Readers’ letters - October 1

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn opposes Trident but one reader disagrees. See letter

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn opposes Trident but one reader disagrees. See letter

0
Have your say

Trident deterrent works

Jeremy Corbyn has reiterated his long-standing opposition to Trident, our nuclear deterrent. He says no one could possibly use it and, therefore, it is pointless.

Such comments reveal gross ignorance of nuclear deterrence. These terrible weapons deter a potential enemy because he is never certain if they will be used.

Denis Healey, our finest Defence Secretary since 1945, said at a meeting at which I was present, the weapons “will deter even if the enemy thinks there is only a one per cent chance it will be used”.

Opponents of Trident should consider how we could respond to a nuclear threat if we were nuclear naked.

In a world in which there will be at least four more nuclear powers by 2040, we would be at the mercy of blackmail.

There is widespread ignorance about nuclear strategy.

Corbyn’s words reveal his knowledge of nuclear matters matches that of his economics.

Barry Clayton, address supplied

Little Britain is overcrowded

Something is baffling me.

If the government is hell-bent on taking the welfare benefits from all the genuine disabled people in Little Britain – and on slashing welfare spending and capping all benefits – it doesn’t seem to have any problems digging deep and helping by “bringing in” thousands of refugees!

I really am absolutely baffled by this.

While the government is very happy to penalise its own people – they are only too happy to help all those foreigners?

Where are they going to be rehoused?

And they, no doubt, will all receive some welfare benefits too? They have no national insurance contribution numbers, which would possibly entitle them all to receive some benefits.

I bet they haven’t even got any documentation in order to qualify for any handouts.

So, why is the government rallying round and bringing in more people for rehousing?

We are full and struggling already.

It just defies all known logic.

We have a massive homeless problem of our own – and people have been losing their benefits – and the government decide to put extra burden on that by allowing in people claiming asylum?

Why?

I bet there’s a queue of property owners all queuing up to let their properties in order to receive a nice fat monthly rent cheque. And, I doubt very much if these people will have to worry about providing any kind of guarantor.

Oh, I forgot – they already have their property guarantor – in the shape of the government?

How very appropriate!

So more pressure will now be added to the hospitals, schools and other vital services.

As for Little Britain – she can continue to sink because she’s vastly overcrowded.

I’m very willing to give up my property and claim asylum in either Florida or Tenerife. Would that be possible? No chance!

They probably wouldn’t be interested in my story to escape the depressing and quite miserable, and very ‘overcrowded,’ Little Britain!

I just wonder what the late Enoch Powell would have thought about this situation, and, of course, Alf Garnett.

Darryl Ashton, Blackpool

Should we send for UN troops?

The PM has just announced that he is sending 300 troops to parts of Africa to keep the peace.

And at the same time he has just reduced all the police forces in Britain to a skeleton staff.

He is okay, his house will be guarded night and day.

I wonder if we now qualify for the United Nations to send troops to Britain to guard us.

Name and address supplied

Privatisation has failed us

After 20 years of increased fares and double the subsidies paid to British Rail, the promised land of privatisation continues to deliver services well behind those of mainland Europe and at twice the cost.

It isn’t hard to see why the Corbyn plan to take the railways back into some form of public ownership is becoming increasingly appealing, right across the political spectrum. We visit France, Germany etc and find buses, trains, trams and tubes, properly integrated, attractive and affordable.

How do they achieve something which has eluded us for decades? Perhaps they recognise the real value of a public service is more complex than total deference to an endless succession of bottom lines. Perhaps they realise that delivery of these vital services requires something more cerebral than constant bleats of “competition” and little else.

Malcolm Wright via email

I would prefer to stay in Chorley

Regarding Peter Malpas’ letter re: plans for Chorley cinema (LEP September 17), he is out of order.

1. I live in Euxton and to get to the train station in the first place, I would have to go to Chorley by bus or car.

2. I wouldn’t go to Preston city centre at night at any price.

3. I am a pensioner and I would be scared of getting mugged or robbed.

If Mr Malpas wants to go to Fishergate that’s his choice, but leave Chorley Council to get on with their own plans and that includes a new cinema.

E. A Smith, Euxton