27/01/05

The Zurbarans are an integral part of the Long Dining Room and that is where they should stay. At least Bowes Museum and Kingsley Smith are keen to keep the paintings at Auckland Castle.

Let's hope the required sum can be raised to satisfy the Church Commission, and thus keep the paintings as part of the heritage of the North-East, in the place where they have been for the past 20 years. - Kirsty Thomas, Durham.

LAW AND ORDER

YOUR correspondent (HAS, Jan 21) is guilty of sentimentalism based on what he sees as the rights of those who plague our streets and simply ignores the right of those who wish to go about their business.

He quotes the Tony Martin case without considering the facts or, it would seem, could not care less whether Tony Martin was put in a position from where he was given no other choice.

Tony Martin did the British people a favour, having the courage to take on the scum of society and giving them a bloody nose.

We see those in society continually making excuses for evil individuals who are prepared to intimidate, rob, bully and kill for the sake of it, and who don't even have the courage to face such people themselves.

All this rubbish about human rights is an insult to the majority of people who hope that, one day, those who plague us and those who make excuses for them are all sent packing so that we can build a society where the scum know what law and order means. - John Young, Crook.

POLITICS

MARGARET Greenhalgh (HAS, Jan 19) makes two unintended, but very revealing, slips of the pen.

"So if Labour can afford to run extra schools and hospitals which benefit the majority, why can't the Conservatives?" First, Mrs Greenhalgh should be reminded that anyone can afford anything when it comes to spending someone else's money. Governments do not spend their own money, they spend tax payers' (hard-earned) money.

In her second slip, she misses the whole point about Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin's tax and spending plans. Conservatives say that the monumental waste now built into Labour's massively increased spending programmes should be cut; most to be reinvested in the front-line where it is sorely needed and some, a modest £4bn, to be returned to tax payers, targeting the less well off. So, yes Conservatives will be able to afford more resources for better-run health and education services.

In fact, it is Labour that Britain cannot afford. When Mrs Greenhalgh next airs her views on taxation and Conservative intentions in Government, she might check with Labour first what taxes will have to be raised if they are re-elected.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have both repeatedly ducked the question even though they know, like everyone else, that there is a black hole in the Government's finances that has to be filled. By the taxpayer.

Let us not forget that Labour has a poor pedigree on tax: Tony Blair said in 1997 that Labour would not raise income tax. Maybe not, but it has raised 66 other new stealth taxes so that the average household is now paying £5,000 a year more in tax. The country fell for that trick at the 1997 election; it is the Conservatives' job to ensure that no-one does at this election.

And for this, Labour has been able to "afford", on our behalf in the NHS, a 40 per cent increase in health spending, resulting in a five per cent increase in the number of operations. - Anthony Frieze, Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Darlington.

DRINKING HOURS

IN 2004 Labour pledged to tackle binge drinking. So it comes as no surprise that, in 2005, Labour plans to extend bar licensing laws.

For cities like Durham, this will mean 24-hour drinking, 24-hour violence, 24-hour policing and 24-hour hospital treatment.

In Durham, local Conservatives are campaigning against the city being allowed to open all hours. Ben Rogers has challenged his Labour and LibDem election opponents to join the campaign.

Perhaps it's time to call last orders on this Labour Government which says one thing and does another. - Michael Fishwick, Durham.

POVERTY

I WRITE in response to a letter by John Young (HAS, Jan 25) about the poverty in Britain.

First, I would like to make it quite clear that I do not wish the people of this country to suffer. However, we are one of the richest countries in the world and can afford to help all those who live here, irrespective of their origins. The reasons why there is poverty amongst the British population cannot be blamed on asylum seekers.

Secondly, asylum seekers should not be confused with economic migrants. The former may be fleeing their countries because they will be killed by their governments or because their children will be raped in front of them, for example. If anyone had a choice between that or coming to Britain for sanctuary, what would they choose? - Helen Smith, Language Centre, University of Leeds.

PARKING

MR Wellthorpe (HAS, Jan 25) seems unaware that drivers with disabilities using blue badges are subject to strict restrictions about where they can park and for how long.

He also seems unaware that free tax discs are issued only to people who fulfil strict medical criteria as part of their disability living allowance.

I wonder whether he considers this "God given right to park anywhere" is appropriate compensation for being able to use only one or two spaces on trains (and book those in advance), for being unable to get into many shops and offices because it is "unreasonable" to expect the owners to make adaptations or many of the other challenges that our society creates for people with disabilities?

I would echo any call to ban abuse of the blue badge scheme and I would also ask that healthy people do not use specific disabled parking spaces at supermarkets and the like - it can be very frustrating to watch you run into the shop. - Robert Adamson, Darlington.