cent increase? The MPs go into the job knowing the salary and get generous expenses too.
Editor’s note: Well spotted Linda, we did. Apologies for the error.
Farming days a distant memory
Olga Twist, Whinmoor
The residents of Whinmoor prevented builders from gaining permission to build on farm land for nearly 13 years, but the developers won in the end.
The houses are going up at a quick rate. I will be so glad when the estate is finished as the thump, thump, thump of the heavy diggers is unbelievable, and I have not had my windows open since they started.
I could dust every day and still be able to write my name in the dust by evening.
I wonder what Britain will do when the farmers give up the struggle to hold on to their land.
Companies now buy cheaply abroad, but when buying abroad is our only option the prices will go up and we will have to pay as there is no alternative. England will be free no more.
I am glad that there are people who are campaigning to keep this land green and pleasant.
Before the farmer lost out to developers, he would rent his land out to the Tetley drays (shire horses) who came every year for their ‘holidays’ and would gallop around the fields.
In the school holidays my nephew from Manchester would come to stay and loved stroking them.
Those were the good old days when the land was for animals and growing vegetables – gone for ever.
Cancer drug a boost for rich
Malcolm Shedlow, Moortown
A NEW breakthrough has been clinically found to treat cancer.
This is fantastic news considering the public have all contributed in a massive way to fund research over many years – running, swimming, cycling, skydiving and doing many, many other activities in order to raise money.
It should be a time for rejoicing for the vast number of people with cancer. However, the bad news is that I have heard it would cost approximately £100,000 per treatment.
This means that the NHS could in no way fund this treatment, especially in view of all the recent cuts in expenditure.
So who will benefit? Not the people who have done all the organising over a long period of time but the rich and famous as 99.9 per cent of the public would in no way be able to afford the treatment.
I trust that this will not stop people from giving to cancer research as it may become cheaper in time.
But it does rather puts a dampener on things, doesn’t it?
OAP benefits are well earned
Terry Dunwell, Swarcliffe
WITH REGARD to Kim Ingle’s letter (Your Feedback, June 2), it would be nice if he did not take the moral high ground quite as much.
He says he and his wife found the behaviour of the OAPs demonstrating over the loss of free train travel “absolutely deplorable” and that their “audacity knows no bounds”.
Well, I find his obsession with senior citizens’ so-called “freebies” deplorable.
His fixation with these “freebies”, which he rants on about, is laughable. The majority of OAPs went through a world war, with all that that entailed. They worked and paid tax and insurance. Many served their country in uniform.
We earned these small benefits, Mr Ingle.
Women can give football lesson
Jack Banner, Meanwood
I HAVE just watched a most entertaining football match between the women of the USA and Australia.
As a man of advancing years, who grew up in the worst era of chauvinism, I have to confess that in the past I thought women and football were a no-no.
How times – and my own opinions – have changed!
The fact is that lady footballers can teach their male counterparts a lesson when it comes to application and refusing to feign injury.
I cannot be the only person who is heartily sick of seeing these overpaid prima donnas rolling around on the pitch fighting for their lives.
Hundreds of thousands of pounds a week for kicking a ball about? Football has been sold to big business and the fans are irrelevant.