Letters to the Editor

SIR - If Graham Hoyle doesn't want religion imposed on the young (Letters, December 16), and if he wishes to protect children from improper advances that they are ill-equipped to resist, he would be better attacking the endless commercial exploitation to which they are subjected.

How about banning the preaching of the gospels of Bob the Builder and Thomas the Tank Engine?

On a more serious note, religions are the only organisations willing to teach youngsters the moral values that are essential if we are to maintain a civilised society. I have seen little evidence of any effective secular instruction in morality.

How else are they to defend themselves from paedophile pressure groups who want them to experiment with sex at a younger and younger age and to lower the age of legal consent?

Before considering any restriction on religious indoctrination, look to banning all advertising aimed at the young and make it an offence to brainwash tiny children into pop culture before they are out of nappies.

Give back to our youth the joy and innocence that has been stolen from them.

Peter Bolton, Gordon Terrace, Idle.

Christian history

SIR - Chris Hall asks "Since when was Christianity a native custom and religion in England?" (Letters, December 19). The answer is: at least from about the time of Alfred the Great, who died in 899.

Druidic and "folk" religions were being practised when Christianity first arrived on these shores, but none were England-wide, as Christianity became. It certainly has been a nationwide, native religion for at least a millennium - but sadly not now.

Yes, it did originate in the Middle East - Jesus Christ was an Asian - but after his death it spread rapidly; it is now worldwide. And yes, it did spring from Judaic stock and law.

But no it certainly is not inextricably linked to Islam, for that appeared 600 years later. There is very little similarity between the two doctrines.

No, Mr Hall, we do not forget that Jesus was born king of the Jews, after all it's Christmastide now - or did you forget?

Walter Metcalfe, Central Avenue, Shipley.

Secrecy is wrong

SIR - Bradford Labour leader Councillor Ian Greenwood is right to be furious that the decision to pay an extra £2 million to the highways contractor, Atmos, was made by the Council's Executive Committee in secret (T&A, December 19). He is also right to be "outraged" that he would be breaking the Councillors' Code of Conduct if he was to divulge what happened and so could be disqualified as a councillor for a lengthy period.

This sort of secrecy is just what brings local and national government into such disrepute. Surely a councillor's first priority is to the public and, when it is their money being spent, they have a right to know.

At the last Council meeting on December 9 the Green Group put forward a motion to amend the code to include a new line that a member must "have regard to the interests of the whole community". Coun Greenwood led his party to vote against this and, therefore, in favour of continuing the current secrecy. Along with the Tories, they voted not to even allow any debate.

To claim now that the code imposes a gag is surely an admission he was wrong just a week earlier.

Councillor Martin Love (Shipley West, Green Party), Farfield Road, Shipley

Language excuse

SIR - I accuse the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams, of being a politically correct hypocritical Christian, when he says we are alienating the Muslim inhabitants of this country by not doing enough to help them.

We have had millions come to this country from all over the world and been treated fairly. But never until the Muslims came have we had to have forms, noticeboards and school signs written out in six Asian languages, and also had to provide interpreters at the courts, doctors, and hospitals.

We had immigrants from all over the world previously and they have learned English.

The Government should have made it a criterior from the beginning. Many (but not all) these people don't really want to integrate and are just using the language as an excuse.

N Brown, Peterborough Place, Undercliffe.

Enforce the law

SIR - Your newspaper recently ran an article seeking the most abused bus stop in Bradford, owing to the nuisance of illegally parked cars. Such parking is illegal, anti-social, arrogant, lazy and dangerous.

However, the ever-increasing police patrol-car drive-by policy permits these arrogant parkers to laugh at us all. There is little point in the bus company providing up-to-the-minute low-floor buses when access to the kerb is denied by parked cars.

Could I suggest to our local police chief to look toward the New York zero-tolerance policy, which started with very simple aims, basically to actually enforce the law?

Officers based within patrol cars appear to work to what I could call "menu policing" - they are given an assignment and anything that comes up to sidetrack this isn't allowed to. The blinkers are on and hence the "drive-by" perception.

But how about stopping the police car and telling the offending driver to "move it". If the offending driver is not around put a legal notice on the windscreen to say "move it". Actually do something and enforce the law.

I respect the valuable work of the wardens etc but a police uniform is more effective if it is used as it should be.

John Murphy, Rock Terrace, Manningham.

Futility of terror

SIR - The capture of Saddam Hussein, the despot, has created a hotbed of speculation. Of special concern is the future conduct of his terrorist supporters.

Many feel the capture of their leader will provoke diehard terrorists into wreaking ever more horrific reprisals. But Saddam's most fanatically ardent followers should note the conduct of the man himself at the moment of truth.

Not for him the epic stand or falling upon the sword after a heroic show of courageous conduct, so his followers would forever be reminded of how deeply the man so many have been martyring themselves for believed in whatever cause it is they feel theymust be prepared to die for.

Perhaps the fact that Saddam is still alive and unharmed is even now gnawing at the minds of his acolytes. Let us pray this might be so, for in his last act as leader was laid bare the true futility of those who would still persist in indiscriminately attacking innocent citizens of Iraq.

My earnest hope and prayer is that reason will prevail and even the most hardened of terrorists will come to consider himself cheated.

K Clayton, Woodside Court, Egglesfield Drive, Woodside, Bradford.

Paws for thought

SIR - Doesn't it make you wonder about dog owners after a six-year-old boy was mauled by a Rottweiler-Staffordshire Bull Terrier (T&A, December 22)?

The dog's owner said: "It's never bitten anyone before; I had no reason to think it could do this." That's like saying they didn't think a fire could possibly burn anyone. Both have the capacity to cause severe damage.

There are two phrases that should be permanently linked in the lexicon of doggy people; they are: "It's okay; it won't bite" and "Oh! Sorry; it's never done that before."

That's what they always say after the biting has been done and your face is hanging off.

Eric Naylor, Green Lane, Bradford