John Knight

Green party

Macclesfield Express - - YOUR VIEWS -

I HOPE the whole town ral­lies be­hind your ‘Hands Off Hollins View’ cam­paign.

The sto­ries you told of Mary and Clif­ford’s respite stays at Hollins View is tes­ta­ment to the ex­cel­lent care given by the staff there.

This coun­try does not recog­nise the value to our so­ci­ety by those work­ing in the care sec­tor nearly enough.

Un­der pres­sure and un­der­paid, they con­tinue to give care and dig­nity to those who can no longer fully look after them­selves.

It is time for MP David Rutley to pub­licly ac­knowl­edge the con­cerns of the thou­sands of his con­stituents who have spo­ken out and signed the pe­ti­tions against the pos­si­ble clo­sure of Hollins View by Cheshire East Coun­cil.

Ex­perts in the field con­firm there are not enough care beds in Mac­cles­field at present with higher lev­els of need pre­dicted in the fu­ture due to our ag­ing pop­u­la­tion.

Pri­vate care homes are clos­ing lo­cally.

Respite and de­men­tia care is a pub­lic need.

Profit can­not and should not be made from it. Hollins View is a well used and ap­pre­ci­ated com­mu­nity fa­cil­ity.

I hope the wishes of the lo­cal com­mu­nity will, for once, be lis­tened to by the Con­ser­va­tives run­ning Cheshire East Coun­cil. Name and ad­dress sup­plied

MY VIEW ON CARE FU­TURE

ALTHOUGH I live in Knutsford, we would be af­fected by any changes to Hollins View respite care in Mac­cles­field as it’s the only one we can use.

I was con­tacted re­cently as part of the gen­eral con­sul­ta­tion and, if the de­bate is still go­ing on in the pages of the Macc Ex­press, I’d like to chip in what I said. I made just four points: 1. I fully un­der­stand the need to ex­pand fa­cil­i­ties for respite care in view of the de­mands of an age­ing pop­u­la­tion.

2. I do not un­der­stand why CEC thinks it can do this more ef­fi­ciently by pay­ing pri­vate con­trac­tors to do this, all of whom have to make a profit. Coun­cil-owned fa­cil­i­ties, such as Hollins View, have to be run ef­fi­ciently, but they don’t have to make a profit.

3.Un­der the terms of the cur­rent pro­posal ex­actly when would the ca­pac­ity rep­re­sented by Hollins View come on stream?

Hollins View has some 30 to 40 bed­rooms and sub­stan­tial teams of nurses, car­ers and an­cil­lary staff. Were it to be closed, how and when would this ca­pac­ity be phased in and ex­actly where will it come from?

4. In view of 2 above, and se­ri­ous doubts about 3, I am to­tally against the fur­ther pri­vati­sa­tion of respite care.

It must be pos­si­ble for the coun­cil to pro­vide the ex­tra ca­pac­ity it­self, along Hollins View lines, cheaper that by pay­ing mul­ti­far­i­ous, profit -mak­ing con­trac­tors. I am not against profit-mak­ing com­pa­nies per se – I worked for As­traZeneca for 30 years – but not in the con­text of respite care and sim­i­lar ser­vices. Ge­off Hol­man via email

COULDN’T COPE WITH­OUT HOME

FIRSTLY, may I ap­plaud the Ex­press for throw­ing its weight be­hind the cam­paign to save Hollins View.

The fact that more than 1,500 have signed a pe­ti­tion urg­ing the coun­cil to halt its pro­posed clo­sure speaks vol­umes for the strength of feel­ing in the town. I, for one, haven’t heard a sin­gle per­son ar­gu­ing that the cen­tre should close.

My hus­band has Alzhe- imer’s dis­ease and I don’t know how I would cope with­out the respite care pro­vided by Hollins View.

I never get a proper night’s sleep and I’m el­derly my­self.

The fact that ev­ery few weeks my hus­band can spend a cou­ple of days in Hollins View is a god­send.

With­out this I sim­ply couldn’t cope and my hus­band would have to go into per­ma­nent full­time care.

How­ever, I am dis­ap­pointed (but not sur­prised) that our MP David Rutley has not com­mented on the pro­posed clo­sure so far.

Un­for­tu­nately, I and oth­ers I know, are ex­tremely dis­ap­pointed with Mr Rutley’s be­hav­iour over the past four years.

Too of­ten he has sat on the fence on ma­jor is­sues. He seems happy to have his pic­ture taken with pro­test­ers then will also side with the op­pos­ing side, usu­ally the coun­cil.

The furore over Lyme Green was a clas­sic ex­am­ple of his re­luc­tance to stand up and fight for the peo­ple of Mac­cles­field.

This lat­est scan­dal over Hollins View is another ex­am­ple.

Please Mr Rutley, support the fight to keep this care home open, throw your weight be­hind the cam­paign and urge the coun­cil to stop the planned clo­sure.

Don’t just get your pic­ture taken with cam­paign­ers then say you sym­pa­thise with the coun­cil’s sit­u­a­tion.

This is not the time to sit on the fence, this is the time to fight for the peo­ple of the town.

Be­cause if you don’t act now, a hugely valu­able re­source will be lost for­ever to the town and the lives of many el­derly peo­ple will be de­stroyed. Name and ad­dress sup­plied IN re­cent months, Cheshire East Greens have been join­ing with other cam­paign­ers to op­pose the Transat­lantic Trade and In­vest­ment Part­ner­ship (TTIP). Satur­day, Oc­to­ber 11, saw a Euro­pean day of ac­tion, when cit­i­zens in 22 coun­tries across the con­ti­nent joined forces to op­pose the cor­po­rate takeover of democ­racy.

In Cheshire East, cam­paign­ers have taken to the streets, along with thou­sands of oth­ers across the coun­try, leaflet­ing and talk­ing to mem­bers of the pub­lic about the deal and the im­pact its pas­sage could have on our pub­lic ser­vices and ba­sic rights.

Joan Plim­mer – Green Party par­lia­men­tary can­di­date for Mac­cles­field – has been cam­paign­ing in her home vil­lage of Dis­ley. She said: “TTIP is a huge threat to hard-fought­stan­dards for the qual­ity and safety of our food, the sources of our en­ergy and our pri­vacy and risks un­do­ing decades worth of EU progress on is­sues like work­ers’ rights.

“Let’s make no mis­take, the pro­posed free trade deal is a huge threat to hard-fought-for stan­dards for the qual­ity and safety of our food, the sources of our en­ergy, work­ers’ rights and our pri­vacy. What’s more, it would blow apart the power of our demo­cratic decision mak­ing. The deal pro­vides cor­po­ra­tions with new rights to sue the Gov­ern­ment for leg­is­lat­ing in the pub­lic in­ter­est – that’s def­i­nitely not act­ing for the common good”.

Cam­paign­ing char­i­ties such as the World De­vel­op­ment Move­ment and Friends of the Earth have ex­pressed ma­jor con­cerns at what is be­ing pro­posed.

Of the other par­ties, the To­ries and Lib Dems, are en­thu­si­as­tic sup­port­ers on be­half of their cor­po­rate friends. Labour are claim­ing they can keep the NHS out of the deal, but those close to the ne­go­ti­a­tions have said that isn’t pos­si­ble. Only the Green and Left groups in the Euro­pean par­lia­ment have stood up to the cor­po­rate agenda.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.