Wednesday's Letters: We are a monarchy and the Prince was born to do his duty

Such letters indicate a lack of knowledge of British history. Luckily, and to the envy of the world, Britain is a fully working constitutional monarchy. By that, I mean the Queen and Royal Family work very hard indeed on behalf of the nation. As human beings, they were unfortunate to be born heirs to the throne, whether they liked it or not!

I was indeed lucky to be born British, in a free country where I was allowed to do my own thing. The Royal Family haven't that privilege – born in a gilded cage, they are heavily restricted in what they do each day.

A voracious media haunts them 24 hours a day for the slightest move or indiscretion and it sadly caused the death of Princess Diana – a lovely young woman groomed and pressurised to wed a rather naive young man, the Prince of Wales. The reason was simply to provide an heir to the throne. Their marriage, not of deep love but convenience, faded on both sides. Many ordinary people divorce or separate without a murmur, not so the Royal Family. The media relishes it into sensationalism to sell newspapers.

Dedicated at her Coronation, Queen Elizabeth aspired to be the servant of the people and I, and the rest of us, are fortunate to be the "servants" to that Queen. That is what being British means and is the core of the nation's nationality and culture.

The Prince of Wales will be King not by vote but by right of succession. He cannot escape and the public, the servants to the crown have nothing to do about it. He will make a fine King, dedicated to the nation like his mother. He is a fine man living in an uneasy world, probably bewildered when very young to find he was a member of a monarchy that administered a great empire covering most of the civilised world and seeing it convert into a Commonwealth.

If he decided not to be King, then he has to abdicate and be exiled from Britain for the rest of his life, as did his forbear Edward the Duke of Windsor.

Since those days, the nation has morally decayed into virtual anarchy, recently displayed by the rioting mobs of university students rampaging through London and even attacking the Prince of Wales's car with him and the Duchess in it! These yobs will one day be the educated elite, heaven help us.

Personally, I am dismayed and saddened that this man will come to the throne one day to preside over an ungovernable diminutive residual of a once great nation destroying itself.

From: Len Fincham, Warrels Road, Bramley, Leeds.

From: Philip Smith, New Walk, Beverley, East Yorkshire.

JUST when I thought that Cameron, Clegg & Co might actually be serious about creating a fairer Britain I see that the Windsor family is about to be granted new rights of secrecy.

Documents relating to the monarch, her heir and the second in line to the throne will no longer be disclosed even if they are in the public interest. Obviously this can only mean one thing. They have a great deal to hide from us and will have even more to hide in the future. As Ian Davidson MP and former member of the Public Accounts Committee put it: "Every time we examined Royal finances we found extravagance and expenses abuse."

These sweeping changes will dim the light that has briefly shone on the Royal finances.

How much further can the politicians who are proposing this sink? Perhaps their next trick will be to exempt themselves from much of the Freedom of Information Act. Then they can continue to swindle us out of money as they did during the expenses scandal. No wonder so few trust politicians.

MP's expense crimes were indefensible

From: David McKenna, Hall Gardens, Rawcliffe, Goole.

I WAS astonished to hear the Huddersfield MP, Barry Sheerman, stoutly defending his now convicted criminal former associate, David Chaytor, the ex-New Labour MP for Bury North, and complaining that he had been given a custodial sentence.

What does an MP have to do before his colleagues hold up their hands in disgust and say "Lock him up"?

It seems that some MPs of the likes of Sheerman, who was once a stout apologist for Tony Blair (or Bliar to those who saw through him), are still unaware or unconcerned about the behaviour of MPs of the likes of Chaytor and the reaction of the general public towards it.

To hear that Chaytor had been made "a scapegoat" was truly laughable. The man is an out- and-out thief who has been caught, and convicted, of stealing from the public purse by issuing fraudulent documents to the House of Commons in relation to his expenses.

Had I been convicted of a similar crime in my profession, there would have been no-one coming to my defence and rightly so. Pension rights would have been removed and no "relocation grant" payable. Hopefully Chaytor will spend his too-short time in prison pondering his "honest mistake" as he termed it, but I have no doubt that, like others before him, he will eventually emerge as a kind of persecuted minority in the eyes of Sheerman and his pals.

From: Beryl Williams, School Hill, Wakefield.

AS your Editorial suggested (Yorkshire Post, January 8), no, I shall not be shedding any tears now that just one MP has been imprisoned for stealing from the taxpayer.

However, I do think his punishment is entirely inappropriate. In my opinion and, I am sure, that of many, he should have been sentenced to promptly return to the public purse all that he stole times 10, instead of being allowed to lounge around for the next 18 months having all his food, accommodation, household expenses and personal security paid for by... er... the taxpayer.

From: David Woosnam, Woodrow Park, Grimsby.

SEVERAL MPs wrote character references to the court, all claiming that David Chaytor is a "man of integrity" (Yorkshire Post, January 8).

Just set their letters against the simple facts: Chaytor committed one cynical calculated fraud, after another, over a considerable period of time.

I thus cannot help but conclude that these MPs must subscribe to the old maxim that "integrity pays, but it doesn't pay enough to suit some people".

Realities of farming life

From: Mrs PZ Frankland, Hull Road, Dunnington, York.

REGARDING Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman on the cutting down and closure of the Single Farm Payment, and that more must be done for the environment by farmers (Yorkshire Post, January 6), surely she must realise the subsidy keeps most farmers and staff in business?

Who advises these people? Some of us thought that with Mrs Spelman (and farmer James Paice) we had got someone with sense at last, but no, it appears not. We arable farmers have had one good year in the last 17 years. The majority of farmers this year, 65 per cent to 70 per cent, pre-sold wheat at 100 to 120 per ton.

It is obvious to me with price increases in the shops which should never have been, we are carrying all the related ancillary supermarkets, propping up the increases in oil, fertilisers, sprays and the rest, plus increases in VAT and PAYE.

The world situation, weather wise, bodes for difficult times ahead, for example the Australian floods. Wheat and sugar will be especially affected. What about our own situation with frozen fields and water pools where none have been before with the rain compounding things? Remember our sugar beet contracts were concluded without appeal.

There will be no carry over of cereals or rape, many farmers have already pre-sold wheat and rape for 2011. Russia and all Europe are having the coldest and lower temperatures and snows in decades, as are we. We must think of tomorrow, no grain mountains now!

As for field margins and bird conservations, these are in place, courtesy of the farmer whether he be owner or tenant. Personally I am feeding fat balls, peanuts and buckets of wheat despite the price, to small birds and large, and fresh water several times a day.

What more are we expected to do? Incidentally, more than 5,000 was taken off my Single Farm Payment – which is paid back to us for "modulation" – in other words looking after the environment, which we have always done, before subsidies.

Debate heats up over boilers in the big freeze

From: H Downs, Mountbatten Avenue, Sandal, Wakefield.

MAY I thank Bill Carmichael (Yorkshire Post, January 7) for reporting on the efficiency of condensing boilers. My son and several of my friends have been forced/conned into installing these boilers and have had nothing but troubles requiring the attendance of an heating engineer for the reasons stated.

I have had an old traditional boiler for the past 25 years. It has been serviced annually via one of the major energy providers and in several instances the servicing engineer has advised me to hang on to it for as long as possible due to the reasons set out in Bill Carmichael's article.

However, following the servicing, I have on numerous occasions, recieved letters from the energy supplier suggesting that I install a new type boiler due to reasons such as the higher risk of carbon monoxide poisoning or efficiency/running costs. It makes you wonder as to why MPs get involved in such promotions.

From: John B Taylor, Kirkheaton.

I READ the article by Bill Carmichael and believe it misses the point completely. Condensing boilers do not break down in cold weather – the problem is that the condensate pipe freezes and therefore the boiler trips out on safety grounds.

As soon as you clear the blockage from the condensate pipe, the boiler will restart without hesitation. Four of my friends have had this problem during Christmas week, all with different makes of boiler.

Looking at their boiler manuals, they all emphasise that there is a minimum slope for the pipe-work and that this pipe-work should be insulated.

I was, therefore, interested to find that none had been installed as recommended by the manufacturers. None had insulation and all had horizontal pipe-work at least two metres long; It does not need a degree to work out the consequence.

So we should not blame the Government or the boiler manufacturer; it is those who installed them. Fortunately when our own condensing boiler was installed our plumber installed the condensate pipe-work inside the house and guess what? We have never had a problem.

From: Ian Hamer, Longroyde Grove, Brighouse.

I USUALLY agree with all Bill Carmichael writes, but he is way off beam with the tirade about condensing boilers. I suspect,that those boilers having problems in sub-zero weather have been installed with no insulation on external condensate drains.

Is this a short cut too many by installers, or a ruse to generate winter bonuses?

Two for less than the price of one

From: Hugh Lorimer, Ben Rhydding.

TOM Richmond thinks it is daft getting two tickets from Guiseley to York (Yorkshire Post, January 8). Try getting the early morning train to London. Full (anytime return) fare from Leeds to London is 239. Get an off peak return (valid all day) from Leeds to Peterborough (63) and an anytime return from Peterborough to London (94) and you save 82. There is no need to get off – most trains stop at Peterborough.

From: Peter MacDonald, Cold Bath Road, Harrogate.

THE cost of a so-called bargain off peak return from Harrogate to Leeds has just risen to 7.20, in return for which passengers have to endure antiquated diesel-powered trains and frequent delays in bad weather. How can such a high price be justified for such a poor service?

Long cold wait for engineer

From: Eric Nothers, Willow Garth, Pollington, Goole.

HEARD the one about the 85-year old diabetic crippled with arthritis left without heating by British Gas for 22 hours despite paying 300 a year insurance? The only help we got was from a friend of mine, on the internet. Yet when the engineer finally arrived, it was to tell me that the office had been attending a call two minutes walk away but no-one thought to inform him about our phone call. So much for moving the offices from Leeds to Glasgow.

Safety check

From: DM Loxley, Hartoft, Pickering, North Yorkshire.

A STUDY by researchers at Newcastle University that suggests taking away kerbs could make roads safer strikes me as being founded on a false premise. Safer for whom? If such unwise drivers are considered to be conscious risk takers, then they surely do not see, consider or recognise hazards of any kind.