YP Letters: Brexiteers are swimming against tide

Some people are concerned about the future impact of Brexit. (PA).
Some people are concerned about the future impact of Brexit. (PA).
1
Have your say

From: John Cole, Baildon, Shipley.

As a teenager I lived in Twickenham and used to fish for roach on a tidal stretch of the Thames. I have a clear recollection of an ebb tide gently and almost imperceptibly turning into a flow.

For the last few weeks I have sensed a different turning of the tide – this time against Brexit.

Government ministers may continue to assert baldly that “We are leaving and there is no going back” but this is being said with less confidence and with increasing hints of desperation.

A “period of transition” taking us beyond the allotted two years seems more likely to be sought by the government – a clear shift of position.

At the same time a “Vox Pop” survey by the North Lincolnshire local paper found a majority of respondents in favour of “Remain” – and this in an area that voted heavily for Brexit thirteen months ago.

A third straw in the winds is the “progress” of the Brexiteers being constantly held up to ridicule by comedians in the British media.

Give it another three months and the flow towards cancelling Article 50 might become irresistible. I hope so.

From: John Appleyard, Liversedge.

Negotiations on our exit from the EU are finally under way and already the UK government is dropping strict EU standards on what goes in our food in the rush to secure trade deals with countries outside the Europe.

They are hoping to put chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-pumped meat on our supermarket shelves to secure a deal.

Our supermarkets and farmers don’t want this and neither will the consumer when they are aware of the facts.

Lets ask our supermarkets to speak out against this lowering of food standards.

Last week a new report warned that the government is sleepwalking into a post-Brexit future of insecurity, unsafe and increasingly expensive food supply.

Presenters are paid too much

From: Bob Swallow, Townhead Avenue, Settle.

The furore which has developed regarding the revelations over top salaries raise in my view three points. First there are obviously a number of grossly overpaid male presenters.

Second their female equivalents are unfairly treated salary wise and third, there are no ethnic minority people represented.

I suggest that rather than raising the licence fee the top half-dozen should have their salaries reduced to bring them into line with the woman at the same time looking very diligently at the situation with regard to non-white members of the presentation team.

My dad would have summed 
it up rather differently: ‘I wouldn’t pay then in washers’, then after a pause ‘in fact I wouldn’t pay them with the 
holes out of the centre of washers’.

Perhaps a little over the top but a sentiment doubtless felt by many readers.

From: John G Davies, East Morton, Keighley.

Like much of the media, Bill Carmichael is having a tilt at the BBC.

Is he privy to inside information regarding the pay levels and gender inequalities of comparable commercial broadcasters, like ITV and Sky?

The commercial channels appear to be able to attract presenters from the BBC, such as Susanna Reid, Sian Williams and Adrian Chiles, so presumably they are paying even more “eye-poppingly high salaries”.

This would seem to indicate that “it does operate in a 
market”.

Whether that market is “fair” or not we are not really in a position to judge.

How about The Yorkshire Post publishing the salaries of its columnists and journalists, so we can judge how equally it treats the genders?

From: Mr S Oliver, Churchill Grove, Heckmondwike.

There’s a simple solution to the dispute about pay inequality
for female presenters at the 
BBC.

What the 40 female complainants need to do, is to now apply for a gender re-assignment to identify themselves as members of the opposite sex, in line with the proposed changes to the law.

Then get the extra money with the next month’s payslip. Job done.

Gull stories are alarmist

From: Tod Bradbury, Tonbridge, Kent.

During the summer period, there are always alarmist stories of gulls “attacking” people – which inevitably lead to calls to cull them.

The holiday period coincides with the birds’ breeding season and, being such fierce defenders of their offspring, the birds may occasionally become aggressive in order to see off any perceived threat to their nest and 
children.

These “attacks” are usually exaggerated by the media and are very rare indeed.

To cull wild animals for protecting their babies is nothing short of ludicrous.

Despite this, if gulls are causing issues, there are a number of effective, humane methods of deterrence that can be used to discourage birds from nesting on flat roofs or chimneys, or from rummaging in our rubbish.

Animal Aid has free advice sheets that detail the number of humane, non-lethal methods of deterrence available.

In any case, we should show tolerance to these birds, not least because they are just being good parents, and six of the seven gull species are in decline.