CHRIS Moncrieff, in the latest instalment of his diatribe against the Liberal Democrats, now attacks David Laws for criticising George Osborne’s economic policies (The Yorkshire Post, January 1).
Moncrieff attacks Laws because of his “expenses scandal” involvement but without pointing out that his actions brought him a lower amount of expenses than if he had claimed legitimately. Of course Laws should not have broken the rules, and certainly his desire to avoid drawing attention to his gay partner was – as was subsequently shown –unnecessary, but at least his wrong doing was unique in costing him money.
I do not mind Chris Moncrieff becoming a grumpy old man but his grumpiness should at least be evenhanded.
Sir Bernard’s shallow rant
From: Dr JB Davis, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.
YOUR December 24 issue carried two items on the serious impact of climate change, which is leading to damaging temperature rise and effects on sea level and acidity, and on local foods (for info the rhubarb and mussels items).
Also you headline the job-creating importance of the upcoming CCS technology which will allow us to have coal-fired power stations free of CO2 emissions.
And yet Sir Bernard Ingham, strong on rant and sarcasm but apparently weak on science, is dismissive of the UN’s attempts to control these damaging emissions for the sake of future generations. His misleading use of the infamous “18-year” statistic is indicative of the shallowness of his arguments: it’s amazing what you can – apparently – demonstrate by careful selection of statistics while in this case ignoring the effect of ocean currents. In this case the impact of the “El Nino” Pacific Ocean current.
Instead of uninformed naysayers, we need global cooperation to head of what could be a major problem for humanity – and the longer we leave it, the worse the likely eventual problem.
Cruel to be kind in A&E
From: Bob Swallow, Townhead Avenue, Settle.
I READ with interest Peter Hyde’s letter (The Yorkshire Post, December 29). He appears to make a very sensible suggestion, namely to ensure that those who get legless and as a result clog up A&E departments nationwide should pay for their transportation and recuperation.
I would go a stage further advocating a £500 fine for a first offence, £1,000 for a second and a week behind bars for any subsequent lapse, the fines to be split between the relevant police authority and the hospital involved.
Lets face it, this is not just a matter of some poor soul clearing up the vomit. It is a major problem for the future when these same individuals return to A&E in years to come with acute kidney and other organ failures. The problem needs tackling now.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. This, I suggest, is a case in point.
We can all help homeless
From: Fiona Lemmon, Maltby, Rotherham.
I REFER to John Street’s letter (The Yorkshire Post, January 2) wherein he states that he feels there is nothing he can do to change things for homeless people. There is much we can all do in our own small way. Volunteering and/or buying merchandise in a Shelter charity shop is an opportunity to raise valuable funds for a national cause.
Local libraries, churches and the internet are valuable sources of information about local projects for the homeless. The long-running Archer Project at Sheffield Cathedral does great work for the homeless including its current Rucksack Project.
By purchasing The Big Issue, which I understand is the largest social enterprise in the UK, we can support the homeless. John was obviously very moved by the picture to which he refers so I hope my comments will spur him and other similarly affected readers on to finding an appropriate opportunity to make a positive contribution to homeless services.
Euthanasia and its costs
From: Chris Schorah, Leeds.
BECAUSE none of the problems of assisted suicide are addressed by Jayne Dowle’s rather one-sided article (The Yorkshire Post, January 1), one is tempted to respond with some of the difficulties and dangers.
However, I fear that the case against euthanasia is already being overwhelmed by propaganda and emotion. This is not because the arguments against are insubstantial but because the dominant philosophy of the age prevents them being heard.
We live in a culture where the individual is god and our freedoms, sexual passions and personal choices are to be championed over those of society as a whole, whatever the long term cost. It’s an attitude that is at very heart of original sin and the licence it encourages may well destroy us.