HOSPITAL TV

MY brother-in-law recently passed away in hospital in Durham after a long-term battle with cancer. His only ever love, apart from his family, was football, so I made sure that he had television available for all the six weeks that he was in hospital.

At the time, I didn't mind paying the £20 a week that the TV cards cost, as what price can you put on a dying man's enjoyment? Now, having had time to reflect, it fills me with deep sadness that someone who is terminally ill does not receive free television while in hospital which may make their last days more enjoyable.

No one ever even discussed if we could even afford the TV cards. As far as I'm aware only under-16s get free TV.

This is wrong. The terminally ill, the elderly and those disadvantaged should all receive TV free while in hospital.

If you think about it, these people have already paid for their TV by having a domestic licence, so why be charged again when in hospital? Once again, I feel its profit first rather than real care for people when ill. - Name and address supplied.

RETIREMENT

CORRESPONDENT A Haslock (HAS, Nov 13) is mistaken about the purpose of the petition he was recently invited to sign in an Age Concern shop and suggests that the petition was about "allowing over-65s to carry on working after retirement age".

The point of the petition is to challenge legislation that enables employers to force employees to retire when they hit 65.

The organisation that has launched this petition is called Heyday - a new not-for-profit membership organisation. Why did we do this? Because 80 per cent of the baby boomers we surveyed said that they thought forced retirement is totally unacceptable.

Not everyone wants to, or indeed, can afford to retire at 65. Heyday argues that retirement is a choice for the individual. Signing our petition, or joining Heyday, simply means you support free choice. This is why Heyday is taking the Government to court on December 6 to challenge this legislation.

Heyday applauds those who find enjoyment away from work by retiring early, but we also respect those who work on well past 65 - whether for financial reason or simply because they enjoy it.

You can find out more about this challenge to mandatory retirement age at www.heyday.org.uk - Andy Skarzynski, Director of Operations, Heyday, London.

REGARDING A Haslock's letter (HAS, Nov 13). I am in agreement with Heyday. Why should I retire at 65 when I have the energy and the wish to work on further? It may be that it is on a part-time basis, but that would be my choice.

Ageism is a thing of the past, but the Government has still allowed it to continue, unlike our European counterparts.

Maybe some people would wish to retire at 65, but in this day and age how many can afford to with private pensions now showing a shortfall?

Let us older people have the opportunity to have a choice over when to retire, especially while we have the health and ability.

I understand by keeping my brain active I have less chance of suffering dementia and why should I let this opportunity go by?

I am one of the suckers who did buy into a private pension but, in doing my sums, I am, unfortunately, just on the borderline and will be much worse off, so my need to work in order to have a decent standard of living is a must. - Pauline Crawford, Hartlepool.

TONY BLAIR

BERNARD McCormick (HAS, Nov 24) must like the sound of Tony Blair's voice because none of his speeches have ever fleshed out as the content would have us believe.

A speech is the opportunity to say what you want because it sounds good at the time and nobody is given the chance to question what you have just said because, after all, it's just a speech.

Can Mr McCormick point out where, in any of Mr Blair's speeches, there has turned out to be any truth or substance. He stands up in Parliament at midday every Wednesday and harks back to when the Tories were in power, but from what I can see little has changed.

The only difference is that he uses taxpayers' money to improve public services before he sells them off.

Another leaning of Mr Blair is to be "economical with the truth" as we have now seen with the Iraq conflict where our servicemen and women are losing their lives through New Labour's rush to cut the funds given to what they look upon as a public service, even though it is the country's Armed Forces, which they show little respect for. - Peter Dolan, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham.

DAVID CAMERON

WHAT a disastrous decision it appears to have been for the Conservatives to elect David Cameron as their leader.

First, he recently poured scorn on Lady Thatcher for her stance on Britain's relationship with South Africa. Now he appeals to Tories to drop Winston Churchill as their icon figure over social policy.

Given the recent pasting he was given at Prime Minister's questions, does he really think that the words of a weak man such as he will carry any sway with the electorate when he continues to "diss" two of the greatest leaders this country has had, or will ever see?

Most senior Tories must be aghast over his pitiful comments. Perhaps these pathetic snipes may come back to bite him in next year's local elections.

No doubt UKIP/BNP will massively benefit from disillusioned right-wing Tory party members looking for other avenues to follow, and Labour under a new leader would certainly have nothing to fear from a man who is leading a once-proud party into oblivion. - M Anderson, Middleton St George, near Darlington.

NANNIES PLAN

RE your story headed "Super Nannies to target N-E parents in discipline move" (Echo, Nov 22). The latest initiative by the Government must question its sanity and desperation.

Such a move has no credibility and is another PR exercise to try to convince us it is doing something useful.

I do agree that parents should be more accountable, but when the Government, under the guise of human rights, takes away the rights of parents to have a say in how their children should behave - with a consequence for those who don't - their parents have no chance.

The problem stems from the so-called experts and those who ignore that there are many people who don't have big fat wage packets or cushy jobs and who are doing a grand job bringing up their children.

Anti-social behaviour is caused by the failure of the politicians to listen to the majority, to see that it is the few who are the causes of all crime and who could not care less for the wellbeing of their children and certainly not the rest of us.

There is a saying: "Spare the rod, spoil the child". Time the politicians read the Bible. Might learn something. - John Young, Crook, Co Durham.