Right on ski slope funding but wrong on councillors

I went into labour and phoned HRI birth centre as they were ‘open’ but 15 minutes later I got a phone call back saying they had shut and I had to go to Calderdale. Thank God it was 11pm and there was no traffic on the bypass. Although the care I received at Calderdale was amazing, it was still a very upsetting and worrying time. TO a degree I can agree with Cheesed Off ’s recent letter (Saturday, March 24).

I too wonder about the ski slope funding and the funding of the HD1 project.

In fact, I have grave doubts around the whole of the project.

We have a very serviceable town centre which with some TLC which has been lacking for many years could prosper, so why create an out-of-town shopping area?

As for the ‘greedy’ councillors, I am sorry to say I cannot agree with that statement.

Pound per hour worked I am sure many good councillors are on less than the minimum wage.

Their pay is not tax-free and, likewise, their expenses. I believe they received a pay rise last year which was their first in seven years.

Most working people hope for an annual pay rise to keep pace with inflation so why not our elected councillors? Also, please remember the unsociable hours which they have to work to visit many of their constituents. after the latest dose of stupidity regarding so called “safe standing.”

Perhaps those who are in favour of this might reflect on the fact that because of the lack of trust in so-called football supporters to behave themselves the citizens of Kirklees have to pay thousands of pounds extra to the West Yorkshire Policing Precept, a large portion of which is in relation to Town matches to ensure safety and the upholding of the law when matches are played.

It beggars believe that those advocating the “safe standing” cannot understand why that will not indeed be safe from any point of view whatsoever.

All-seater stadiums were implemented for a purpose and there has been absolutely nothing since involving football and its supporters that in the DENIS Kilcommons is correct. There is ‘fake news’ to be found on the internet (Examiner, March 23).

There is also fake news to be found on a daily basis on our news stands and TV networks.

The way it works in the latter case is to emphasise the facts that fit the official narrative and exclude those that don’t.

In the case of Syria, we are told that “moderate rebels” are under attack by the “regime”, when in reality the moderates are murderous fanatics and foreign mercenaries intent on overthrowing a relatively tolerant, secular and multicultural state.

It is they who were the besiegers of Aleppo and Ghouta, killing thousands of civilians in the process. One would never have known it if one depended on reports from the BBC and Channel 4.

Only when the fanatics were being driven out did the danger to civilians become the determining issue. Then they duly broadcast “atrocities” night and day, real or faked. The only criteria being that any atrocity must be the fault of the government.

Sorry, but after several previous disastrous interventions in the Middle East our journalists should have made amends and been honest brokers in Syria from the outset.

I now regard our supposed bastions of free speech and honest reportage with complete cynicism and will take my chances with the sites I find on the internet. I know I’m not alone.

Incidentally, I think it’s rich of Denis to criticise what, if any, role the Russians played in the US election when in the same article he demonstrates convincingly that the role of British firm, Cambridge Analytica, was far more influential.