Drink sales to drunks are against law

CHRIS McDade (Yorkshire Post, September 28) raises a valid point in his comments about dealing with “drunken revellers” and suggesting that a few prosecutions of licensees who break the law would act as a deterrent.

According to a Commons written answer to Diane 
Abbott MP, in the last five 
years where figures are available (2007 to 2011) 47 defendants were proceeded against – as few as only three in 2010 – for selling alcohol to people who were or appeared to be drunk.

I would have thought that with a determined effort 47 prosecutions in one night 
would not be impossible in 
any UK city, especially on a Friday or Saturday night.

This makes the constant lobbying by the police and 
others to introduce minimum unit pricing or to restrict 
the sale of high strength 
products somewhat pointless when they already have existing powers to tackle drunken behaviour.

Church lacks authority

From: Martin D. Stern, Hanover Gardens, Salford.

JACK Brown (Yorkshire Post, October 2) asks “If the Anglican Church believes in God, 
why can’t it behave as if 
it does?”

This reminds me of the old joke that the Church of England has replaced the “Ten Commandments” with “Ten Suggestions”.

While he opines that this dates back to “circa 500 AD, [when] 
the substitution of bread ­ which itself became too expensive ­ and wine for the charitable meal (agape) was the first economic heresy”.

It goes back far further to 
when the Church acquired 
power in the fourth century 
and chose to celebrate Sunday 
as the day of rest and worship 
in an attempt to distance itself from Judaism and, specifically, to avoid the detailed Biblical restrictions on work on the Sabbath.

However it is certainly true that the “Church of England must act to regain moral authority” or it will become increasingly irrelevant to life in the 21st century.

No concern 
for education

From: Colin Cawthray, Stowe Garth, Bridlington, East Yorkshire.

I AM rather confused by a claim made by Patrick Murphy, Leeds branch secretary of the NUT (Yorkshire Post, October 1).

He claims “that teachers striking are making a stand for education”.

Then a couple of paragraphs later, we are told that the strike is an ongoing dispute about teachers’ pensions.

Nothing at all to do with educating children.

Really what it all boils down to is a group of left wing union leaders who are only interested in confrontation with the Government for their own political ends.

Opportunity for post staff

From: Nigel F Boddy, Fife Road, Darlington, County Durham.

THIS Government is allocating just 10 per cent of the shares in the Royal Mail to post office workers. I consider this to be a great pity. I am sorry they have not been allocated 100 per cent of the shares. For the next few days we can all put things right.

Until October 8, we can all still act together and play the Government at its own game. If we all apply for the minimum allocation of shares, with the intention of donating these shares at say one pence each to the postal unions, we can still set up a workers’ co-operative.

I consider the idea well worth donating 750 shares to the union.

I would ask the Communication Workers Union to set up a website, so people like me can register as willing to hand our share allocation over to them.

If we manage to secure a controlling interest for the union, they may be able to remove the big city investors from the Royal Mail altogether through a share buy back scheme. Such moves are common in the City.

Waste in 
high places

From: Robert Bottamley, Thorn Road, Hedon.

YOUR newspaper kindly published my letter (Yorkshire Post, September 19) considering spurious attempts to justify enormous payments offered to senior managers: first, in order to attract the best candidates; then to retain them; finally to get rid of them when they prove less than satisfactory.

Less than a week later, you report how Hull City Council paid its former chief executive, Nicola Yates, £242,677 as compensation for her dismissal – (“Dismay at 250,000 council pay-off for chief executive in mystery exit”).

You also explained how the former Hull officer has moved 
to a similar position with 
another local authority, as so many redundant senior managers do.

In this way (as stated in my original letter) the same process of golden handshakes, bonuses, salary increases and golden goodbyes is repeated over and over again.

When it comes to this kind of fiasco, Hull City Council – specifically a Labour-controlled Hull City Council – has “form”.

Those responsible for this repeat performance add 
insult to injury by refusing to provide any information 
to the residents whose money they squander in order to 
secure its former employee’s silence.

When approached for 
further details, Hull City 
Council will say only that Ms Yates is now no longer an employee of the authority and that, therefore, it would be inappropriate for them to comment.

This childish evasion comes, of course, from very same people who insisted previously that it would be inappropriate to comment, because she was an employee!

As Hull City Council plots to make employees redundant 
from front-line services, considerable outrage mounts over this revelation – and understandably so.

Some time, soon, someone will ask: “How many more times can we expect this kind of thing to happen?”

And the answer has to be, I’m afraid: “As often as we’re prepared to allow it to happen.”