Chester Chronicle letters

Feb 6 2004 Daily Post

WHAT an astonishing attempt by fox-hunting supporter DG Sandlin to defend packs of hounds' habit of straying on to 100mph railway lines and main roads ( Points of View 23 January).

'If a fox runs on a railway line or road then the hounds will follow the scent,' says Mr/Ms Sandlin. Oh, so twenty dogs milling around on a high-speed railway line or streaming across a busy dual carriageway is not the fault of the hunt for assembling them and setting them to crash across the countryside killing wildlife - no, it's the fault of the fox, which inconsiderately takes the wrong route when it is running for its life!

Pity about traffic chaos and danger to trains and motorists, but the right of the rural establishment to fantasise that they are still living in the 18th Century must take priority over the rest of society. Can you imagine ordinary people being allowed to block roads and railway lines with packs of dogs? They'd be prosecuted.

Elsewhere, Mr/Ms Sandlin also attempts to explain away the invasion of people's gardens by packs of dogs bred to kill as being 'because the fox has run through first... unfortunately, liable to happen despite the hunt's best efforts to prevent it'. Maybe this also applies to the man who was bitten on the hand by a pack of hounds which invaded his house and garden (The Chronicle, 9 January) or people who have their pets killed by these aggressive dog packs.

All this chaos and disruption is just for the fun of a small minority who take pleasure in killing. The claim that fox-hunting is a pest-control measure was shown to be bogus by a scientific study conducted while hunting was banned for ten months in 2000-2001 during foot and mouth and a huntsman interviewed on TV admitted: 'I don't hunt foxes to control them and neither does any hunting person... we hunt them for sport (Face the Public, February 20, 1987).'

No wonder fox-hunting is heading for a ban when its supporters are forced to produce such pathetic and astonishing attempts to justify the chaos, disruption and danger they cause to the rest of society.

CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON Christleton

I CAN hardly believe we are going through the same debates again.

In the early 1990s, the Government proposed getting rid of a tier of government in Cheshire. The county council spent thousands telling us large unitary authorities were better, while Chester City Council spent a fortune telling us small unitary authorities were better.

In fact, the present boundaries of Chester City Council were ideal. The commission reporting urged a merger of Chester and Ellesmere Port. Chester City Council rejected that and both it and the County Council survived.

Less than 10 years down the line, the county council is again telling us if the vote for the proposed North West Assembly goes ahead, it will press for a unitary authority for the whole county.

The chief executive of Cheshire, Jeremy Taylor, says the HQ would move from Chester to Winsford and a new Chester City Council would be set up, which would be a glorified town council.

The chief executive of Chester, Paul Durham, says hundreds of jobs would be lost and, having been told Chester can't become a unitary authority on its existing boundaries, is proposing a marriage of convenience with Ellesmere Port.

OK, hands up everyone who considers themselves a 'West Cheshirian'. Incidentally, it seems a great shame that the days of elected councillors making decisions seems to have gone and instead the chief executives of the respective bodies seem to be calling all the shots.

The truth is, the suggestions of both councils, like all local government reorganisations, would cost thousands. They are both nightmare scenarios.

There is a simple way to put a stop to all this nonsense. We must all vote 'no' in the referendum on a North West Assembly this autumn.

OBSERVER Name and address supplied

IT LOOKS like Tony Blair has recruited another establishment figure to his cause.

I'm thinking of a dry, slightly doddery, recently retired judge, a former law lord - Lord Hutton.

He has taken up the cudgels of Blair in BBC-bashing, one of Blair's favourite pastimes, egged on by the snarling Campbell. He chose to portray the broadcasting network as the villain of the moment, contrasting it unfavourably with the Government, whom he depicted with saccharine sweetness in his sanitised report.

No wonder this quaintly whimsical, quirky old judge was chosen to conduct the inquiry into Dr Kelly's death. He was picked because of his readiness to support Blair and give him the answer he craved. Hutton's report could almost have been cobbled together by Blair himself and The Sun.

So we had to endure a prissy, predictably conceited prime minister uttering his usual solecisms reaffirming the unblemished nature of his character. It was the sort of self-gratifying speech for which any listener would be well-advised to have the sick bag handy.

The main question remains unanswered: Where are those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

A wide-ranging public inquiry into the reasons for hooking up with George W Bush in illegal military action should be set up without further delay.

Blair's presidential style of governance is proving to be an unmitigated disaster and very un-British. His constant desire for politicising everything and reliance on spin is a turn-off for most people, hence the record low turnout of 58% at the 2001 General Election.

With the kind of people now at the highest level in politics an unappealing elite, it is a complete waste of time casting a vote at the General Election. The larger the majority of the governing party, the less democratic the whole process becomes.

Blair wants to muzzle the Press and the media, or those sections of it that are critical of his judgement, and he will go to any lengths to achieve these ends.

Now I'll deliver my own verdict: Dr Kelly's widow and family must feel badly let down by this crusty old buffer, who acted more like a government defence lawyer than an independent, impartial observer.

There must have been quite a number of genuine criminals who escaped conviction when he was sitting as a judge. The biggest criminal of them all, the New Labour Government, escaped any form of rebuke or censure. If ever there was a travesty of justice then this was it.

MARTIN PHILLIPS Mynydd Isa, Mold

I READ Sarah Mogel's letter (January 30) and was pleased to read that at last events are moving forward under her leadership.

I am aware of what goes on in general terms at West Cheshire College and I am also aware of the historical situation, as I indicated in my previous letter.

The information provided by Ms Mogel gives an up-to-date picture of events and this only reinforces my view that a move from Hand-bridge and Greenbank to the Northgate Arena area is a senseless idea.

In order to bring about improvements to West Cheshire College on the sites at Hand-bridge and Greenbank, restructuring can be phased even on Greenbank, which is dedicated to educational purposes and similar needs of the people of Chester.

The fact the building is in the green belt would not impede, obstruct or hinder the modernisation of the building and I am told that this sort of structural update would attract a Government grant.

A state-of-the-art campus can be achieved at Handbridge which would benefit not only over-16-year-olds and senior adults but, if dual use is established with schools, additional funding is available for dual use of recreational facilities.

With respect, I would suggest that you contact Christine Russell MP and Chris Davies MEP. Many old city councillors, like Bill Griffiths and Bob Arrowsmith, put in a lot of effort to secure the Handbridge Complex for this city. Raffles, dances and meetings raised hundreds of pounds in Boughton, Hoole, Hand-bridge and in the old FE at Watergate Street and everyone who was a ratepayer contributed in the same way to the cost of the building of the Northgate Arena years later.

Although the college is an incorporate body, Cheshire County Council contribute towards salaries, wages and pensions. As such, we all have a say in what happens at Handbridge.

I would like to thank Sara Mogel for bringing this matter to the attention of readers of The Chronicle.

NAME AND ADDRESS WITHHELD

THE real responsibility for post office closures lies with the Government, including our MP Christine Russell, who, on October 15, 2002, voted for a so-called 'reinvention programme for urban post offices'.

A sum in excess of £10m of taxpayers' money was to be paid to Post Office Ltd to carry this out.

The effect of this has been to close post offices in Green Lane, Vicars Cross, Kingsway and Lache, spending our money to do it. It would have been much better to spend the money to help the existing businesses prosper.

Her supporters knew about this before anyone else - what a pity they couldn't convince her.

CLLR GRAHAM PROCTOR. Chester

MAY I through the pages of The Chronicle register my protest at the closure of OLIVER'S Benefit Office on Watergate Street.

It will be sorely missed by many people, like me, who don't know how we will cope without benefit help and advice.

My thanks to Martin Tucker, Mary Clarke and Linda for all for the help they gave me and others.

I don't know how I will cope.

BRIAN HARRIS Vicars Cross, Chester

THE big story in 'Labour News', a newsletter that has just dropped through the door, is that Chester City Council has been successful in obtaining a £400,000 'windfall' to 'upgrade/create a walkway/cycleway'.

We are told that 'EU resources are helping to create a wonderful amenity...a local massive asset...'

First of all, 'EU resources' means our money - except that we only get back half the money we pay in, have to add an equivalent amount in 'own resources', can only spend these 'resources' on projects approved by an unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels, and the costs to the City Council of preparing this 'bid' will have been considerable.

Secondly, while this pathway may or may not be a useful amenity, it says much about a once proud city (and nation for that matter) that plans for such a thing are trumpeted by politicians as a magnificent achievement.

Finally, it is galling that our own money is used to try to con us to think of the EU as a kindly benefactor, when in fact its motivation is consolidating control over all aspects of our lives, removing the last vestiges of UK independence and our ability to run our own affairs.

DAVID SCOTT Chester

ON THE night Lord Hutton's astonishingly one-sided attack on the BBC was published, News at Ten reported the criticisms against its own organisation in great detail.

It was one of many examples of the integrity of journalists working within an institution where such attitudes are encouraged.

My Italian parliamentary assistant in Brussels loves the BBC. She reminds me that her admiration for the BBC's independence is shaped by the fact that half the TV stations in her country are owned by the Italian prime minister.

It will be a terrible day for Britain, and indeed the world, if Hutton's conclusions result in the BBC being too frightened of criticism to challenge the government of the day with what some of the world's best journalists believe to be the truth.

CHRIS DAVIES MEP Liberal Democrat, North West of England.