Readers' letters - February 23

Were suffragettes terrorists or not?

Friday, 23rd February 2018, 3:18 pm
Updated Friday, 23rd February 2018, 4:20 pm
A correspondent asks: Were suffragettes terrorists or not?

Fore more letters: seems history is trying to be rewritten by some yet again.

Were suffragettes terrorists or not?

Suffragettes used a wide variety of methods to force politicians to embrace their cause of votes for women, including arson attacks on post boxes and even bombing the house of Chancellor Lloyd George.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

The bomb, which brought down ceilings and cracked walls was planted by none other than Emily Davison, who later died beneath the hooves of the king’s horse at the 1913 Derby (pictured).

The first terrorist bomb to explode in Ireland in the 20th century was planted not by the IRA, but by the suffragettes.

They also invented the letter bomb, designed to maim or kill those with whom they disagreed.

They even bombed


There is talk of erecting a statue of their leader, Emmeline Pankhurst, near Parliament.

Who will be next to be lauded, the IRA?

Terry Palmer

via email


Automated car industry better

Remember those days when your car was put together

by thousands of factory workers and, when you got it, you had only one-year warranty with the prospect of it beginning to rust on the 366th day or fail to start or just fall apart.

Weekends were for fixing your prize possession.

Then the Japanese began using robots to assemble their vehicles (pictured below) – and the rest is history, as they say – they produced the most reliable vehicles and everybody else scrambled to follow suit. Same with all ‘widgets’ etc.

So I can only imagine that Mr Prance (LP Letters, February 1) fell asleep in the 70s and has only just woken up.

We now have a flourishing car industry supporting a huge number of jobs in far better conditions.

Mr P Webberley



Homes are

for living in

I’m somewhat cynical that it is only now young middle-class professionals are excluded from affording housing that the issue has made the front pages.

For, thanks to continually rising prices, ordinary working people have been unable to get on the housing ladder for years.

Still, concern is better later than never I suppose.

And I think the major way forward is to get people to think homes are for living in, and not objects for investments.

Which is why we should clamp down on developers, who buy up the cheapest properties that otherwise might be affordable.

Councils also ought to be allowed greater scope to build good housing for rent, with the proviso that it can’t be sold off under any right to buy legislation.



via email


Consider small charities please

The recent revelations regarding large charities has been shocking. The problem, I believe, is that their main charitable objects have been lost as they become big businesses.

I am proud to be the chairman of A Breath for Life Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment Centre, based in Middleton. We welcome patients from anywhere in the UK and abroad, so are a very busy unit.

In fact we are the only hyperbaric unit in the country treating children. We receive no government funding but have been supported by some trust funding in the past.

Oxfam has reported a loss of 1,270 direct debit payments. I wonder if those donors ever thought about how their money was being spent?

A Breath for Life would welcome regular direct debit donations and the donors would be very welcome to visit our unit and see first hand how their money was being put to good use. At present we are desperately in need of monies to expand.

Jane Dean MA

A Breath for Life



Charity should begin at home

Why do so many people give to Oxfam when there are many local charities which do not receive ‘foreign aid’ fund monies or have the ability to spend on television promotions etc? Many people did not know Oxfam was basically ‘sponsored’ by governments. Charity should begin at home.

Tim Patchett

Address supplied