Why Horsforth needs police parity

Councillor Fox did not even attend the meeting of the Police Forum, so much for the Conservatives being interested in Horsforth, or Otley for that matter. Instead he either quotes from the newspaper or listens to 'Chinese whispers'.

To put the record straight I list below certain facts and figures presented by the police at the meeting. These figures are for the period April to September, 2001.

Burglary Dwelling: Otley 44, Horsforth 155

Theft of Vehicles: Otley 41, Horsforth 149

Theft from Vehicles: Otley 94, Horsforth 254

Robbery: Otley 6, Horsforth 20.

What was demanded from the police was that these two areas, both similar in character and population, should be treat equally. In Otley there is a police station and we have continually asked that the Horsforth Police station be reopened.

One reason is that the police officers who are changing duty can at least be seen entering and leaving the station and not as the previous arrangement whereby Horsforth officers were based at Otley station.

If you are saying, Councillor Fox, that in the Conservatives' opinion the people of Horsforth should not be asking for parity, then it is little wonder that the electorate of Horsforth have no faith in your party, but are more than happy for Liberal Democrats to continue fighting for our rights.

Coun A Barker

Liberal Democrat,

1 Broadgate Rise,

Horsforth.

Pavement trouble

SIR, - Are Otley pavements no longer the right of way for pedestrians?

I pose this question because, over the past few months I have seriously begun to doubt whether they do. During this summer a lorry was parked on the pavement on Leeds Road leaving only space for one person to pass. Being alone, I managed this all right but a woman with a pram would have had to go out on to a busy main road. It was there practically all day, but was removed when I phoned the company who owned it.

More recently there has been some work done on the old Telephone Exchange on Charles Street. Here again the builder's lorry not only took up the whole of the pavement but had placed a board from lorry to wall to facilitate their work.

All right, this is supposedly a fairly quiet street. However, last week there was some scaffolding being removed from a house opposite The Yeoman Public House. Once again the lorry that was being loaded up was across the pavement and it was very difficult for a single person to get through, with bramble hedge on one side and the lorry on the other,

"Sorry about this luv," said one of the two workers, "but we can't park on the road" (actually if he had known the highway code he would have seen that there was a dotted line on the road that allowed him to park).

I replied that I was under the impression that he was not allowed to park on the pavement. He assured me that they were and went back to his partner who told me I should have crossed over the road - to give the first man his due he did say "No she shouldn't".

A couple of days later I came across the same lorry parked in the same position, but this time they had made sure that there was a pile of steel girders and planks blocking the rest of the pavement - I took the line of least resistance and walked on the road. Am I getting well trained?

Finally, last Sunday a friend and I were walking back from Smith's Garden Centre when we heard some cyclists coming up behind us. They tooted, rang their bells and told us to move out of the way or they'd knock us down - this was the last straw and I kept on walking, I did not move out of their way.

I thought I'm afraid I've had enough, you will have to knock me down - they didn't but came as close to us as they dared and, shouting and making rude gestures, went on their way. They were not small boys but a least 15 or 16, probably older.

Disgruntled elderly pedestrian

Name and address supplied.

Need to reply

SIR, - It is with some misgiving that I need to reply to Mr Naylor's last letter to your comment section (A war conducted without reference). I have no desire for my original letter dated October 14, to develop into some interminable correspondence.

I reiterate what I said then, as to Mr Naylor's statement that Mr Blair and Mr Bush are the two main beneficiaries of the events that took place on September 11, in America. I said this statement beggars belief and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Mr Naylor now extends his theory, and far from retracting his statement that they are now more powerful than they have ever been, he further states war is and always has been the life blood of politicians in difficulty. The difficulty that you so blithely refer to Mr Naylor was the event of September 11. Further on in your letter, Mr Naylor, you state that a declaration of war allows leaders to act unlawfully, execute innocent people without trial and restrict freedom and information. You appear to ignore the existence of the war crimes commission now sitting in judgment of Mr Milosovic.

Mr Naylor makes little reference to the thousands of lives lost in the twin towers when people, totally innocent and of all creeds and nationalities, including passengers and crew of the aircraft who suffered much fear before the aircraft struck, also the 300 firemen and families affected.

Mr Naylor then goes to say that I should say if I approve of the bombing of Red Cross warehouses, shepherds, villages hospitals and schools. Can this really be a serious question?

If so, words fail me for an answer to this one. It may interest you to know in the Sunday Telegraph the 4th of November military intelligence report that most of the Taliban's claims are refuted and exaggerated. Of course I think I know who you will believe.

Now, Mr Naylor, I come to the real point of my letter. In your lengthier than ever letter of November 1, you accuse me of supporting military action against terrorism. I never said in my letter that I supported military action against terrorism. I never said in my letter that I supported military action. I leave such decisions to be made by a democratically elected Government.

I firmly believe there was a determined effort by Mr Blair and Mr Bush to avoid this war. You may, however, be right in saying that Mr Blair did possibly attempt to impose some media censorship on the grounds that certain information could affect the safety of our troops. What is wrong with that Mr Naylor? Now comes your statement and I quote (your words) which you say were mine, 'Mr Teale apparently condones American and British arms profiteering because arms probably kill fewer people than drugs'. If he really believes this, it is he who should be treated with contempt.

How you could get this so far wrong, Mr Naylor, is bewildering. The statement I made is as follows in print and undeniable: Is he not aware of the devastation effect of drugs throughout the world and the illegal distribution of drugs is probably worse that the legal manufacture of arms. Think about it Mr Naylor,

Don't worry Mr Naylor I will not accuse you of mendacity. I did not sneer at your reference that only 26 per cent of the electorate voted for labour, I merely added a further fact.

In conclusion may I refer you to the correspondence of Mr Howard Versey dated October 25. I am as confused about your aim in writing your letters as Mr Versey. I would like at this point to congratulate him on his unbiased account of the situation.

Clifford Teale

10 Rufford Crescent,

Yeadon.

'No' to ID cards

SIR, - The Government is considering compulsory ID cards. The security 'argument' is a flimsy excuse - ID cards wouldn't have stopped the New York suicide bombers, and will not deter criminals who can easily steal or forge them.

Instead they will inconvenience millions of ordinary people and threaten our civil liberties.

Ministers have, in fact, been considering them well before recent events. Computer Weekly (13.1.2000) reported that high in the Passport Agency's priorities was a 'photocard passport' by 2002, subject to Ministerial and European agreement.

Also Government officials undertook to participate 'as necessary' in any work concerning national identity cards and refused to comment on ruling out legislation.

By coincidence, the Government then committed to a Europe-wide programme to introduce personal smart cards - multi-use cards to get NHS treatment, pay for road use, etc. Where was the public consultation?

The cost of introducing ID cards has been estimated towards £500m plus £100m every year. That's money that won't be going into public services. It means foregoing several major new hospitals, tens of thousands of operations and decent pay for our nurses.

After public protest, Australia, New Zealand and the USA all dropped plans for ID cards. Readers should lobby their Member of Parliament before it's too late and send a SAE for our free fact sheet c/o PO Box 13199, London SW6 6ZU.

Brian Mooney

New Alliance,

PO Box 13199,

London SW6 6ZU

info@newalliance.org.uk

Holier than thou

SIR, - One thing that makes people wonder these days is where were the 'Holier than thou' brigade when Saddam was killing his own people or when China took over Tibet or for that matter when Russia invaded Afghanistan?

Hardly a protest, letter pages almost blank, something wrong somewhere. The US and the UK need to be brought to heel - I don't think.

It would be much easier with all the whingers in the press and media if we handed the prosecution of the Afghanistan conflict over to the likes of John Pilger and Germaine Greer, they then could invite Bin Laden to the UK or US to choose another building to knock sown. These same whingers have suddenly discovered 'the poor Afghans' have a bad winter coming up. Where were they the previous bad winters, not a murmur from them then. Finally we are told that Islam is the fastest growing religion but who's surprised.

Bin Laden's father had 54 children to several wives, I'm sure Messrs Pilger and Greer can arrange to interview everyone - what a headline, with Bin Laden being star guest.

Mr F Dickinson

48A Larkfield Road,

Rawdon.