Sir – Regarding your recent article about Bromham Bridge ‘To close or not to close’ I feel I should clarify a few points.
The ‘consultation’ that took place earlier this year was interesting in that the only options given in the leaflet circulated to the public were for closing the bridge one way or closing it completely.There were no other options offered.
Your article seemed to imply that local residents were evenly split between closing or partly closing.
In fact, as anyone will know who attended the public meeting in Bromham Village Hall earlier this year, the vast majority of people at the meeting actually did not want it closed at all.Various alternative suggestions were made by members of the public which would have addressed the issues raised by the council without the need to make any closure for example restricting the width of vehicles using the bridge thus removing most of the causes of damage to the bridge walls by lorries and other wide vehicles, or having part traffic lights on the bridge to meet the same need.
Also, to help the few pedestrians and cyclists who use the bridge, a separate mini bridge could be placed alongside the bridge for this propose, the existing structures in the middle of the river for the upstream weir would be ideal supports for this.
These were just a few of the suggestions raised at the public meeting which were totally ignored.The Bromham Parish council also formally requested that other, less disruptive, trials be carried out first before resorting to major bridge closures. These have also been rejected for no obvious reason.
The resulting diversion of a large amount of local traffic onto a fast flowing section of the Bromham bypass, that used to use the bridge, will potentially cause major accidents.
Sadly it seems that the views of local residents are, as usual, being ignored.
This plan to close the bridge is a bridge too far!
V Wilson
Trevor Drive, Bromham
Humanist touch
Sir – I was interested in Jeremy Welch’s response (letters, June 1) to Steve Lowe’s little secular rant of the previous week.
On the question of abortion and the age at which the foetus becomes a person, he acknowledges that we will probably never know the ‘true answer’. Well, that’s because there isn’t one. Foetal development is a continuum and to imagine that there is a magic moment when God injects a soul is the kind of mediaeval superstition that Thomas Aquinas could be forgiven for but has no place alongside the embryology and cognitive science of the 21st century.
The same goes for the rest of the quasi-factual content of scripture.
You’d be hard pressed these days to find a mainstream Anglican theologian who believes literally in the virgin birth, the resurrection, life after death, heaven and hell etc – although they tend not to mention this in church.
So more and more the defence moves away from any idea of truth, to the utility of faith – in Mr Welch’s case, echoing Alistair Burt, that faith makes you happier. Well, so it might.
The big stick however is always about morality – you can’t be good without God.
Humanists acknowledge that, being human, the only perspective they are qualified to talk about is the human one. By this standard, the only yardstick for assessing morality is the effect of any action on other people.
Funnily enough, I’ve had real problems recently convincing some of my acquaintance that ‘morality’ can be about anything other than sex. Homosexuality, sex before marriage, sex outside marriage, same-sex partnerships etc.
Homosexuality is a mainly genetic condition and therefore no more immoral than left-handedness or dyslexia.
And consider the seven deadly sins, they’re all completely harmless.
Unless I do something about any of them that impinges on others’ rights, who cares? So what is immoral? Try cruelty, exploitation of the vulnerable, discrimination, abuse of status, authority or power, betrayal of trust, deception in the pursuit of selfinterest and just about any instance of violence against the person.
Once the churches and the other religions can declare themselves clear of these, they may deserve a hearing.
Charles Baily
Sidmouth Close, Bedford
No dilemma, I’m Christian
Sir – I have no issue with David Brittain, media and communications officer for Bedfordshire Humanists, making his views on issues public and I wish he had no issue with me. But let me respond to his two most direct criticisms.
Firstly by wishing me off to Iran or the US he implies that all those with a faith must be extreme or fundamentalist. I suspect this is mildly offensive to the millions of quiet churchgoers in the UK and patently silly.
Secondly he asks about my priorities, whether to God or constituents, as if they were contrary to each other. This is similar to the dodge adopted by those who wanted to prevent John F Kennedy becoming President, when they asked if a Catholic would owe allegiance to the Pope or the American people, an argument dealt with the contempt it deserved by the American people.
There is no dilemma. My faith underpins the way I try to be diligent in my work, failings and all, in just the same way as it does Christian teachers, doctors or nurses, someone who works in an office, or at home or drives a bus. I wonder if Mr Brittain worries if his taxi driver is taking advice from God before setting off? What Mr Brittain wants to allow me is a personal faith, providing I don’t actually believe any of it enough to affect my life.
I wonder if his humanism affects his life and opinions and, if so, what is wrong with my beliefs, and those of millions, making a difference to our lives?
Alistair Burt
MP Member of Parliament for NE Bedfordshire
Eco town invite
Sir – I wish, through your publication, to invite Nadine Dorries’ opinion on the eco town development in mid Bedfordshire which clearly will, if forced through, have a significant detrimental effect on the local environment.
Over to you Mrs Dorries.
Keith Cox
Watson Way, Marston Moretaine
Real Greens
Sir – You may have forecast the wrath of environmentalists but you won’t get it from the local Green Party for hinting at criticism of personal carbon credits in your editorial (Sunday June 1).
The Green Party has concerns about the fairness of any scheme, too. Where we will criticise you is for mixing up people who merely pretend to be green with real Greens.
Real Greens have always opposed biofuels. Massive agricultural businesses have been the true driving force behind biofuels. Real Greens have always said that what is needed is better energy efficiency and a reduction in our most wasteful activities.
Your criticism of biofuels is precisely the criticism that real Greens make of them, that, as you say, ‘in a competition between cars and people, the cars will win because they are driven by the rich of the world, whereas the food is needed by the poor’.
The fake greenness of Conservatives, Labour, and LibDems is combined with support for ever more road building that will make competition between cars and people worse.
Only the Green Party will say that we need more efficient ways of doing things than every adult sitting in a one ton metal box propelled by their own personal 1.6 litre internal combustion engine for hours every day. Only the Green Party is prepared to recognise that to avoid millions of poor people starving in other parts of the world, we need to be less wasteful here, now. Farmers should be growing food, not fuel.
Once upon a time, the Labour Party stood for social justice, now it just stands on a claim that it will run a planet-destroying economy more efficiently than the Tories.
Only the Green Party will argue for the changes we need to have a comfortable standard of living without a climate catastrophe that would kill millions, and perhaps billions, of the world’s poor.
Ben Foley
Green Party, Spenser Road, Bedford
Incinerate this idea
Sir – This week has been national recycling week, so it was ironic that the unitary council implementation executive has found itself discussing county council plans for an incinerator near Stewartby.
I don’t understand why the Tory run county council is pushing for the incinerator option. It is far from the greenest means of dealing with waste, even if it generates electricity in the process.
Other options for dealing with waste that involve mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) can give more than twice the amount of CO2 reduction.
But before we even get to that stage the reduction of waste and increased recycling must come first. And this is where this particular incinerator plan really falls down. To keep the average running costs down, the plan is to build not the minimum needed locally but a facility that will need to import waste. This can only serve to work against recycling, as pressure would mount to provide enough waste to ‘feed the rubbish monster’.
I am pleased that the executive agreed to the Lib Dem proposal that MBT and other options had to be fully assessed as an alternative to incineration. This is an issue that I am sure we haven’t seen the last of.
Cllr Michael Headley
Lib Dem, Putnoe
Kick plan to the kerb
Sir – I am sick and tired of these nothing better to do whingers, who rant on and on about the injustices of parking tickets.
It is easy to avoid them – park responsibly.
They keep talking about technicalities, well here is a point of law they may not feel comfortable with. If someone parks across your dropped kerb, unless the council has erected a no parking plate and please note that has to be at each individual dropped kerb, the parking wardens cannot enforce them.
So if these barrack room lawyers do have an access to their property and some antisocial driver blocks them, don’t call the council, sort it out yourselves.
Can you imagine what a street like De Parys will look like with signs at every dropped kerb, never mind the expense?
Tom Currie
Castle Road, Bedford
Just park properly
Sir – The infamous ‘angry of Cheltenham’ are quick to complain when criminals get off on technicalities, yet run about screaming when they notice a faded yellow line or sign the wrong height and expect to achieve the same.
Get a life, park properly and don’t pick and choose the laws you want to obey.
Michael Reece
Moulton Avenue, Bedford
Less know-how, more cost
Sir – I, and I am sure many others, agree with Stephen Allen’s excellent letter regarding the exorbitant cost of the two unitary councils.
We already had an efficient and experienced county council, improving all the time with an excellent leader and we knew what it cost, so why change it? This was nothing to do with the efficiency or cost, it was political the intent to do away with a Conservative council as Messrs Hall and Branson well knew.
They are to blame for this debacle and now the public will be left with two inexperienced councils and vastly increased costs.
JF Whittemore
Fairholme, Putnoe
Dare we go outside at all?
Sir – Mortars of Mass Destruction! Hearing that the University of East Anglia has banned students from celebrating their degrees by throwing the humble mortar board in the air, makes me wonder who makes these rules.
I guess there must have been a tragic accident where someone was decapitated as the cheers went up!
Am I the only person who thinks our country is getting beyond a joke? I was mildly perplexed by the conker rule but now dare we go outside at all?
I understand the need to stop work place accidents but the way we are going we will be a humourless country with no hope of even cracking a smile in case it hurts someone else. Is this what the heath and safety executive was set up for, I wonder?
I may be a Victor Meldew but please tell those who think these things up to ‘Stop It’, go out and do a real job, think of a way to stop crime, abusive behaviour and above all, look at other students who have been let down and who have slipped through the education net while money is being wasted on daft rules.
Ray Hostler
King Edward Road, Bedford