Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
MATTHEW LAVERACK’S letter of January 29 was deliciously ironic. While complaining about hate-mail, he simultaneously proceeded to misrepresent me. Let me set the record straight.
I am not anyone’s mouthpiece and last time I checked, I have my own independent mind. I did not speak about his letter to Coun Simpson-Laing, much less written it on her behalf. Besides which, I am pretty sure she can speak for herself.
I did give a yes/no response to Mr Laverack’s question, although it was edited out in the published letter. For clarification, I said “the items you mention are not indispensable”.
Describing me as a hopeful “Labour candidate” is entirely hypothetical.
At no stage did I indicate that a lack of sufficient tobacco or alcohol constituted an impoverished state. What I said is that an income of £71 per week leaves no spare cash for anything but the barest essentials.
By all means let’s have a vigorous debate, but Mr Laverack should pay the common courtesy of not making crass supposition or distorting what was said.
Richard Bridge, Holgate Road, York.
Comments are closed on this article.