Don’t gamble on the lives of racehorses
Many people who are not interested in horse racing and who seldom gamble still like a flutter on the Grand National.
But those people are unaware of how cruel this race is.
Despite Aintree’s highly publicised safety improvements, six horses were killed during the 2016 three -day Aintree meeting.
Forty eight have been killed at Aintree since 2000.
Those that survive may need ‘help’ because they’ve been pushed to their limits.
The Grand National is too dangerous – the 30 jumps are too high and demanding and the field dangerously overcrowded with up to 40 horses running.
Fewer than half complete the course.
Please don’t gamble with their lives.
For more details, visit Animal Aid’s website at www.stopkillinghorses.com
For information on how to treat a gambling addiction, visit www.gamblersanonymous.org
Learning in practice
The children at the Oxford Street Madressa, Preston, have been learning about the rights of their neighbours and how they should behave towards them.
This is the same type of syllabus which has seen the recent Preston communities taking part in:
n Distributing toys to the children in the hospital at Christmas time
n Feeding the hungry and homeless on the Flag Market.
n Helping our neighbours in Cumbria during the floods two Years ago.
This is a step away from simply only learning about religion but also teaching the children to live what they have learnt.
The children have put together a simple gift bag which they will be distributing to their neighbours, along with a letter explaining what this is.
What if frack firms go bust?
The Government was recently asked about plans to establish a contingency bond to cover the costs of environmental clean-up in the event of a shale oil or gas company going into administration.
The answer stated that department officials are working with the industry’s trade body “to ensure that liabilities for shale wells are addressed … where all of the companies on a licence became insolvent”.
The need for such a Bond for Abandonment was raised in 2012 with John Hayes, then Energy Minister, by Mike Hill, a local resident and chartered engineer with 25 years in the oil and gas industry.
The matter of shale companies folding, leaving no funds for long-term monitoring or environmental clean-up, was raised again later that year.
Aware that Cuadrilla is made up of several companies, in fact every pad is a separate limited company, a local chartered accountant asked the question at a public debate in St Annes, chaired by Mr Menzies.
Construction of a shale gas well is a challenging task.
A pad is already under construction at Preston New Road that could host 40 or more wells. Huge sums of money are involved, it costs in the region of £5m to drill a single well.
Further, following abandonment, Cuadrilla is allowed to hand back the permit to the Environment Agency and, once this has been done, it is no longer responsible for any leakage and emissions from the ageing wells – the taxpayer is!
Yet the Government is only just discussing the question of Bonds for Abandonment now.
Why has it taken them so long and why is it not in place prior to construction and drilling?
One has to wonder why the Government has chosen to be so lax about this new industry, one that it has imposed on Lancashire residents against the will of the county council.
Get tough on obstructors
I have read your coverage re: Policing fracking protests will cost Lancashire an extra £450,000 a month (LP April 4).
Whilst it is claimed by the protestors that they have considerable support for their campaign, I’m afraid that I cannot find much support for them locally.
Many people seem to be in favour, but the vast majority are ambivalent about the whole fracking subject.
So, that brings us to the questions of “who are the protesters?” and “why are they here?”
By all means, the protesters have every right to PEACEFUL protest, and, at the same time, the drilling company and its suppliers have every right to conduct their lawful businesses.
The additional police resources seem to be needed because some of the protesters (I believe many have travelled some distance for this protest) are not prepared to abide by the law, presumably making theirs a criminal activity, and so protection has been put in place to enable the public to go about their activities without hindrance and the business to go about their lawful activities.
So who pays for the additional policing?
I suppose it is no different from any other criminal activity and that the cost falls to the local policing authority.
Perhaps a tougher police approach could remove a few of the obstructive protesters and leave the peaceful protestors to continue, without obstructing the activities of the businesses and allowing the community to go about its normal activities.
Name and address supplied
Teach cats to toilet elsewhere
Re: Is Cougar cleverest cat around? (LP March 28).
It would be great if cat owners would get their ‘pussies’ to use their own garden as a loo instead of using other people’s gardens.
My neighbour and I are fed up of clearing the mess from our gardens.
It would be great if they used owners’ loos.
Name and address supplied