Sponsored by
Why can't Brown divert his petrol profits to the poor?
From: Allan Ramsay, Radcliffe Moor Road, Radcliffe.
BECAUSE of the oil crisis, the rich, such as Saudi Arabia, are getting richer and the poor, like one in four British families, are getting poorer. But have no fear, help is at hand.
Our much respected Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has helped "shame" the oil rich Saudis into donating 1bn – loose change – to help poor countries affected by high oil prices.
He has also helped persuade them to increase oil production. The problem here however, is that the world doesn't have the refining capability to turn crude into fuel fast enough to affect a fall in prices at the pump.
Also, he has asked the wealthy Saudis to invest some of their trillions in British nuclear fuel production and other alternative energies.
So what else can Gordon Brown do to help the poor motorist, the poor wagon driver and ultimately the poor consumer?
If prices at the pump increase by 50 per cent – from 80 pence not that long ago, to a present price of 1.20 (in places) –
does this mean that the Government gets 50 per cent more duty/tax?
How much duty/tax have they actually gained from increased fuel prices, this last 12 months?
If this "profiteering" were to benefit the poor, that might be okay. But if it were to benefit the rich, say a 12 per cent pay rise for 90,000 a year MPs and 40,000 expenses to cover the cost of an extravagant lifestyle, then it would have to be totally unacceptable.
If the Saudis can help the world's poor and be asked to invest in Britain's energy production, then surely Gordon Brown can reduce
fuel duty/tax to help his poor. If he won't, instead of relying
on the truckers' threats of go-slows and blockades, then vehicle owners – all 30 million of us – could threaten to return our road tax licence for a rebate.
It might be against the law to drive without road tax, but isn't it also against the law – humanitarian that is – to profit from the abject misery and hardship of the poor?
From: Terry Duncan, Greame Road, Bridlington.
HOW much fuel did Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his entourage and Press
following, use up on his fruitless flight to the Middle East now that Opec is telling us there is no likelihood of a reduction in oil prices?
Warning sign over NHS cash priorities
From: Chris Hollands, Clarborough, Retford.
I READ with some astonishment (Yorkshire
Post, June 17) your report that the NHS is
spending some 1m on purchasing "infection resistant" keyboards for use in hospitals across England.
The article indicates that the keyboards will "flash" a warning when the keyboard is in need of cleaning.
Surely the subject of hygiene and hand washing is a matter of general education and discipline.
There is no indication that the infection resistant keyboards will lock out and prevent use, merely give an illuminated warning.
Although 1m is a small sum in relation to the whole NHS budget, I find it an anathema that money is spent in this way when other reports in the media indicate that cancer patients in particular are being denied treatments on the grounds of cost that will extend or improve their quality of life.
Does this sort of allocation of resource not epitomise what is wrong with the NHS today?
From: C. Horsman, Coppergate, Nafferton, East Yorkshire.
I HEAR no fanfares or celebrations for the launch of the NHS, so I looked back at the Beveridge Report of 1942, then the Act of 1946, and finally the commencement, in July 1948.
I couldn't recognise the modern centralised partially privatised service nowadays with its prescription charges, expensive glasses, teeth and wigs – and that overpaid massive bureaucracy which outweighs the medical side.
In the large county of East Yorkshire, we do not possess one single A&E hospital, and many former cottage hospitals have disappeared. Recently, I learnt that at Hull Royal, a young woman with cancer has to pay 5 a day to park at the hospital for regular treatment. Now that is sad and sheer profiteering.
Aneurin Bevan must be turning in his grave.
Coal could be the answer
From: Tim Mickleburgh, Littlefield Lane, Grimsby.
IT is clear that in the future Britain may face an energy shortage if she doesn't look for new supplies. Personally I'm all for encouraging the likes of wind farms and wave barriers as an alternative to the dangers of nuclear power. However, unlike many environmentalists, I would not rule out using our coal supplies.
For there are millions of tons underneath British soil, which would more economical to produce than in the days when oil was cheap and plentiful. What's more, I remember when the mines were shut by the Tories and the damage it did to many communities.
I would love to see their pits re-open, providing not only energy, but a source of well-paid employment in towns that still struggle today.
Perhaps Gordon Brown would bear this in mind when looking at future strategies.
Small choice
From: Bill Tetlow, Exelby, Bedale.
I AM writing in support of Denis McShane (Yorkshire Post, June 21). He was quite correct when he stated in his article that Gordon Brown was the best finance and economic minister this century. The only other one we have had is Alistair Darling, and he looks as if he is going to be an even bigger disaster.
Odd verdict
From: Peter A Rushforth, Sutton Drive, Cullingworth.
IT is difficult to understand why the Law Lords have given their verdict about not admitting evidence from witnesses whose identity has not been been disclosed (Yorkshire Post, June 25). Charles Dickens wrote "the law is an ass". If he were here today, he would no doubt write "the law lords is an ass".Injustice of indefinite detention
From: A W Briglin, Sefton Street, Hull.
I AM pleased that I was alone when I read the Letters to the Editor (Yorkshire Post, June 20), because the air was blue when I read the letter from H Bradshaw. How can anyone utter such stupidity as asking if David Davis would change his mind and agree to the 42-day detention if a close relative had been injured in the 7/7 bus explosion?
He even advocates holding suspects indefinitely without charge or trial. I will reverse the question. How would H Bradshaw regard some close relative or even personally being held indefinitely as suggested?
I think this person would quickly do a volte face. I'm afraid too many people like H Bradshaw do not think a situation through. A suspect is not necessarily guilty!
From: JW Smith, Sutton-on-Sea.
HAVEN'T the do-gooders done enough? Parents dare not smack their children, schools must not punish pupils, jails are so much like hotels that prisoners do not care about re-offending and we must be extremely careful of how we defend ourselves.
Magna Carta born out of the need to protect the rights of "citizens" is now being cited as a reason to protect terrorists, mostly though not entirely foreigners, manipulated and controlled by a megalomaniac who does not put himself in danger, but skulks down a hole in the ground, from being imprisoned. Subject to very strict conditions for up to 42 days.
Some people make a very good living out of supporting these ideas.
What about the rights of "citizens" to be able to live without fear of being blown to pieces?
From: DLR Hirst, Willow Avenue, Idle Moor, Bradford.
DOUGLAS Hartley (Yorkshire Post, June 23) exhorts your readers not to "bang on", but to hang on to our ancient liberties.
What he does not explain, in his interesting letter, is how we might achieve this objective. There is little doubt that the "creeping sickness" of total control from Brussels is gradually strangling Britain.
Does Mr Hartley seriously think that our current crop of Parliamentarians of either colour at Westminster will do anything to stem the tide of EU bureaucracy? I think not. It is now also clear that even the Irish "No" vote is no deterrent.
Just what part of the word "No" do Brussels not understand?
The only other alternative to corpus juris is open rebellion
by the British people. Is that what the letter writer has in mind?
It is a very long time since we had a national rebellion. It is an interesting pipedream, but completely unachievable in modern day Britain
The wrong sentence
From: Tim Radcliffe, Binns Lane, Holmfirth.
I REALLY took my hat off to Neil Metcalfe, the father who reported his son for having live bullets in his bedroom. After thinking about it, I
came to the conclusion that under the same circumstances I would take the same action.
That is, until I saw the punishment handed out. I am of the opinion that there is no way that a three-year custodial sentence will achieve any more than a very stern telling off from the police would have achieved.
Indeed, he will undoubtedly emerge from prison a much worse individual than he might be at present.
How stupid is British justice when you read of a 15-year-old yob (Yorkshire Post, June 21) who has taken another young man's life as a result of drunken violence and has received a two-and-a-half-year sentence after admitting manslaughter.
The criminal justice system is a complete shambles that does nothing to encourage the likes of myself and Neil Metcalfe.
EU treaty's democracy is just window-dressing
From: Jonathan Arnott, Ravenscroft Close, Sheffield.
JAMES Wagstaff (Yorkshire Post, June 23) claims that the whole point of the Lisbon Treaty was to "improve democratic accountability and efficiency" in the EU, and that therefore eurosceptics should support it.
I've read the full text of the Lisbon Treaty and the measures claimed to improve democratic accountability are pure window-dressing: citizens and national parliaments jumping through enough near-impossible hoops will be allowed to ask the Commission to merely consider or reconsider a decision.
If by "efficiency" he means reducing the UK's power to block unwanted EU legislation, the surrender of vetoes, a common EU Foreign Minister and foreign policy, common EU asylum policy, moves towards a common defence policy, and allowing the Treaty to be amended at will without need for a fresh Treaty – then the Lisbon Treaty would make the EU more "efficient". But I cannot see why James Wagstaff believes that eurosceptics should support it.
From: Nick Martinek, Briarlyn Road,
Huddersfield.
THE glaringly obvious fallacy in James Wagstaff's claim (Yorkshire Post, June 23) that eurosceptics should be "the last people to oppose
reforming the EU" (by way of the Lisbon Treaty) is that his idea of "reform" is completely opposite to that of most eurosceptics.
While there is a wide range of eurosceptic opinions, my preference for reform would include: dissolving the EU Parliament, the EU Commission, the European Court of Justice, Economic and Monetary Union (the
euro) and all other existing EU institutions; restoring legal supremacy, and all fishing, farming, border and other rights, usurped by the EU, to each European country; and setting up a simple free trade area with occasional meetings at a single European Council where neither attendance nor agreement would be obligatory.
Not quite the reform that Mr Wagstaff had in mind, I suspect.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Three-inch blanket of snow heading our way today
- Alan Shearer in list of favourites for Leeds and England jobs: Latest odds
- Barnsley’s Keith Hill invokes Fawlty Towers over link with Leeds job
- McCormack feels United search can be narrowed down
- Redfearn throws down gauntlet as queue builds at Elland Road
- Rival chips in with £500,000 to restore the original Harry Ramsden’s
- Visit from Princess as Serbian culture celebrated
- SportsTalk: Leeds United’s manager search, Super League and Calcutta Cup
- Libraries aren’t like supermarkets, they are magical places where dreams begin
- Strategic review will lead to job losses at Yorkshire Bank
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Saturday 11 February 2012
Today
Cloudy
Temperature: -1 C to 1 C
Wind Speed: 9 mph
Wind direction: South east
Tomorrow
Light rain
Temperature: 1 C to 6 C
Wind Speed: 8 mph
Wind direction: North west
