I READ with interest the item in The Press on January 15 and the two letters on January 19 and totally agree with the views expressed by James Lund and his sister, Brenda Drummond, over the future of their sister and other residents at Dormary Court.

I disagree with some of the comments made by John Kennedy, of Joseph Rowntree Fund, and Keith McKee, of The Wilberforce Trust.

Mr McKee, for example, states: “It is important to recognise that the rights and wishes of the recipients of the services have to be uppermost in the minds of those commissioning and providing services.”

Have the real wishes of the residents of Dormary Court really been taken into account? I suspect the “wishes” of the residents were found out by telling them that Dormary Court was closing and what would they wish for in their new homes – as opposed to asking if they would like to move or stay. Mr Kennedy and Mr McKee state present and future needs of residents must be considered. Isn’t Dormary Court meeting the current needs of its residents now and isn’t it capable of meeting their needs in the future? I fail to see how moving into smaller units is going to give the residents “greater security of tenure and much more choice in their lives”.

However, all that is purely academic as no matter what the residents think or want, Dormary Court is going to close. The closure of Dormary Court and the two day centres in York is a result of the publication of the Government White Paper, Valuing People.

While a lot of good has come out of this White Paper, the fact that some individuals may not fit the mould seems to be ignored.

Peter Farrar, Nevis Way, Woodthorpe, York.