I READ the four letters (Yorkshire Post, August 28) regarding the Olympics with interest. While I agree with Mr Whitley that Rebecca Adlington's medals are worth more than Rafael Nadal's medal, I think his formula for differentiating between amateur and professional is rather naive.

For the last 50 or 60 years, countries have been getting round this problem – scholarships with large grants
to universities (USA); commissions in the armed forces (Russia and Eastern Bloc countries) and how did Seb Coe, Steve Ovett and others manage to become multi- millionaires as they concluded their amateur status – massive expenses to attend meetings?

Mr O'Sullivan is obviously anti-Gordon Brown. He is wrong if he goes to the Olympics and wrong if he doesn't – a Catch 22 situation. Does he not comment? Of course he has to.

Most heads of state attended. Where was ours? I naturally excuse the Queen, but where were Prince Charles and his sons? Charles never seems to attend "normal" sporting events such as the FA and Rugby League Cup finals; cricket and Rugby Union Test matches, Wimbledon or the Open Golf Championship. He is obviously not interested in what the middle and working classes of Great Britain spend their free time doing or attending.

To him, the minority sports of polo, hunting and shooting are his interests. He is either unconcerned, eccentric or both. GM foods causing global warming is his latest. If he thinks everyone can afford organic foods, he is more than eccentric.

From: Paul Hudson, Ash Road, Leeds.

SO the Olympics are over and the countdown to London begins. I am sure it was nice for the sportsmen and women, especially those who managed a place in the first three.

The UK team won 47 medals in all, which comes out at £544,680 per dangle.

Continuing the pretence that the Olympics is non-political is laughable, otherwise the massive amounts of Lottery cash would not have been removed from genuine charity work to support some people playing games just to make the UK look good in a medal table; we know how New Labour likes tables!

Jacques Rogge has single-handedly devalued the past quality of the Olympic movement, emphasised by his ridiculous comments about the world seeing China, and China seeing the world in new ways, while ignoring even the matters at hand, like all the people forcibly removed with their homes being demolished for the show area of the Olympic site.

From: Dr KH Khamas, Former President of Dewsbury, Batley and Heckmondwike Muslim Association and Ex-Chairman North Kirklees Ethnic Minority Police Forum, Halifax Road, Heckmondwike.

NOW that the Olympics are over, I think that the Government should provide all possible resources, including funding and training, for all youths in Kirklees – irrespective of colour, race or creed – to improve their skills in different sports. Particularly unemployed youths should be encouraged to get skills and training in different games.

However, I would like to see British Muslim and British Pakistani competitors to
work very hard to win a
place in the glorious British Olympic team for the London Olympics.

It saddens me that there was no British Asian or British Muslim gold medal winner for Great Britain in the Beijing Olympic Games. It is my dream to see competitors from the rainbow of diverse communities in this race of glory for Great Britain in the 2012 London Olympics.

Finally, may I extend my heartfelt congratulations
and felicitations on behalf of British Muslims, British Pakistanis and, on my own behalf, to all British Olympic heroes on their glorious victory in the Beijing Olympics.

Well done, keep it up!

From: Alan W Briglin, Sefton Street, Hull.

MAYBE it's just me, but can someone tell me one advantage to Britain by having the Olympic Games here in 2012?

From: William McLaughlin, Stonehill Road, Carmichael, Biggar.

ARE we seriously suggesting that Scotland should give
away the next hundred years of its oil and gas revenues by remaining in a failed union so that we can compete with Team GB in the Olympics every four years for pieces of gold?


The spurious notion of being British

From: M Taylor, Questen Mews, Copthorne Road, Crawley.

MARK Stuart (Yorkshire Post, September 1), as a Scot
himself, not surprisingly favours giving self-taxation to Scotland as a kind of Scotgeld settlement in order to maintain the colonial structure of the "union".

I personally disagree with the whole falsehood of a spurious "British" identity. It is one
which cynically attempts to maintain a status quo which is ever more detrimental to the culture and finances of the English people. Barnett is a symptom, but the damage to our self-pride as a people goes much deeper.

I am wholly in sympathy
with Alex Salmond as he steadfastly refuses the blandishments of Gordon Brown's idea of "British"
football teams which are transparent in their true
aim which is attempting to pretend that we are all one
big happy family – even
though the solicitors are drawing up the divorce papers in the parlour.

Independence for the Scots will allow my people their
right to self-determination
by default.

It is just a pity that we have only a handful of English MPs with spine enough to consider the wishes of their own folk who for the past three years have polled over 61 per cent in favour of an English Parliament.

From: Anne Palmer, Tawney Lane, Stapleford Tawney, Essex.

I HAVE only one question for Mark Stuart, who is, by his own confession, an ardent Unionist, and that is why? What on earth does he think the people of England, and more specifically the people of Yorkshire, gain from this unhappy and unequal marriage which has surely now run its course.

Since devolution, Scotland has enjoyed self-government but nevertheless still
receives generous financial handouts, courtesy of the English taxpayer and the Scottish-dominated government at Westminster, which allows it to provide for the Scottish people advantages that can only be dreamed of by the English.

Now Mr Stuart seems to be arguing that even more English cash should be sent over the border in order to keep the Scots in the Union.

Perhaps Mr Stuart's next article should outline just why he is so anxious for the Union to survive? What's in it for us
Mr Stuart – the people of England?

Party of
the rich

From: Tim Mickleburgh, Littlefield Lane, Grimsby.

THE Tories are showing once again that they are the party of the rich, with their "announcement" that couples will be able to leave £2m in their estates without being liable to Inheritance Tax (IHT).

Given all the talk about the credit crunch, I find it amazing that such a policy should be contemplated, rather than concentrating on helping the low-paid cope with increased bills.

After all, only a minority pay IHT, especially in the North where property prices are a lot lower than the South.

What's more, with house prices thankfully falling, it is not as if more are being dragged into the IHT bracket.

Still, given David Cameron's elitist background, one ought not to be surprised when he favours those of his own sort.

Entangling alliances

From: Denise Rusk, Barden Drive, Bingley.

REGARDING the present situation between Russia and Georgia, and, by implication Nato, one may recall Thomas Jefferson's pronouncement, endorsed by Quakers and others: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none."


We should support this Shakespeare festival

From: Alison Helm, Directorate of Democratic Institutions, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

I AM a British citizen, born in Leeds but now living in Strasbourg, France.

The Leeds Shakespeare Festival in Kirkstall Abbey is one of the summer highlights which I really enjoy when returning to my home town in the summer. I have attended many festivals with my 80-year-old mother, teenage daughter, sisters, aunt etc.

Everyone has always really appreciated the top quality of the performances, and the evenings have always been happy and memorable. It would be so sad to see all this disappear.

I hereby offer my support to the Leeds Shakespeare Festival and hope that the news will be good for next year and forthcoming ones.


Where are Labour's priorities over army of carers?

From: Malcolm Naylor, Grange View, Otley.

LABOUR has recently declared that carers' benefits are not a "priority". So what's new? And what are Labour's "priorities"?

In both good times and bad, Labour deliberately ignores carers like me except when there is an election in the offing. Then it uses us for propaganda with patronising praise.

Labour appoints spin-doctors like Sir Michael Parkinson; the Ambassador for Dignity, who declares: "It's not about money." He should be ashamed of himself. There is nothing dignified about poverty.

In spite of saving the State £87bn each year, carers' benefits are the lowest of all, and means-tested. Pensioner carers get nothing as it is considered an "overlapping benefit". So not only do we get nothing, we also have no retirement.

Labour uses, abuses and exploits carers' devotion as cheap labour. Even those lucky enough to get the £50 carer's allowance work such long
hours the hourly rate is pence per hour. The minimum wage does not apply and there are more than two million carers who get nothing.

Labour's "priorities" lie elsewhere on Trident missiles, aircraft carriers, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Olympics and protecting billionaires
from taxation.

It is little wonder that the Chancellor Alistair Darling says we are "p****d off" with the Government. That is an understatement. But any other Establishment party would be the same.

What we are really p****d off with is the sham democracy, political hypocrisy and social inequality that the present system operates.

So the "priority" should be fundamental reform of democracy, politics and society to eradicate inequality and set new standards for life quality, free from Establishment capitalism.