Tuesday's letters including 'Leave Perdiswell alone, WCFC' SIR – I am writing to express concern over what I consider biased reporting in relation to WCFC’s planning application for a stadium on parkland that is Perdiswell. 4 comments
SIR – I am writing to express concern over what I consider biased reporting in relation to WCFC’s planning application for a stadium on parkland that is Perdiswell.
At the time of the original application there was a significant number of objections raised and over 1,000 people objecting to this proposal. Now the press appears to be seeking a sympathy vote for the football club, citing their cash problems making Kidderminster unviable and how they are “forced” now to temporarily move to Bromsgrove. They continually blame the council for their woes, which even most of the supporters seem to disagree with, and is frankly rubbish. It is their mismanagement that has put them in the predicament they now face.
I know the council is making alternative sites open, and I realise all may not be totally suitable, but these seem to be dismissed out of hand and Perdiswell is where they want to be. They openly admit they actually cannot afford another application now (unless subsidised by the council) so they appear to think Perdiswell should be given to them. Interestingly some of the supporters’ contributors in the press are from Tewkesbury and St John’s, hardly local, as were the vast majority of people “for” the move to Perdiswell. I know many people that have no objection to WCFC returning home as they put it, but it must be the right site and the significant number of objectors and reasons just highlight that Perdiswell is not the right site. If WCFC cannot afford the “right” site then that is their commercial issue and not the locals’ or Worcester council’s problem/fault.
I do think this is a matter that needs resolving sooner rather than later and Perdiswell should be left alone for the welcomed swimming pool development and the upgrading of the municipal football pitches which has just started. The Friends of Perdiswell group have recently secured £12,000 of funding to develop the park for the community benefit which is absolutely what this park is for.
Let’s hope some of the positive things which are under way get reported to balance the perspective.
Call for PM to stand down
SIR – In the recent furore about offshore trusts David Cameron finally had to admit that in the past he has been a beneficiary.
In the light of his plea to the then EU president that private trusts should be exempt from much needed reforms and the fact that he publicly said that such vehicles were “morally wrong”, should he not resign? We are used to double standards in public life but surely this is so serious that he should resign.
Government was warned
SIR – In reply to GB Dipper (“Steel industry was savable,” April 7), why did not the EU impose a high tariff on cheap imported steel? The answer is simple. The EU did try to impose a higher tariff on cheap Chinese steel but the UK blocked it. At the time the English government was entertaining the Chinese president in its attempts to get the Chinese to pay a lot of the costs of a new nuclear power station at Hinckley Point.
Thus the law of unintended consequences came into play. If they had not taken their eye off the ball with regards to Tata Steel, they would have not been taken by surprise by Tata Steel’s announcement that they wanted out. The MP for the Port Talbot constituency, Stephen Kinnock, had meetings with Tata and was warning the government what was coming, but they sat on their hands. The minister concerned had to rush back off holiday when Tata announced the sale.
Stephen Kinnock MP says: “We are rolling out the red carpet for Beijing,” he added, arguing that Britain – and particularly George Osborne – was pushing for China to get market economy status at the World Trade Organisation despite the fact that 80 per cent of its steel industry was state owned. “They are in hock to China. Our commercial policy, our approach to trade and manufacturing, and our overall industrial strategy, is being dictated by Beijing.”
Just another example of this Tory government’s incompetence.
Our forces aren’t for EU
SIR – Voters in the forthcoming referendum on the UK’s European Union membership might wish to consider the consequences of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy.
It now transpires that Article 42 of the policy will soon place our entire military capability under the control of Brussels. Article 42.2 commits the UK to a “progressive forming of a Common Defence Policy” and Article 42.3 commits the UK to “make our armed services available for the common defence and security” of the EU.
So let’s just consider that the EU Commission, all of whom have no democratic mandate, will have the power to use the UK’s armed forces to do their bidding.
Our forces took an oath to the Queen and their country, not the EU. Surely it is wrong, if not illegal, to place them at the disposal of unaccountable technocrats.
Grassroots Out, Worcester