Sir - The Castle Quarter, an independent voice for independent local business, welcomes the move by Bedford BID to seek a solution to the parking issue in Bedford Town Centre in the run-up to Christmas.
The response from the council raises interesting points: The council states: ‘Taxpayers are already funding the extended Victorian Christmas Fair, the popular lights switch-on and the array of Christmas lights and decorations, all of which encourage people to come into Bedford and support the town centre economy.’ Local business contributes a huge amount to council coffers in the form of business rates. In fact it contributes twice, via business rates and council tax, therefore is more than entitled to have a say in how this money is spent.
We are sure that ALL council taxpayers want a better Bedford.
Bedford BID is funded by town centre businesses, a payment which is linked to business rates.
It is important to have a great Christmas display, but we understand that this is costing £52, 000, added to which the lights switch-on itself is being sponsored by Tesco Metro, according to the council’s website – so the actual cost to individual taxpayers is unclear.
The letter continues: ‘(BID) have asked taxpayers to fund £50,000- worth of free parking, offering a maximum of £10,000 of match funding.’ We would like to point out that free parking is not a cost. Yes, there is a cost involved in the running of car parks, lighting etc but this is a cost which applies whether or not the parking is free.
The council is referring to a loss of potential revenue generated by parking charges – this is a different issue.
If BID put forward £10,000 then council potential loss of revenue is only £40,000. Using the council’s own figures, this equates to a oneoff cost of only £2.50 per taxpayer,.
Bedford has a wealth of independent businesses and also benefits from large department stores and high street chains, so there is something for everyone.
Bedford is a lovely town with much to offer and we see these conversations as a starting point to making it even better.
Karen Fryc and Samantha Price The Castle Quarter Bedford
Bid priorities are wrong
Sir - I am confused as to why Bedford BID seems to think that nothing can happen unless it is paid for by the hard-pressed taxpayer.
This unelected quango taxes local businesses to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds each year, and takes over £50,000 from local taxpayers – enough to run a branch library. What does it do with these taxes? What it won’t do, sadly, is contribute to events, activities and offers which will actually bring real benefit to local shoppers and businesses, choosing instead to spend over a third of a million pounds each year on PR campaigns and glossy brochures.
In the meantime, council taxpayers are left to pick up the bill for the series of Christmas events and decorations which will make Bedford town centre a vibrant and attractive place to come and shop this Christmas. This is in contrast to other BIDs around the country, which support real measures to improve shoppers’ experience of their town centre. Even worse, despite the fact that BID has identified free parking for Christmas as a priority, it has demanded a further £40,000 of taxpayers’ money rather than diverting its own funds away from its vast marketing and PR expenditure.
Are the local businesses taxed by BID really getting good value? BID’s only visible activity are the Blue Caps, and I know many people question how high a priority this should be at such a tough time for local people and businesses.
Thankfully, Bedford is not following the example of other areas in cutting back on Christmas this year and I hope that this will be a fantastic festive season in our town centre. If it is, it’s no thanks to an organisation which has the nerve to demand yet more money from the local taxpayer, whom it seems to think has bottomless pockets.
Cllr Michael Headley Finance portfolio holder Bedford Borough Council
Religious intrusion
Sir- I attended the Remembrance Day ceremony on The Embankment on Sunday. Far from a National Ceremony of Remembrance, it was introduced explicitly as a Christian act of Remembrance. So there were prayers and hymns and the Christian god was mentioned more often than the fallen.
As a non-religious person myself, I felt distinctly uncomfortable. I felt I was an unwelcome intruder. It doesn’t have to be like this. The central drama is the two minutes silence and the wreath-laying.
There is a supporting cast of a band, pipers, soldiers, and a great big gun going ‘bang’ at appropriate moments. It doesn’t need the Christian god or any other god to make it a success. A different dignitary could be invited to say some moving words each year, words of their own devising rather than just read out of a holy book. It would then be a truly welcoming and inclusive event.
KS Northwood Armstrong Close, Wilstead Heroes honoured Sir - I happened to be in Bedford Hospital’s south wing at 11am on November 11. They rang the fire bell and just about everybody, in view, stood for two minutes silence. Well done Bedford Hospital, I hope you continue with this tradition every year.
John Lucas Dennis Close, Clapham
Liberating correctness
Sir– I read with annoyance at the letter from Mr Austin in last week’s edition decrying political correctness by a ‘dictating minority’ and then making reference to fighting against dictatorship.
Firstly, such hyperbole is never necessary in an argument and, moreover, Mr Austin warned us to remember the sacrifice in the Second World War but forgets this sacrifice took place to end oppression.
Secondly, I am actually a fan of political correctness. There I said it. I often expect to be lambasted when I do but the reality is many of those who condemn it do so because it prevents them from being sexist, homophobic, racist, ableist or otherwise discriminatory. They may view such measures as oppressive, but I see them as liberating for the minorities who suffer continued daily oppression in our society. This is because I believe in liberty and I cheered when I read those mums staged a successful protest to ensure their freedom to continue to feed their children in public.
Sam Goodby Roxton Road, Great Barford, Bedford
We’re all in this together
Sir - May I please use your columns for an open letter to the borough council? I have found it impossible to fill in their ‘Budget Proposals Consultation Response’ form and would not want them to think this is due to apathy.
I don’t want to choose between many unacceptable options for cuts.
I understand that the council is obeying orders from above to cut its budget, but it needs to feel the pressure from below to protect our services.
Public services are of most value to the poor and vulnerable – the rich can always buy alternatives. As Richard Baker points out (letters, November 13), we won’t solve the deficit problem by cutting the spending power of ‘the 99 percent’.
Indeed, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times blames our problem on increasing inequality with the average wage rising too slowly to allow people to spend without getting into debt.
Our problem was caused by ‘the one per cent’ with their financial gambling and industrial-scale tax avoidance.
We should not be allowing them to make us pay for it, whether by wage freezes, attacks on our pensions or cuts to our services.
Rob Wall Rutland Road, Bedford
Maternal instincts
Sir- I was disgusted by Christine Fuller’s comment on breastfeeding mums in BoS on November 13.
Breastfeeding is a perfectly natural method of feeding a baby that women have been using for thousands of years.
It provides the baby with nutrients as well as necessary antibodies from the mother to fight off illness.
These cannot be obtained from formula and midwives recommend breastfeeding.
And with the insane costs of baby formula along with the hassle of sterilising and making up bottles per feed, breast is also time and cost effective.
I would not hesitate feeding my one-month-old little girl in public.
Feena doesn’t care who is around as long as she gets what she needs.
It isn’t a matter of being an exhibitionist but more that if my daughter is hungry I will feed her regardless of a few close-minded people’s opinions.
There are also ways for women to be discreet about it.
There is a vast difference between having sex in public and feeding a baby and I know if sitting in a café trying to relax, the majority of people would prefer a quiet, feeding baby in their surroundings than a screaming one.
It also raises the question as to why people look.
If I am quietly feeding Feena, causing no harm to others there is no need to stare.
If anyone were to comment on this to me I would politely tell them where to go.
What will be next for British society? That it is also deemed rude to change a baby in public? So should we, as mothers, be then expected to leave our children dirty and hungry for the sake of these people? I will not do that.
If Feena needs changing, I will change her.
If she wants feeding, she will get it when she wants, not when suits others.
If you don’t like it, don’t look, simple as.
But at the end of the day I am a proud mother, and glad to be breastfeeding Feena, especially knowing how upset some women feel when they are physically unable.
I’m giving her the best possible start I can as I’m sure countless other mothers would agree.
Verity Armstrong, Howes Drive, Marston Moretaine Covanta’s sustainability Sir - I feel I must comment on last week’s ‘Pros and Cons’ review of the IPC decision on Covanta.
As a Campaign to Protect Rural England volunteer and technical advisor on waste I contributed to the reasoned opposition case presented by CPRE and the other local action groups. My personal concerns however centre around that currently abused word ‘sustainable’.
Neither this Government nor the last have shown any understanding of the meaning of the word.
Sustainability must be seen as ‘living within the renewal rate of the earth’s wider ecosystem’. This also requires recycling rather than destroying resources.
The term ‘waste’ is associated with throwing stuff away.
Much of this discarded stuff is a potential resource for recycling as required by the Government’s waste hierarchy. There are two areas however where government policy is illogical.
The first is the escalating cost of landfill due to the EU levy, whereas landfill is the natural sink for a range of wastes.
The second and most important issue is that of recycling. The Government chooses to define energy generation as a form of recycling.
In fact incineration of recyclable materials is wanton destruction of our rapidly depleting resource base.
The Infrastructure Planning Commission came in as an apparently objective body, asked very relevant questions of the applicant and received very objective responses from those opposing the application.
At the end of the day the IPC came up with an irrational decision which was that required of it by the Government.
Martin Towlson Rothsay Place, Bedford
