YEP Letters: May 28

editorial image
0
Have your say

Check out today’s YEP letters

Time to get tough on Brexit deal

Terry Watson, Adel

Theresa May said she would walk away with no Brexit deal rather than accept a bad deal for Britain.

Actions speak louder than words and as we are going to get nothing but a very bad deal, it’s time to get tough with Barnier. He will settle for nothing less than complete capitulation with full membership of the customs union and single market. We can still trade with EU countries under WTO rules just as many other countries do and pay tariffs. The EU would also have to pay our tariffs, and as they export far more to us than we to Europe, they would be far worse off. Barnier knows that May is weak and is making Britain look foolish with his demands. It’s time to act like Thatcher, she would never have stood for all that nonsense. Leaving with no deal would soon bring the EU to their senses. The £40bn they would lose would soon make them think again.

Police cuts cannot go on forever

Coun Peter Gruen, by email

Did you see that headline a week or so ago? Cressida Dick, Chief of the Met in London, admits openly and publicly that a lack of resources is one of the main causes for higher crime.

Wow, I hear you say, what about stating the obvious! But, we know she is one of the first chief constables to speak up.

This week our excellent MP for Leeds North East makes the point again forcibly in his contribution in your paper; ‘police cuts putting city communities at risk’ he says. Our Crime and Police Chief Mark Burns Williamson has said the same for some time. And as an elected representative myself, I share their views. Certainly our constituents in Cross Gates and Whinmoor want to see the numbers of police officers in neighbourhoods, go back up again.

So it is high time that more police chiefs called out the cuts and the inevitable strain on police officers, communities and individual victims of crime.

Only a fantasist or Government Minister (or both) believes cuts can go on forever.

Community –does it exist?

Philip Crowther, by email

Community is a word that has seeped into our lives in recent times, probably more so since the Cameron government came up with the slogan ‘The Big Society’, code for let’s see if they fall for providing public services on the cheap.

In my view the community tag now being used is a sticking plaster term used by government to avoid having to address the true problems our country has.

I believe genuine community ceased in the 60s with the onset of mass TV possession which affected the choice to regularly attend cinemas, pubs etc, car ownership which took people away from contact in public transport and the phone which reduced the need for eye to eye contact. All brilliant assets and inventions but society changing.

Community is now often cited by media but where are the examples in anything other than very small hubs of people like hamlets or villages. In our cities we are plagued with crime of all levels and multi-culturism has changed the face of our nation for ever. If you walk down any city high street you are lucky not to be bowled over by people scurrying with coffee in one hand, head down staring at their phone.

Please, thank you and excuse me are now terms that pass many people’s lips less and less. What is community spirited about, for example, many people being fearful of walking our streets.

The sticking plaster term will not solve our problems of insufficient police to maintain law and order, health care and public service funds. It may work during jingoistic events such as royal weddings and the Manchester ceremony, where some believed community existed, but could be nothing more than crowds getting together for a good knees up and to be seen on the telly plus allowing politicians and royalty to attend and show their appropriate joyful or mournful face. However, if we are brainwashed often enough to believe we have community or we are passionate or devastated maybe all our problems will be solved, somehow I think not.

Bishop Curry’s courageous words

Rev Robin Paterson, Leeds 15

Your correspondent Jean Lorriman speaks for many who appreciated the preaching of Bishop Curry at the wedding of Harry and Meghan.

It was a wonderful weekend, that also included Pentecost celebrations across the Christian world. Such sermons are not unusual. Enter any church across the land, C of E or otherwise, and the public might find that media-led perceptions of preachers are outdated.

However, what your correspondent has said about the family of Her Majesty the Queen needs challenging. I cannot believe that throughout their lives the Christian church has not been able to produce a passionate preacher. Or, is she saying that the Queen and her family just never listen? I find that hard to swallow. How does Jean Lorriman know that preachers “toady up to” the Queen and her family to justify their wealth and privilege? I would guess that the Queen and her family, who work tirelessly of behalf of our nation, would know exactly what the theological impact of Bishop Curry’s words mean for our world of today, and in the future. I find this lady’s words ill-chosen and careless reflecting the current fashion for collective condemnation that seems to be abroad in our nation today.

If she cared to read the Epistle to the Galatians she would find there the gifts of the Holy Spirit that no doubt inspire Bishop Curry and all who work on behalf of others, whatever their religion, or none.

No more referendums

Ernest Lundy, by email

The Brexit business rolls on seemingly for ever, with the detractors still acting like spoiled children.

They say we voted without really knowing what the consequences of leaving might be. Members of all parties continue hoping to reversing the decision thus going against the democratic vote of the people.

Perhaps it is expedient to remember that when Ted Heath negotiated our EU entry, no one knew then what to expect, and had no choice in the matter.

Those wishing to remain in membership today base their arguments on the same grounds. There is some truth in that. But what they refuse to accept is that those expressing their desire to leave have had 40 years or more to decide what they do not want. Surely that should be a good enough reason?

No more referendums or we could end up having another dozen.

And the implementing of the last one has already become more then tedious.