The most recent case is of Caroline Waller, a midwife taking legal action for apparently tripping over a buggy at the home of Michelle and James Hudson (Yorkshire Post, October 1).

The fact that such actions can be brought is as a result of the so called "ambulance chasing" approach by some lawyers. Such legal actions are also a sad reflection on the greed of people who do not now appear to take responsibility for their own actions.

There are things called "accidents" – yet in this blame or compensation culture that word seems to have been redefined and some one has to pay the price.

The fact is we all pay the price through increased insurance premiums brought about by such claims. But, perhaps the saddest aspect of all is the attitude of the employers of these claimants who attempt to distance themselves from their employees by stating that they are "not involved in this legal action".

Hang on though, who employs these claimants?

Who provides them with resources, vehicles and who pays them? In the case above can we assume this midwife is employed by the Hull and East Yorkshire Hospital NHS Trust? She is responsible to them, isn't she? So why won't the trust take some responsibility and get involved to stop this stupidity?

This leads to another important point about midwives visits and specifically home births.

Women wanting home births are being placed under increasing pressure to go into hospital instead. All sorts of reasons are given to try and persuade women not to have a home birth.

I can see another reason on the horizon – midwives might have a mishap in your home and so householders shouldn't "risk it".

I can also see a time when we will be putting a sign up at the boundary of every house –"Enter at your own risk and your own responsibility".

From: John Watson, Hutton Hill, Leyburn.

AFTER reading your front page (Yorkshire Post, October 1) I am saddened and disgusted that what appears to be a non-event is adding weight to the old adage that "the law is an ass" and its disciples likewise.

It is time that the contingency fee arrangement (which is
one of the less favoured American imports) was abolished for good, as it is adding fuel to flames of the compensation culture and the whole thing is becoming a laughing stock.

I hardly dare discuss the case in question for fear of being sued myself, but I think in future I am going to put a notice on my gate saying: "Enter at your own risk."


Our heather moorland is a global conservation success


From: George Winn-Darley, vice chairman of the Moorland Association.

WHILe the Moorland Association shares many of the concerns in Chris Benfield's article (Yorkshire Post, September 30) about the proposed Upland Entry Level Stewardship Scheme, the comments made by Peter Jones, a geographer at University College, London, questioning the value of heather moorland is misguided.

The UK has 75 per cent of the world's resource of heather moorland and it is a very precious habitat which we have a huge international responsibility to maintain.

Allowing it to scrub up to thin woodland as he proposes would not only ignore that responsibility but it would also contravene the reason that 60 per cent of England's grouse moors are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

It would also fundamentally alter the character of the landscape and to suggest that somehow this change in character
is going to bring more tourists is
unrealistic.

We would agree that there is room for a bit of variety with the sort of native woodlands. We believe many of these should be concentrated onto the areas of moorland that have been planted with conifer forestry once the existing conifer crops have been harvested.

Heather moorlands that are regularly burnt and managed as grouse moors provide the ideal environment for the preservation of our archaeological heritage. The introduction of tree roots to these peat lands will cause irreparable damage to this resource.

The regular controlled burning of the heather ensures there is a preponderance of young growing heather which locks up to 150kg of carbon per hectare per annum as well as ensuring that the risk of a wildfire is reduced, thereby protecting the enormous carbon store in the peat below.

There is 10 times the amount of carbon locked up in peat lands of the UK than there is in all the forests of France and England put together.

The sort of thin woodland over mature heather he proposes would not only be an enormous wildfire risk but it would actually lock up less carbon than properly managed heather moorland.

Management of heather moorlands for red grouse is probably the world's most successful conversation project and a great British success. More of our uplands should be brought into this type of sustainable management that produces so many benefits to landscape, birds, archaeology, carbon, access, rural economy, foreign investment etc.