I FOUND Tom Mitchell’s letter (June 9) rather confusing.

He appears to be unaware of UK and EU legislation when he states: “The big boys of the EU have stated migrants or asylum seekers, whatever you want to call them, are entitled to benefits once they set foot on the ground in this country.”

Surely he should make himself aware of the difference between an asylum seeker, a migrant, or even an illegal immigrant.

It is illegal immigration that creates problems and give genuine migrants and asylum seekers a bad name.

People, wherever they come from, want to work.

Migrants do not decide lightly to make arduous journeys from far away to this country, to be idle.

They leave their country of origin to escape violence and torture by elected or unelected people. People coming to this country assist all aspects of the country’s economy and keep the NHS operative.

If the Prime Minister were to tell the people of this country if he was going to support a “yes”, stay in the EU, or a “no”, get out of the EU, then the people of this country may have more insight and knowledge.

Howard Perry, St James Place, Dringhouses, York

 

IT seems I need to write again to explain the “intricacies” of Coppergate traffic restrictions.

Howard Perry criticises Ian Gilles (Letters, June 15) for using the expression “when barred” with regard to traffic entering Coppergate against the legislation designed to prevent this happening, that is the purpose of the signs.

What Mr Perry has apparently not understood is that the restrictions are not applied on a 24-hour basis. Any traffic can use the road from 7pm until 7am and as my previous letter stated a further exemption applies to vehicles loading or unloading from 10am until 4pm.

As photographs of the signage have been publicised in all the Coppergate articles in The Press you might imagine this was now clear. Clearly not. I would be genuinely interested to know why Mr Perry or anyone else is not clear on the timings, perhaps it’s because the signs are confusing. Hence the problem.

My suggestion, to have loading times on a separate sign.

As regards the “£400,000 taxpayers’ money” from fines, that is the property of the people who paid the fines if they are improperly imposed, which as far as I have read is the case.

Unlike the £135,000 which was destined to be spent on “an attempt to sort out York’s traffic problems”, I would prefer this to be spent on junction improvements.

It would be better value for money.

Peter Elliott, Wetherby Road, York

 

JULIAN Sturdy spoke in Parliament on June 9 and said: “Although it is true that parts of our economy are intertwined with West Yorkshire, our connections with the rest of North Yorkshire run far deeper.”

He continued: “The importance of York, North Yorkshire and the East Riding as a valuable counterweight to the competing interests of Leeds, Sheffield and Hull must not be overlooked.”

To directly pitch York against Leeds does not make economic sense. York and Leeds should be working together.

Mr Sturdy contradicted himself when he later added: “As many Yorkshire colleagues will agree, it is essential that access to Leeds Bradford Airport ... is greatly improved ... we need that long-term approach to funding, with a dedicated rail link into the airport.”

I completely agree but completely fail to understand how we can achieve that without working with Leeds.

The clue is in the name of the airport.

Nick Emmerson, Dringhouses, York

 

WELL done First York in new initiatives to have surgeries and talk to the travelling public in various parts of York (The Press, June 15). It has to be applauded.

Will Pearson and Ben Gilligan are promoting good news and consulting with the travelling public in editions of The Press. Let’s hope other bus companies follow First’s example.

Everyone must get on board when these surgeries are out their and sharing their opinion.

Keith Chapman, Custance Walk, York