Letters to the Editor

I was pleased to hear that he was just alcohol fuelled, needing no assistance.

Out of curiosity, I parked up nearby and waited to see how many people would offer to help him. Answer, none. Car after car drove by, their drivers, of all ages, genders, and ethnicity glancing toward him, but like the parable's Pharisee, 'passing on the other side'.

Is our society really so indifferent to others that someone could die on the road side uncared for? That he was drunk is no excuse; until you got close to him there was no way of telling his condition.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED.

SIR - It has been suggested that I, as Chairman of the Multiple Sclerosis Support Group, have given misinformation regarding cannabis. I had said that cannabis is 'very dangerous' and 'highly addictive'.

These words were said to be contentious. I stand by my words and so does Jan Ramstrom, author of 'Averse Health Consequences of Cannabis Use', published by the National Institute of Public Heath, Sweden.

This organisation is acknowledged to be the world's leading authority on cannabis use. Addiction is subjective, as every person has different mental and physical characteristics; it is these differing characteristics, which determines addiction levels. Cannabis, normally used these days has over four times the tar level of even the strongest of today's cigarette.

Cannabis smoking, a growing trend, has even more potential hazards in its chemical constituencies than in the past. THC, the psychoactive constituent of cannabis can be up to 14 times more powerful than in the late 1960s. Heavy consumers of cannabis also have a significantly higher frequency of cell changes, which can precede cancer than do non-smokers.

Long term studies have shown that when a cancer smoker develops cancer of the lungs, larynx, mouth or oesophagus the cancer is appearing ten to 13 years earlier than in patients whose cancer is thought to be related to tobacco smoking.

I think the medical conclusion is that cannabis is not a safe smoke. If the use of cannabis is deemed necessary, then, as I have repeatedly stated, it should be under strict medical supervision. It is certainly not a product that I would recommend to my own son, a multiple sclerosis sufferer, without such supervision.

DAVID SAMUELS

Multiple Sclerosis Support

Group.

SIR - Your letters page of July 27 contains two opposing views of the foot and mouth disaster and the Editor's 'Opinion' is left looking silly by the common sense of Letter of the Week writer Richard Hudson.

To claim the government's decision to re-open paths might 'go down in history as the biggest bungle' is alarmingly naive.

Were you to have suggested that not vaccinating from the start of the outbreak was the bungle, then you might be nearer the mark. That idea was thrown out by the powerful farming lobby for fear of damaging meat exports. Isn't the current, protracted mess doing just that anyway?

I am informed last year's meat export industry was worth £500 million yet tourism brought in £10 billion.

Councillor Hawkesworth claims "We need to make sure we protect the livelihoods of farmers in the district." She doesn't add "and tough luck to everyone else caught up in it" but she could do.

My tourist based business has fallen through the floor, would she care to protect my livelihood?

The irony is that while tears are shed for farmers, they at least receive adequate compensation. Innocent victims outside of farming are left grovelling for scraps. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the devastation of losing stock. But let's not forget why they're reared. It's not as cuddly pets is it?

Councillor Hopkins boasts his petition shows the support for the council's blinkered stance. If I could afford three days to collect signatures, I'm sure his paltry number would be surpassed without resorting to feeding the public misinformation. Let me spell it out for councillors unable to comprehend.

Of almost 1900 cases none has been attributable to walkers, and no-one seeks to open paths within 3-kilometre exclusion zones. But a little common sense would be refreshing.

PAUL HANNON

Broadlands, Keighley.

SIR - I would like to thank Mrs Cryer and give her my whole-hearted support, on her proposal concerning immigrants speaking English. All the indigenous people of Keighley that I have spoken to agree with her.

The people who oppose her proposal appear to base their argument on claims of racialism and infringement of human rights. This is pure scaremongering on their part, thus trying to make people afraid to voice their opinion.

I have been totally demoralised by the attitude of national and local politicians on this matter, whose stance is appeasement, in order to gain favour within the Islamic community.

I repeat my support for her and assure her of the overwhelming support of the white working class people of this town.

EDDIE McNULTY

Fell Lane, Keighley.

SIR - I refer to the comments in the Keighley News over the last few weeks concerning the Bradford District Race Review and the recent riots in Bradford.

On July 25, 2001, Keighley Constituency Labour Party Executive Committee discussed the issues with Ann Cryer, our MP, who brought the committee up to date with her work in this field.

She gave members a report of her speech in Parliament on July 17 and answered questions. Following a lengthy discussion it was resolved to: receive the report from our MP and support her attempts to improve the well being and achievements of migrant communities in order to assist them to prosper in Britain.

JOHN COPE

Chair Keighley Constituency

Labour Party.

SIR - I agree wholeheartedly with Ann Cryer's comments, made after the Bradford riots.

But one question which seems to me to have been missed in all the furore, in what capacity were Bradford Labour group questioning Ann's right of free speech?

I am not aware that this group has any jurisdiction over the affairs of Keighley constituency or its MP.

Perhaps someone from that politically correct paragon of civic virtue could come out into the daylight and tell us, or more important someone from Keighley constituency, who have been strangely silent.

What Ann said was already in the Ouseley report, maybe this group have not read it yet,too embarrassing? I would have thought that the best way forward would be to bring out the views of as many as possible whether correct or not.

A forlorn hope! You have my support Ann, look on the bright side,these people will be up for re-election before you,and there is a large constituency out here who are fed up.

Denis Briggs

The Chase, Keighley

SIR - I write in response to your article about flood defences in Stockbridge and the letter from Mr and Mrs Andrews of June 25.

The Environment Agency remains deeply concerned about the physical damages and human distress caused by last autumn's floods.

Since the flooding we have instigated several measures which ensure that Stockbridge enjoys a higher standard of protection than existed before the flood:

We have repaired the breach in the wall along the River Worth which if left unattended would have resulted in flooding at Stockbridge from this 'backdoor' location.

We recognise that the Bradford Road bridge causes a restriction during the highest flows and we have provided interim defences at the back of the Bridge Inn to raise a low spot on the riverside walls and we have undertaken limited clearance to smooth the flow upward under the bridge.

We have been working hard at longer-term permanent solutions and an overall strategy for the river and catchment area, but we must be careful that we do not simply solve flooding at one locality and transfer it to another riverside place. This we can guard against by having a wide look at the whole river system.

Our strategy report was released to Bradford Council, the local MP and the chairman of the Residents' Action Group earlier in July, and in September we are intending to hold a public forum to explain the proposals for the possible long term flood relief in Stockbridge.

Of course, as has been widely reported elsewhere, funding for flood defences is a major problem, particularly across Yorkshire. There is a gap between public expectations for flood protection and the actual monies available. The Environment Agency, local authorities and other interested parties are working on this wider issue.

DAVID J WILKES

Flood defence and water

Resources Manager,

Environment Agency.

SIR - Two weeks ago the KN published a warning about the dealings of Crazy George's, a Bradford-based credit company.

Imagine my surprise then when a colour flyer advertising their services dropped through my letterbox inside last week's Keighley Target!

So for the 117,292 householders who may not have seen the earlier advice; people who borrow from Crazy George's not only have to pay back more than twice the amount of their original loan, but also have a meter fitted to the side of their TV ( for an extra fee), so that they can only view if they keep feeding it with overpriced loan repayments.

Sadly, 'buy this tv simply by watching it' was just too good to be true.

Carolyn Walmsley

Green Head Road,

Keighley

SIR - I wish to raise the profile of an aggressive and vulture-like style of collecting money on private property from an unsuspecting public - wheelclamping.

I was left amazed that anyone would want to visit Haworth after an incident last weekend.

I suppose these people get away with what they do because there is such a vast number of visitors and the village trade can cope with the loss of those who get fleeced on a trip there.

Making a living from running a car park in a place like Haworth could be done pleasantly. For instance, a car park with a barrier across and a machine issuing tickets on entry; plus a ticket collector or machine to tot up the amount owing on exit.

Just as at airports etc people would know what they had to pay, could not avoid it, and could not be subjected to this form of harassment and intimidation.

So, we need a change in the law. How do we do this? Can we use the Keighley News to bring together all those people who would like a change?

Can we lobby our local MP, or MPs nationally, to highlight the existing problem and put Keighley on the map as the town that cared enough to do something about this awful vulture-like aggression?

I find it hard to believe I live in a democratic country that allows people to descend on my family in a car park with a car clamp, claiming that we were late returning to our car - when we were not, completing the penalty ticket with time 10 minutes into the future.

They then brazened it all out with the knowledge that we could not escape. Trapped there, with our car disabled, no money to get home, and me undergoing breast cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment. I did not need this at all and nothing I said would shift their hard hearts.

Eventually when my husband got angry - owing to his anxiety about my health - he was accused of being violent (all he said was "You're being f...ing unreasonable") and then we were subjected to a barrage of verbal aggression by a man who leap out of a car, on which was the 'head office phone number'.

It was obvious to all four of us then that he had been watching the whole matter from the start.

A call to the police, who were most sympathetic, revealed to us that they could not intervene on private property over this matter. They advised us that we must pay the money and resort to legal action to recover it.

This we are doing, but I wish to pursue this matter to parliamentary level and want your paper's support in doing so.

SANDRA GOAD

Devonshire Street, Keighley.

SIR - K-FAD the local support group for families with children on Drugs are asking; What is happening to the government's ten-year strategy for tackling drugs? Especially with regard to treatment.

The strategy states; 'Treatment - to enable people with drug problems to overcome them and live healthy and crime free lives'.

We get many cries for help about the lack of facilities here.

They all say we need detox and rehab centres in our area.

K-FAD

Keighley Families

Against Drugs