Readers' Letters November 11

THERE is a discussion about how and when and to what extent we should put the clocks back and forward; surely it would be more flexible to leave the clocks alone and live with our Greenwich Mean Time all year round?

Individual schools, factories, businesses, etc, could then make their own decisions what time to open and close according to the factors which concern them as the seasons vary.

Farmers could decide what is the best time to milk their cows.

This instead of being told you will all start an hour earlier or later on these decreed dates – regardless of local circumstances.

David Cameron strongly asserts his policy to devolve power from Westminster to the people so we can make our own decisions according to local requirements.

Will he now leave us with permanent GMT so we can get on with our own lives?

Jake Wright, Stane Street, Halnaker

FOR MORE than a decade now I have walked my two dogs around the Chichester Harbour shoreline almost daily – two big hunting dogs, off lead.

Never once has either dog looked twice at any birdlife.

That’s two dogs, 300 times a year, over ten years, 6,000 opportunities for them.

Similarly, I have never once seen anyone else’s dogs harassing the wildfowl.

Has anyone, anywhere, got any evidence of this apparent threat to the birds? Any proof the dogs are, or have ever been, a threat to the wildfowl?

Without any such evidence, how do the powers-that-be have the right to justify their proposed ban?

H Jupp (Mrs), Birdham Road, Chichester

HAVING clearly never visited Centurion Way, Johnny Talbot (Letters, last week) proposes all cyclists should use this cycle route to get to the city centre.

This is the equivalent of proposing all drivers should use only the A27 to reach the same destination!

How is it possible for cyclists to use this path if they are travelling from anywhere else but West Dean or Lavant?

I live to the east of Chichester so would find this route of no use.

Also Terry Russell (Letters, last week) would be delighted to know I often use the bridge over the Bognor roundabout.

Perhaps Mr Russell can now relax and concentrate on the road ahead while driving, rather than straining his neck skywards looking for people going across?

James Baker, Chatsworth Road, Chichester

IF HE were to cycle into the city along Centurion Way, Mr Talbot would discover the path takes a mighty detour of a curve to the west, skirting Parklands, before it turns and heads back to the city centre.

All very well if your destination is Tesco (until they replace the level crossing with that confounded bridge), but it’s hardly a direct route from the north to the city’s hub.

So for Mr Talbot to suggest just because the route exists, cyclists should take it – with the thinly-veiled implication they should get out of the way of the car – is a bit like asking him to come into town from Ichenor via Appledram Lane so that he doesn’t inconvenience the buses on the Stockbridge Road, not to mention those tractors so vital to the local economy.

In short, we share the roads.

Let’s continue to do so with courtesy, and with no assumptions, however subconscious, that some forms of transport are somehow lesser forms than others.

Bill Sharp, Whyke Lane, Chichester

I KNOW of at least one man, reported at the time in this paper, who died as a direct result of his decision not to use the footbridge over the A27 at the Bognor Road roundabout.

Yes, Terry Russell, I would say ‘this stupid bridge’ and the occasional delay because of bridge repairs are worth it.

As to your own contribution to road safety, surely with the traffic around you moving in four different directions at variable speeds, you have little time to scan both sides of the bridge in their entirety, plus the bit spanning the A27, plus the footpath and cycleway approaches on both sides of the dual carriageway, before concluding the bridge is seldom used.

Pat Williams, Southover Way, Hunston

ONCE AGAIN the A27 rears its head.

Of course we all know it should have gone north of the city.

Now the road is being considered for one flyover, not six. What about the other four roundabouts and the Oving lights?

When the flyover is built, all it will do is move the traffic on the the next bottleneck (this is also bound to happen on the A3 when the Hindhead tunnel is opened, bottlenecks from Milford to Guildford).

Have the experts actually investigated what causes the traffic jams?

Could it be something to do with the archaic rail system running through the city?

Why not put the railway into a cutting from Fishbourne to the Bognor Bridge?

The roads would then go unhindered into the city, over the top of the railway.

Any arguments about the water table causing flooding need not apply – look at the Channel Tunnel, it can be done.

It would of course require a sensible system controlling the traffic lights.

This may inconvenience the rail users for a while, but buses are frequently used between Havant and Chichester when carrying out line maintenance.

It would be interesting to have a comparison between the number of rail and road users.

Perhaps the planners should eat humble pie and go for the northern route. This would also help the visitors when travelling to the Goodwood functions.

I wonder how the cost comparisons would be against new northern route and flyover(s)?

Harry Loe, Appledram Lane South, Chichester

I WAS impressed with the story in last week’s Observer about improvements to the A27.

Will work begin at long last?

Do we really have to wait another five years before commencement?

I wrote on this subject about two years ago, suggesting Chichester follows what had been done in Hampshire when flyovers were built at Havant and Eastern Road.

Yes, the road in that area is always busy (you would expect no other for a main trunk road on the south coast) but at least it keeps moving.

Why can’t the same be done here at all roundabout crossings, not just one?

In the interim, I would suggest traffic lights at Stockbridge and Whyke roundabouts.

The lights would allow cars, buses and emergency vehicles a break in traffic flow to allow the people on the Manhood Peninsula some chance of getting across north-south and vice-versa without the possibility of a collision, which is all too frequently happening.

John R Buchanan, The Bridgeway, Selsey

I refer to the A259 heading eastwards towards the Fishbourne Roundabout.

In morning rush-hour, the queues can stretch back as far as Salthill Road.

One way to give partial relief would be to make the A27 westbound traffic to use the two outside lanes for the A27 and Chichester with the inside lane dedicated for Fishbourne only.

This would enable eastbound traffic from A259 to take the gap opportunities.

This would be similar to the previous roundabout with a dedicated lane for the Witterings.

In the past several accidents have occured because those signalling to the left have continued round to the A27.

Arthur Reynolds, Roman Way, Fishbourne

I NOTE with interest the juxtaposition of two articles relating to West Sussex County Council.

First its planned appointment of a new chief executive and the second article highlighting its anticipated level of long-term council debt.

The quoted salary for a new chief executive is £175,000-£185,000 plus, one assumes, the inevitable benefits and bonuses.

This is beyond belief in an age of serious financial cuts particularly for those vulnerable sectors of the population. Neither am I impressed with his major objectives.

They are all three ‘executive speak’ and actually mean very little.

They are neither challenging nor innovative and appear not to address what is occurring in the real world.

The other article on the same page quotes county council debt will rise to £510m by 2013-14.

In any commercial organisation, the first and primary duty of a new chief executive should be to put the company on a firm financial footing and develop plans for debt reduction and repayment.

Yet no mention of this in the executive objectives.

But sadly, here we are dealing with a local authority – many of whom seem to have lost touch with reality.

The chief executive is not an elected position and therefore the voters have little opportunity to question salary levels or progress towards objectives.

I am much saddened for West Sussex council tax payers.

H Jacobs, Church Path, Emsworth

THANK YOU for highlighting C Bullen’s letter on halal meat (last week).

Although some Muslim authorities say stunning before slaughtering can be allowed, others say the animal must be fully conscious at the time the deeply-traumatic cut is made.

It is therefore essential we should know exactly how meat has been slaughtered.

One wonders why religious slaughter is allowed in this country.

It is banned in Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland.

Animal welfare organisations, including the RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association, are opposed to slaughter without pre-stunning, and the matter is being raised in parliament.

Our country has a long history of campaigning for kindness to animals, but we have no reason to be satisfied with our progress.

For example, the plight of battery hens was improved only after many years, and now the latest initiative is brought to our notice on the letters page of the Observer, namely ‘battery hens writ large’ in the shape of a proposed 8,000 cow dairy.

We cannot for a moment cease to be vigilant, and the acceptance of halal meat not pre-stunned is a shameful acceptance of an added cruelty to creatures whose welfare should be our first concern.

Elaine Bishop, Orchard Street, Chichester

I AGREE consumers should have a choice but those who want to eat halal meat should either import it from countries where this cruel method is the norm or go and live in such a country.

Please do not inflict these evil ways on the rest of us.

Apart from the odd portion of pig meat (bacon, ham, pork) this revelation has pretty well put me off meat entirely.

I certainly shan’t be eating meat in a restaurant unless I am 100 per cent sure how it has been produced nor shall I be buying meat if its origins are uncertain.

Halal meat production should be made illegal in this country.

L Trembar (Mrs), Felpham

AS A new mum to a five-month-old, I am incensed by Aileen MacKinnon’s letter (Screaming kids, October 28) bemoaning children disrupting her coffee and buggies being in HER way.

The past five months have been the steepest learning curve for us in how inhospitable Chichester is when it comes to little people in prams.

What used to be a historic city with lots of boutique shops and character as quickly become one full of no-go stores, only one place where I can change my baby and only a couple of places I can go to the loo with her.

I have been on the receiving end of café owners tutting at buggies in their shops (although easy to deal with, as we don’t return if they don’t want our business) and people walking on by as I become a contortionist trying to manoeuvre me and the buggy in and out of doorways and up and down steps.

I grant you, no-one forced me to have a baby. But whatever happened to a helpful and tolerant society?

Might I suggest to Ms MacKinnon that a suitable child-unfriendly environment in which she may enjoy her coffee in is her own lounge?

Sally Walsh, Fishbourne

I REFER to Peter Homer’s article headlined Theme Park fears over nature reserve’s future in both the October 28 Chichester and Bognor Regis Observer, concerning the serious concerns voiced over proposals for the future of Pagham Harbour.

I attended the meeting which inspired the article, and it was clear the committee was being asked to back the only horse in the race, based on very little information on its form.

The meeting started with a presentation – which hardly mentioned Pagham Harbour – from Chris Corrigan, regional director of the RSPB (he is also a member of the Heritage Lottery Fund South East Committee, and of the rural board of the South East England Development Agency).

The committee was given such poor information about the RSPB option or any alternatives, that it was unable to make a recommendation.

However, Mr Corrigan did make it plain the RSPB would encourage more visitors to the area, and that the level of service the RSPB could offer would depend on how much West Sussex County Council is willing to pay.

Little comfort for residents already at the mercy of the congested B-roads which serve the area, and discouraging for WSCC if it wants to shed itself of a financial responsibility for the reserve.

A paper from Unison complained staff had worked hard to provide a viable alternative to the RSPB proposal, but their service improvement plan had not been included for the committee to consider.

Furthermore, Cllr Bill Acraman pointed out he and our local councillors (county, district and parish) had worked hard to produce draft terms and conditions for the proposed agreement with the RSPB, which address the concerns and ideas of the local community.

The document they had produced had also been left out.

There was no business plan, no worthwhile financial information upon which to base a recommendation, no explanation for the omission of serious alternative proposals.

The suggested justification for the transfer is to save WSCC money and to attract outside funding through the involvement of the RSPB.

No information was provided about the level of savings anticipated.

It has also been overlooked that the RSPB (and other conservation charities) can support the nature reserve by applying for funding on its behalf, regardless of whether it becomes involved in the management of the reserve.

It is within its charitable objects, to do so.

Has the RSPB contributed anything to demonstrate its interest in the welfare of the birds at Pagham Harbour Reserve yet, I wonder?

It is small wonder the committee has asked for more information to be provided to a future meeting. The report put before it was an insult and a waste of its time!

WSCC has a duty to provide best value.

So far, there is no evidence officers have considered this in their approach to the proposals for the future of Pagham Harbour.

Kirsten Lanchester, Highfield Lane, Oving

THIS NOVEMBER the nation will stop to remember all those who have given their lives in the service of their country.

Of course, all three services deserve our thoughts and prayers at this time, but in this Battle of Britain 70th anniversary year it’s important we show our appreciation for the contribution made by members of the Royal Air Force.

At the RAF Benevolent Fund we are devoted to honouring the debt of gratitude by providing financial and practical support to all members of the RAF family in need.

We are here to help with a whole range of issues: from childcare and relationship difficulties to injury and disability, and from financial hardship and debt to illness and bereavement.

This November, I would urge any readers who think they might be eligible for our assistance, or who know someone in need of support, to contact the RAF Benevolent Fund.

You can do this by calling our free support line on 0800 198 2400.

To find out more about the charity’s work, or to apply for support online, please visit the website www.rafbf.org

Paul Hewson, RAF Benevolent Fund Regional Director