Harsh treatment is nothing new
THE media has latched on to working conditions in distribution centres as though the harsh treatment of employees by these companies is something new.
They may therefore be surprised to learn that I worked very hard in one, that has now closed down, in Rochdale for a well known high street chain, for almost 25 years and year by year conditions worsened.
If anyone complained about a matter such as health and safety they were often told to shut up and get on with their work.
Another favourite phrase used by management was that ‘You are not paid to think.’
One very memorable day we were gathered before the management team and told that none of us were working hard enough and that we would work in silence for the rest of the day.
There was also one major health and safety issue, which I shall not mention, that the management turned a blind eye to and totally disregarded the safety of everyone working there. John Herbert Broad Lane
SMACK IN FACE FOR LOCALS
ONE of the worst allegations thrown at politicians is that they are ‘feathering their own nest.’
It’s hard to imagine a greater smack in the face for local people and council workers than seeing their councillors whacking up their own wages. Earlier this month, that’s exactly what the majority of Labour and Conservative councillors did.
Coun Farnell, Coun Allen Brett et al, backed by their army of taxpayer funded spin doctors, went on record stating that as an ‘independent’ panel of three had recommended the pay rise, who were they to argue? Now, let’s take you back to 2013.
That was last time councillors’ allowances were looked at. The ‘independent’ panel of three came to a polar opposite view - they recommended that allowances were reduced. They also said that councillors should no longer receive free food. Councillors refused to back it - so much for having to follow independent advice.
As for the Conservatives? Well quite frankly, what’s the point in them?
As they slavishly backed Labour (not for the first time) - they supported it, calling to start the process to reduce councillors at the same time.
This is a political con trick. If they were serious, they would have only backed a rise in allowances once the amount of councillors were reduced. They didn’t. Only the Liberal Democrats - Andy Kelly and Irene Davidson voted against it.
Not only that, they immediately presented letters to the chief executive formally requesting that their allowances remain at current levels.
The sight of both Labour and the Conservatives baiting Andy Kelly over this was unedifying.
They claimed he was being an opportunist for voting against it and would quietly accept his pay rise.
The look on their faces when the Lib Dems publicly announced they wouldn’t accept it was illuminating.
There’s no doubt that this council has had to, and will have to, make some tough decisions.
They face cutting services to some of the most vulnerable.
Every time they plead poverty - they will have this thrown in their face.
This council has lost any moral authority to make any cuts.
As they try to slice hundreds of thousands off the adult social care budget - residents and workers will ask how this lame duck council can justify filling their boots? Every single decision will be scrutinised in this context. Dave Hennigan
NO EXPERT ON CHILD ABUSE
IN the debate on the Henriques report MP Simon Danczuk referred to the fact that he too had been investigated by the police for a sexual offence before the case was dropped (Observer, December 21).
There is something of a contrast between the consequences for Mr Danczuk of this and the consequences for former Conservative MP Harvey Proctor whose case was referred to by others in that debate.
Whilst Mr Danczuk appears to have had his salary and pension contributions paid throughout, Mr Proctor lost his livelihood, his home and was effectively rendered destitute.
Mr Proctor’s tormentor was of course ‘Nick,’ a man who seems incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood, but who Mr Danczuk chooses to defend and whose lies he refers to as ‘testimony.’
As for Cyril Smith, Mr Danczuk knows, or should know, that the documents released about the 1970 case suggest that as the law stood at that time there was doubt as to whether such a prosecution would succeed which is why the case was sent to the DPP.
All that we know about Smith’s activities at Cambridge House is entirely due to the efforts of the co-editors of RAP, David Bartlett and John Walker, and owes absolutely nothing to Mr Danczuk.
The stories in his book about Smith at the Elm Street Guest House and being stopped by Northants police then being released without charge, have been discredited, so he can hardly be considered as an expert on these matters. Les May Crescent Road
WATCH OUT FOR THIEVES
AFTER recently having the roof of our house replaced and watching how hard the workman tackled the job in extreme weather conditions I was sickened to hear that thieves stole some of their expensive tools which will obviously need to be replaced.
Unfortunately, these prowling degenerates who have no moral responsibility or idea of what is right from wrong appear to be on the increase.
Furthermore very few people report thefts these days because they have no faith in the police.
However, as we have very few law enforcement officers in view these days I would urge everyone to be vigilant and if appropriate report any suspicious activities to the authorities. George Smith