Counting the cost of everything

From: Mr V Platt, Hereford Court, Harrogate.

BEING retired for 20 years and having nothing better to do I have devised a little pastime which makes me angry and frustrated. We give to the EU £8.8m per hour (Office of National Statistics) which equals £146,999 per minute and £2,441.65 per second.

Then, I fantasise: if we didn’t give that money to the EU what could we use it for here in Yorkshire? Well, I have one or two ideas.

1. Sheffield’s new stadium £40m = 4½ hours.

2. One IVF treatment £3,000 = approximately 1¼ seconds.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

3. Five handbikes for disabled children £10,000 = 4 seconds.

4. Selby Cathedral organ restoration £500,000 = 3½ minutes.

5. Hospital bill for Adam Pickles in a coma in Thailand £130,000 = less than a minute.

6. For Miss Tala Lee Thompson from Barnsley: her costs for one year at the Bolshoi Ballet £20,000 = 8 seconds.

7. The disgraceful plight of Second World War night fighter pilot Wing Commander Bransome Arthur Burbridge, with confirmed 21 killed and four shot down in one sortie, now aged 92. His family have had to sell the medals of this modest, lovely man to pay for his care home fees which could have been paid for from a few seconds of EU contributions.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Those that run our country should be ashamed of themselves. That’s what makes me angry. No doubt Yorkshire Post readers can think of many more instances of where all this money could go.

My frustration comes from the fact that nobody except Ukip seems to care about our people or what’s happening to Britain. One man I was speaking to recently told me: “I don’t care who rules us, as long as I get my beer”.

I am 85 now and sad to say that I can’t wait for the day I’m called to go back home from this once great land. But it is now a shambles, where we are forbidden to say what we are thinking, or to take pride in our past. We are now a laughing stock among nations which hate us, but, strangely enough, everyone wants to come and live here.

A curse on all politicians.

From: Jeff Thomas, Strait Lane, Huby, Near Leeds.

YET again, North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) is proposing extensive cuts to subsidise bus services and social care. These cost-cutting measures are unacceptable. No doubt extensive public consultations will take place and as usual the council will say it has listened, but has no choice but to implement its proposals. What a complete charade!

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

NYCC’s directors need to take a long, hard look at themselves. Why is it they always attack social care and public transport, which for the most part is directly aimed at the group of people who are least able to stand up for themselves? I will put a proposal to the directors: reduce your salaries, bonuses and allowances, by 10 per cent year on year for the next three years and eliminate a third of all meetings and likewise rationalise the number of council committees. This would be a good start!

From: Trev Bromby, Sculcoates Lane, Hull.

EVERY day we are fed indigestible “facts” from researchers – who cares, and who pays them?

My recent research has discovered that the proverbial blue-posteriored fly does not rush around with any greater speed or alacrity than its drabber coloured counterparts.

An even more annoying research “reveals” that only one in 10 of us (according to the Charities Aid Foundation) gives to charity. Well, I have some news for these people.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Give Away Dave” donates billions to countries around the world from tax collected off everyone in Britain, be it through earnings, alcohol, tobacco, petrol, VAT etc – whether they like it or not.

When you are asking for a donation, you ask for favour, an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual – not an obligation!

So, in conclusion most research is frivolous, mind-numbing and pointless in its findings.

The findings of CAF I found rude, intrusive and inaccurate. After tax, we have nothing left.

Landscape development

From: Arthur Quarmby, Underhill, Holme.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

STEVE Hesmondhalgh may be a planning consultant (Yorkshire Post, September 17), but I do wonder when he last looked at farm buildings.

These nowadays resemble industrial units rather than farms, with big white sheds, silos, stacks of roly-polies and masses of machinery.

One part of his argument (that government is right to encourage the conversion of old farm buildings into housing) is not unreasonable because old farm buildings were not conceived to cope with modern machinery or agricultural practices.

However, carry his preferred concept forward and farmers with old buildings will sell up to developers and then apply to build new white industrial-shed farms somewhere else. They will not be able to stay and work (with all the muck and noise which even modern farming generates) close to the newly-converted housing.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Has government thought so far ahead? Will its advisers be happy to see (and perhaps free from planning controls) the new industrial-standard farms?

Finally, who is going to provide the necessary subsidy to make these conversions “affordable”? Why would the developer give up his profit?

Why should the wider community be required to provide subsidies?

And, with modern farming having shed nearly all its labour, why would the less-well-to-do wish to live out in the country, well away from any sources of employment?

School meal gimmick

From: Tim Mickleburgh, Boulevard Avenue, Grimsby.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

GIVEN the desire to cut welfare, it is natural to try and ensure that help goes to those who really need it. Which is why Child Benefit has been axed for high earners.

I can’t therefore understand the reasoning behind the planned £600m introduction of free school meals for all children of infant age, regardless of their parents’ wealth. It seems to me a Blair-type gimmick, which once again forgets the fact that people choose to give birth in these days of widely available contraception.

Related topics: