It’s disappointing to see how the British Parliamentary system has descended into a cult of personality.
Despite the incompetence and scandals of Partygate, £13 billion written off in waste/fraud and a defective NI trade deal, Tory MPs have stood by Boris Johnson.
Sue Gray’s update puts it in black and white – there is a “failure of leadership and judgment”.
In normal parliamentary system, the PM would resign to avoid being a distraction and allow the party to get on with its agenda.
Yet, my own MP and the majority of Tory MPs stand by the man who refuses to leave. As a result, the party agenda stalls and the country suffers.
With 16 illegal parties, 300 photos and police investigations, we can expect scandals to continue.
I fear that most MPs actually prefer talking about parties than about policies.
They see a braggadocious, sloganeering Boris Johnson as a welcome distraction from, and a greater electoral asset than, Tory policies.
And so, I ask – what happened to Parliament that the majority party prefers ongoing scandal when they could elect any other Tory MP to drive the Conservative agenda forward?
Tom Ross, via email
How high quality will our cycle routes be?
When Wokingham Borough Council approved its own plans for the new South Wokingham Distributor road, we were assured that the provision of cycling infrastructure would be to a high standard, even if it failed to meet the nationally agreed standards. Indeed just last week when announcing the opening of the new rail bridge connecting in to Montague Park they reiterated this ‘high quality’ intent.
Despite having a green field, blank canvass without constraints on which to build, local walking and cycling groups saw the ‘poor quality’ of the design and advised against it.
So it was no surprise on discovering that the first piece of the road to be opened, proudly displays ‘CYCLISTS DISMOUNT’ signs at its very first junction.
Advice on such signs has been clear since at least 2008 – they should be used only when no alternative exists – yet the SWDR designers have chosen to do so at the first opportunity. The 2008 guidance also says that ‘practitioners should be able to defend their decision’ [to use the sign] and explain why it cannot be avoided by design. Perhaps WBC would care to do so in this paper?
Al Neal, Earley
Pinewood
The three borough councillors for Wokingham Without would like to respond to the article featuring Mrs Brunel-Walker which was printed in last week’s paper criticising us for not signing her petition. The petition was to ask for the Pinewood Leisure centre in our ward not to be developed for housing.
In fact there was no point in our signing it because Pinewood is not going to be developed for housing and never was going to be.
Its appearance in the draft Local Plan may have confused some people, but was put there simply to say that Wokingham Borough Council has the objective of upgrading some of the clubs’ buildings and facilities many of which are well past their sell by date.
The site is in the council’s New Leisure Strategy which in itself safeguards it for the future solely and totally for leisure.
We had already clarified and publicised to our local residents that this is the case and that it is not a site for housing a long time before the petition was presented.
We fear that people may have been misguided by Mrs. Brunel-Walker’s petition, and wish to correct these inaccuracies. Pinewood always was safe from housing and will remain so.
Cllr Chris Bowring, Cllr Angus Ross and Cllr Pauline Helliar-Symons, Conservative borough councillors for Wokingham Without
Independent councillors
Thank goodness we had the only two independent councillors Cowan and Frewin to bring sanity to the situation in Wokingham Today 20/01/22. This was over Cllr. Halsall’s letter wasting rate payers money to every house in the borough and Tory officers arguing over the housing plan which is very divisive.
Residents were not able to query the housing numbers but to tell the council where to build. How can residents know where houses should be built? One just has to read in Wokingham Today that residents in Arborfield cannot stand any more destruction from houses already built. They are still waiting for the promised village infrastructure.
Early responses to the council indicate that residents want reduced numbers of houses or none at all. It is time residents in the north of the borough showed some sympathy towards those in Shinfield, Sindlesham and Arborfield with plans to build 4,500 houses.
These areas have already taken a hammering. The plan is totally impractical, ludicrous and not acceptable to any sensible resident.
The plan then goes to the government inspector in Bristol who will have the final say. If it is approved, this is the time when all groups in Wokingham should get together to challenge this very unfair plan in every respect of numbers of houses and lack of infrastructure.
At this time there might even be a new government run by people who might understand residents problems.
Residents in Woodley are facing the nightmare of turning Woodlands Avenue into a one-way road with a cycle track. This will cause chaos in the shopping centre and in streets nearby. These schemes have been tried elsewhere and were very underused.and in some cases have been withdrawn. All new planning applications of over 200 houses should have the infrastructure needed in the plans at the same time.
This doesn’t happen now. Our local doctor’s surgery was overwhelmed when new houses were built close by, and one can no longer get a quick needed appointment.
The government’s latest Social Care programme for reforms in social care would leave the council £20m in deficit and would mean an extra £500 per household each year in council tax. These proposals and the present planning laws are just not feasible and lack proper legislation from an unstoppable government failing to serve fairly.
You have one last chance in two months time at the council elections to vote for a party that is going to bring democracy back to Wokingham. Perhaps we might even have fairer borough plans for residents in Shinfield, Arborfield and Sindlesham which in the end will affect everyone in Wokingham.
Cedric Lander, Woodley
Abuse
I am writing in response to Conservative Cllr Jackie Rance’s letter of last week.
Wokingham Borough Council has adopted a domestic abuse strategy, (not an “abuse strategy” as Cllr Rance claimed) which Liberal Democrat councillors were pleased to support. The council has not agreed to sign up to seek White Ribbon accreditation. The Lib Dem proposal to do so was voted down by the Conservatives. White Ribbon is directed at ending violence against women and girls.
Clearly tackling domestic abuse and tackling violence against women and girls overlap. But they are equally clearly not the same thing. To highlight just some of the significant differences, women and girls are not the only victims of domestic abuse – it can also happen to men and boys; and violence against women and girls does not just take place within domestic settings – it can happen anywhere.
Additionally, the White Ribbon pledge is specifically about getting men as individuals to promise never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women, thus taking responsibility for helping to stop male violence and abuse towards women wherever it occurs and whether the perpetrator is known to the victim or not. There are many good things in the council’s Domestic Abuse Strategy, but nothing resembling that pledge.
I don’t think it is too hard to understand the difference between domestic abuse and White Ribbon. Unfortunately it seems that Cllr Rance and her Conservative colleagues just don’t get it.
Cllr Prue Bray, Liberal Democrat councillor for Winnersh
White Ribbon
I read, with great interest, Wokingham Today’s coverage of White Ribbon, and of the local measures to tackle domestic abuse – 27th January, and 3rd February.
I support both, of course, but I incline to the view that a local council is better concentrating its efforts on dealing with local domestic abuse.
White Ribbon is a national campaign, and changing attitudes and culture is a mammoth task. Don’t we, in mental health, know it!
I would like mental illness to be regarded as being just like any other illness, but it isn’t.
Twenty-five years ago, we were seeking to purchase a seaside holiday caravan for our service users. When approached, the manager of one site said, ‘We don’t want a bunch of nutters here. We have children on the site.’
Wind the clock forward a quarter of a century, and in 2022, the mentally ill are still being referred to as ‘nutters’.
In her letter – 27th January – Cllr Sarah Kerr says: ‘Society blames women for what we were subjected to. Maybe we were dressed inappropriately. Maybe we should have taken a different route home.’
Did not the young women of yesteryear adopt the chant – ‘However we dress and wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no’?
Have attitudes or culture changed at all since this chant was first adopted? At least women still in possession of their confidence, and self-esteem, can deal with inappropriate male behaviour by giving the man concerned, a good smack in the mouth!
For women trapped in domestic abuse, things are not so straightforward. They have lost their confidence and self-esteem, and, before just leaving, they have to consider where they are going to, what they will do for money, the effect on the children, and horror of horrors, that they are also his children, and may have inherited his propensity to violence.
Cllr Jackie Rance’s letter – 3rd February – filled me with horror.
‘Full blown beatings, broken teeth, head bashed open, strangled.’ Such a victim should be given a safe refuge place, immediately.
This brings me to Louise Timlin’s letter – 27th January. She states that ‘Cranstoun still do not have a refuge in Wokingham. Refuge continues to be provided by Berkshire Women’s Aid.’
I have long since reached the conclusion that the best thing that I can do for the mentally ill of Wokingham is to provide a practical facility – a place for them to come to. The same applies to abused women. We need plenty of local refuges to which they can come immediately.
Offices are no good to them. Finally, I would prefer that such women be referred to as ‘ladies’. As George Bernard Shaw would say – the difference between the two is in the way that they are treated.
Pam Jenkinson, Wokingham Crisis House
Courts
Sir – in response to the letter, “On the BBC” (06.02.2022), magistrates’ courts are not, as was claimed, clogged up with TV licence cases – these are mainly handled through the efficient single justice procedure and even before that was introduced cases only took-up just 0.3% of court time.
Indeed, John Bache, then National Chair of the Magistrate’s Association said in 2020, “removing TV licence cases from the courts would make a minimal difference. It is less than 1% of the time spent. So really it would be an insignificant difference. We would hardly notice it”.
More broadly, prosecution is always a last resort. TV Licensing works with groups throughout the UK which support people who fall into financial difficulty, and we offer instalment plans to help people make regular payments.”
Pipa Doubtfire, director of revenue management, TV Licensing
TV
So the attacks on the BBC continue. At just over £13 a month, the licence fee is amazing value, and it’s a national institution we can all be proud of: it educates, informs and entertains across the web, broadcast TV, iPlayer, and radio stations.
It is trusted and respected around the world — something we need as the government continues to damage our country by behaving like spoilt children internationally, and lying on a daily basis at home.
If Peter Lucey thinks cost is an issue, can I suggest that he look at much larger wastes of money like the £9 billion of taxpayer’s money spent on substandard and defective PPE written off by the Department of Health, or the massive drop in GDP the Tory Brexit is causing — twice as bad as covid?
We can afford the BBC. We can’t afford this incompetent Tory government.
Dr Peter Hornsby, Wokingham
