Violence is no way to teach respect

MIGHT I suggest that GP Taylor fully deserves to have more than a fatty ham and mayonnaise sandwich thrown at him for perpetuating such archaic views in his Saturday Essay (Yorkshire Post, March 3)?

If we change but one word in the title, so it becomes, “Women need the firm smack of discipline to teach them respect”, the anachronistic nature of his view immediately becomes apparent. There are individuals and, indeed, cultures where this view is held, but in the UK today it should be clear that violence of any sort against any person, whatever their age, is unacceptable.

Conservatives have always been ones for the carrot and the stick; the problem of the stick is that one can get hold of the wrong end, literally as well as metaphorically.

The implicit message that corporal punishment gives is that it is acceptable to use violence against someone who does not do what you want them to do.

As human beings, we are all fallible, some of us take longer to learn, some parents have less idea than others how to raise their children so that they become fully integrated into society.

Again, might I suggest that less cane and more interventions like Sure Start and Montessori-style approaches that help to develop and socialise the child would produce better results?

Heart ops consultation

From: Jeremy Glyde, Programme Director, Safe and Sustainable, Southside, Victoria Street, London.

REGARDING your article “‘More pressure needed’ on chiefs over children’s heart services” (Yorkshire Post, March 2), the Independent Reconfiguration Panel’s external assessment shows that the NHS consulted appropriately with the Yorkshire and Humber Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee. This is a complex national review and therefore we provided all overview and scrutiny bodies seven months to consider the proposals and to provide their feedback.

The IRP has advised that an independent report on family travel analysis should have been published at an earlier stage. The reason for not doing so was that the report was not available at the time but it was always our intention that the report, which we published in October 2011, would be considered by decision makers in full.

We invite comments with regard to this report by April 16 so that they can be considered.

Playing God on marriage

From: Fr Neil McNicholas, St Hilda’s, Whitby.

JAYNE Dowle has nothing to worry about (Yorkshire Post, March 5). If David Cameron has his way with his so-called consultation on the legal definition of marriage, the Government will be paying out a small fortune (which it doesn’t have) in married persons’ tax allowances to all in sundry and in every possible combination thereof.

Clearly playing at being leader of the Government isn’t good enough for Mr Cameron; he now wants to play God. He has absolutely no moral authority – and wasn’t elected to assume such – to redefine marriage and its purpose. As a basic definition in the Oxford Dictionary, marriage is: “the formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife”.

Mr Cameron may find it easy to disregard the Oxford Dictionary, but he shouldn’t find it quite so easy – in law or in conscience – to disregard the Church’s long-established definition and understanding.

Wet-nursing the South

From: Richard Billups, East Avenue, Rawmarsh, Rotherham.

THE South East has everything: Buckingham Palace, Houses of Parliament, opera, ballet, the Olympics, Wembley, theatres, Wimbledon – the list is endless, until you come to water.

All that planning and somebody forgot that with all that urban sprawl you need water – “watter”, as we Yorkies say.

At the rate the South East is drying up, the University Boat Race will have to be contested on the Ouse or one of the many rivers we have up here – that’s planning for you.

We’ve got more rivers and “gooduns” at that than most, and countryside to go with ‘em.

We’ve sent them coal and brains for donkey’s years and now it looks like we will be wet nursing them again with good clean Yorkshire H2O.

While we are at it, we might as well send them some Yorkshire teabags – it’ll be better than that dish watter you get down there.

No demand for mayors

From: Don Burslam, Elm Road, Dewsbury Moor, Dewsbury.

THE proposal for elected mayors has rightly attracted little interest in Yorkshire. The example of Doncaster and elsewhere has hardly been a good advert for this idea which like many others, has been copied from other countries without being thought through.

We already have elected (and highly-paid) councillors to run things. Do we really need another highly-paid tsar who would either be superfluous or in constant conflict with the councillors?

May I make a plea to all politicians to think very carefully before creating yet another quango, committee, watchdog or tsar?

They should ask themselves this. Is it just another gimmick or for the sake of being seen to be doing something? If the answer to that is yes, then an incredible amount could be saved by doing nothing.