KEITH MASSEY is right to question whether we have moved on from the slave trade days (Letters, July 23) and to highlight the grotesque irony that it was the slave traders who were compensated, to the tune of billions, and not the slaves.

The MPs who voted to pay compensation included many slave owners and were protecting their own interests.

As well as drawing comparisons with the treatment of today’s working poor, it is worth highlighting another ethically problematic commodity traded on the stock exchange as casually as slaves were traded; fossil fuels.

Like slaves, fossil fuels reduce the work load of those who can afford them. Most of us recognise they are causing damage to the natural world and jeopardising the future of generations unborn.

Yet their shares are traded and owned as easily as once were shares in slaves. It is ironic that our futures are secured through pensions that invest directly in harming the world.

I predict that when fossil fuels are finally banned, and they will be, it will involve awarding billions in compensation to the oil producers and oil barons for their losses.

The poor and the environment will receive nothing. What have we learned?

Christian Vassie, Blake Court, Wheldrake, York

 

THE front page headline in The Press on July 6 regarding potential cuts to the wages of nurses and hospital cleaning staff made me see red. Nurses and cleaning staff in the NHS are some of the most dedicated workers in the UK.

Not only do the nursing staff have to work with some awful sights and devastation of human bodies, but the cleaning staff have to ensure that the wards and other areas of a hospital are kept clean and infection free.

Nurses stand to lose over £20 a week and even though it was not clear how much the cleaners would lose in pay, if they are capped at working six hours a day that implies that they could lose out on 25 per cent of their normal earnings.

I hope that there is no outbreak of infection due to these cutbacks, but if there is I hope that the senior hospital staff who are responsible for implementing these cutbacks will be held responsible.

Howard Perry, Dringhouses, York

 

AS the impact of the recent budget sinks in, it becomes more evident than ever how the Liberal Democrats acted as a human shield for five years, protecting the country from the worst excesses of Conservative cuts.

Sadly, on May 7, the British electorate destroyed that shield, partly for fear of a Labour government held to ransom by the SNP.

Now the true targets of Conservative welfare cuts are clear: aspirational students from low income families, low paid workers and the disabled, amongst others.

Meanwhile, they have given millionaires tax breaks. I do wonder how some moderate Conservatives can stomach this gross injustice.

However, the worst consequence of this was that, while the Liberal Democrats under new leader Tim Farron unanimously opposed these unjust cuts, which go far too far, Labour MPs were ordered by their leadership to abstain and the vast majority meekly obeyed.

The truth is that Labour is so scared of appearing weak on welfare they no longer have the guts to stand up for the disadvantaged in society.

Tony Fisher, Liberal Democrat spokesman, Strensall ward, West End, Strensall

 

THE letter from the full-time Unison conveners (The Press, July 24) wrongly says our budget “attacks staff’s right to representation” and it’s disappointing they seem happier holding placards, planning protests and writing to The Press rather than meeting with the new executive.

Fortunately most council staff, both Unison members and not, are engaging with the new administration well.

It is strange the least constructive are those whose entire pay is derived from being full-time union conveners and claiming to link effectively.

Our budget in no way restricted trade union representative time, the right of members of unions to be fully respected or anything of the sort.

Trade unions have a positive role and there are union members in my group.

Indeed we want to work more closely with union reps who have a job within the council but need hours as and when needed for their union time.

We believe it was wrong when staff numbers across the council have fallen that Labour increased the money to full-time union officials.

However, we have still merely cut the level to that of a few years ago.

We have also removed the absurdity of Labour having used council taxpayers’ money for Unison to have the rent and utilities paid for in their office in The Shambles.

To date I have not received any correspondence criticising our decision – except from full-time trade union convenors or Labour councillors (who of course enjoy trade union funding come election time).

Cllr Chris Steward, Leader City of York Council, Rural West York

 

IN response to Christian Vassie and Paul Hepworth (Letters, July 24), I visited many other towns and cities both in this country and abroad and I lived on Tyneside until 1994, when I moved to York.

Christian Vassie mentions about a tram system for York. This would end up being an expensive white elephant with very little advantage over current bus services.

This is because York has small suburbs with a high car ownership rate and no abandoned former rail routes that could be used, unlike Manchester which has large suburbs with low car ownership rates and many of the routes follow former heavy rail routes.

He also mentions Edinburgh trams which, despite what the authorities say, is a complete failure.

I would also ask how many of the passengers on this system are former bus passengers.

As for Oxford, yes it is nice to have traffic-free streets.

It can manage because unlike York it has a very good bypass and ring roads. All the closure of Duncombe Place did was move displaced traffic into Gillygate.

Displaced traffic has to go somewhere.

I hope the council will now pursue an unbiased transport policy and get rid of some of the congestion-causing gimmicks previous councils installed, starting with getting rid of chicanes and bendy buses.

Ian Foster, Hawthorne Avenue, Haxby

 

THE editorial comment that the super care home project lacked business reality is “worrying” must be the understatement of the year (The Press, July 23).

We are talking here about failure on a massive scale resulting in years of delay to improve elderly care and a waste of at least £350,000 of taxpayers’ money.

It really isn’t good enough to simply say that the current council executive is not to blame and lessons should be learned.

Someone is to blame and those responsible need to be held to account with real sanctions or these debacles will continue to be repeated time and time again.

Senior officers responsible should lose their jobs and councillors in power at the time should be surcharged.

Incompetence of this magnitude must bring consequences.

Matthew Laverack, Lord Mayors Walk, York

 

WITH reference to the item “Markings need to be repaired” (The Press, July 22), it is not just under Skeldergate Bridge.

What about the turning from Broadway on to the footpath going past Imphal Barracks in Fulford Road?

It is supposed to be a shared path, but there is no line running down the middle.

Why stick to white lines?

What about outlines of red cycles on one side and green outlines of adults and children on the other?

It would brighten up the pathways if nothing else, and how’s about all cyclists having bells on their bikes and using them when needed to warn pedestrians?

Maureen Robinson, Broadway, York

 

KENNETH Bowker asks if a cliff lift style installation at Clifford’s Tower would be a bridge too far (Letters, July 24).

His suggestion is without doubt a bridge too far-fetched and the daftest idea since someone decided to close Lendal Bridge.

Peter Newton, Montague Street, York