Letters to the Editor

SIR - Gordon Bradley boobs again. Nearly everything he states is speculative and inaccurate.

Firstly, I did not contradict myself. Fibre-optic cables carry information transmitted out of Menwith Hill. Internal communications between the administrative offices used to be via hand carried paper messages.

Nowadays the US National Security Agency relies more on securely encrypted electronic local area networks.

Nor did we root in dustbins. Nor were all classified documents burned. The one incinerator, on the HQ Building, was then too small to cope with the volume of paper. It clogged and created serious pollution problems. They now have a bigger incinerator and have Invested in fine shredders.

The sensitivity of the material we discovered was a major breach of Menwith Hill's security. The chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, Denis Deconcini, was interviewed about it on ABC TV, in a news bulletin entitled; 'The British Grandmother as Intelligence Agent'.

He famously told 16 million viewers in the US: "If grandmothers can do this, what can the professionals do?"

Gordon's concept of war dates from the Crimean era. Modern warfare is no longer two armies confronting each other; it is murder of a maximum number of innocent civilians, mainly women and children, with cluster bombs and 'Daisy Cutters'.

It is hypocrisy to condemn Saddam Hussein's wars without admitting that Maggie's Government supplied him with the weapons. She beat a hasty retreat from office when he invaded Kuwait. It saved her the embarrassing possibility that 'our' weapons would be used to kill' our boys.

When is a war not a war? When it is illegal in International Law. Those who are invading Iraq and killing its people cannot be indicted for war crimes if they call it 'liberation' not 'war'.

I agree with Gordon Bradley! The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This is why we are watching Menwith Hill closely - very, very closely.

Anne Lee

Womenwith Hill Womens

Peace Campaign

P.O.Box 105,

Harrogate.

No separation

SIR, - So Labour councillor Neil Taggart believes Bramhope, Pool and Arthington should be separated from Otley because otherwise there would be a danger of other communities being split.

In saying that he is happy to ignore the fact that all three parish councils take strong exception to Labour's proposals and, though he won't be aware of it, Otley people themselves overwhelmingly object to the idea of an Otley and Yeadon ward. It is pretty arrogant of him not to have consulted with Otley people who account for two-thirds of the Otley and Wharfedale ward.

True he sent his Labour cronies on the town council a three-line whip instructing them to pass the appropriate supporting resolution last year. They duly rubber-stamped the proposals and that's how the Labour Party operates. Unlike the Labour Party, Otley Conservatives have taken the trouble to establish the views of Otley people via a survey to virtually every house in the town. We had more than 1,100 responses to date and 94 per cent of those expressing a view said they wanted a ward linked with Bramhope, Pool and Arthington.

The balance of just six per cent were content to see an Otley and Yeadon ward.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from this. Firstly, virtually everyone living in the ward is opposed to Labour's electoral engineering. There is a strong wish to preserve their historic Wharfe Valley ties, whereas there is no connection between Otley and Yeadon. Secondly, with both the Labour and Liberal Parties intent on expelling Bramhope from the ward the question has to be asked what on earth would the point be of anyone living there voting for either party ?

After all, the candidates' only concern is to get rid of Bramhope as soon as possible. Quite simply they want your vote but they don't want you, and Pool residents may similarly reflect that voting for Labour would be like the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas.

Coun Clive Fox

99 Breary Lane East,

Bramhope.

Coming up roses?

SIR, - According to Labour election leaflets, everything in Wharfedale is coming up roses and this is attributable, only to the Labour Party. If Labour touches a success, they claim credit for it, whether or not they actually did anything.

There are many things they would rather you not know. For example, the Otley Labour Party in general, and Councillors Ray Dunn and John Eveleigh in particular, support the means tested charges of services to elderly and disabled people approved by Leeds City Labour controlled Council in its recent budget.

Coun Dunn supports the cost and bureaucracy to administer means testing. He supports the expenditure of £700,000 and the employment of 19 extra Social Services staff to carry out this discriminatory policy. He supports the interrogation of 14,000 elderly and disabled people, and approves of means testing pensions, occupational pensions and non-means tested benefits.

Councillor Dunn calls me arrogant for campaigning against social injustice. He would like me to ask for help, for basic human rights with begging bowl servility. He criticises me for referring to the Prime Minister as Blair and not 'Mr' Blair.

If this is the calibre and small mindedness of our town councillors, it is no wonder Otley is in such a mess. Before Leeds City Council passed its means testing proposals in the budget proposal, I wrote to Councillor Eveleigh, as king for his support and help.

It was not until after the policy had been passed that I was contacted, by which time, it was too late. Councillor Eveleigh told me he considered himself a socialist, but in the same conversation said he approved of means testing elderly and disabled people. It is clear the Labour Party has spun that much, even its own members are confused on what the Labour Party stands for.

Apart from the integrity of individual candidates in the May elections, the public should also remember local elections cannot be separated from national politics. A vote given to any Labour Party candidate, no matter how good he may be, is a vote given to the Blair Government and all his discriminatory and hypocritical policies.

Malcolm Naylor

21 Grange View,

Otley.

UNICEF thanks

SIR, - May we use the columns of our local newspaper to express our thanks to the people of Guiseley and this area who contributed to the Easter event at Guiseley Methodist Church recently in aid of the work UNICEF is doing to give the children of war-torn Iraq the chance of a new life.

As well as having the opportunity to meet other people and feast on hot-cross buns and chocolate nests, the excellent sum of £1,275 was contributed. If others would like the opportunity to do something positive about an horrendous situation, donations to UNICEF may still be made through most banks.

Our grateful thanks also to all who helped organise the event and deliver leaflets.

Elizabeth and Arthur Hoyle

13 Shaw Lane Gardens,

Guiseley.

Threat to chemists

SIR, - With reference to your publication dated April 10, opposing the process of deregulation by the Office of Fair Trading so that others such as large supermarket groups will in the future be able to open dispensing pharmacy if they wish. I entirely agree that this should meet very stiff opposition from all to preserve the excellent local services currently being provided close to the doctors' surgery premises in the local community.

Deregulation means closure of some of our 160 high street pharmacists who currently work in the community, not just by dispensing drugs and appliances, but also providing some very valuable services as confidential information on contraceptives, minor illnesses such as sickness/diarrhoea, and, most importantly, training future pharmacists and medical students.

We have an extremely close working relationship with these professionals even though they are our 'unsung heroes'. Closure means more charity shops or building society offices that we do not want on our high streets. The supermarket groups no doubt have a keen interest in this idea as they will make lofty profits from cheaper imports selling drugs in the UK at a fraction of its original price. Therefore we oppose, oppose and oppose more.

Coun Dr Makhan Thakur

(Con, Aireborough),

Majentta Farm,

Mall Lane,

East Carlton.

History rewritten

SIR, - You report that Councillor Graham Latty was annoyed at the number of houses being built on the site of Rhodes Banksfield Dyeworks.

I find this amazing. I know that local MP Paul Truswell objected to the then planning application along with others in the community.

Councillor Latty sat on the council at the time and he did not submit an objection. If he had influence he certainly didn't use it with Tory members of the planning panel because the planning panel accepted the final application without a vote.

Come on, Mr Latty, you had your chance to object to the application and didn't. Don't try to rewrite history.

Mike King

Renton Avenue,

Guiseley.

Otley blooming

SIR, - Having recently joined the Otley in Bloom group, I had the pleasure of accompanying the judges on their tour of the town on Thursday, April 10.

Although the weather was cold and overcast, everywhere along the route looked lovely. The competition has been a catalyst for more projects than I ever imagined. Local people and Leeds City Council have put much more effort into improving the town's environment.

As a group, we have several more projects in the pipeline and I look forward to being involved.

Linda Massarella

4 Garnett Villas,

North Avenue,

Otley.

The Shambles

SIR, - Now that the members of the public are suggesting names for roadways in the proposed High Royds estate, what about adding The Shambles for the A65, for, surely, that is what it will become given the substantial increase in traffic which the development will engender?

Gerald Myers

6 Moorway,

Tranmere Park,

Guiseley.

Let's hear it for heavy lorries!

SIR, As things stand, pedestrians, including the older ones such as myself, generally have little difficulty in crossing the town centre roads in Otley because the traffic moves slowly, if at all.

This happy state of affairs is due to the presence of heavy lorries. Banning them would leave the roads free for the hooray-henrys in their souped-up, CD-playing Minis, and the young, always in a hurry, mothers transporting their apparently legless children to and from school in their 4x4s to tear around at speed at our peril.

The building of an eastern by-pass would have the same consequence. So, let's keep our lorries and forget about the bypass. If this results in motorists having to sit fuming in traffic jams, the solution is in their hands. Take the bus.

V G Heffer

18, St David's Road,

Otley.