‘Repairs made road potholes even worse’
On the morning our annual community charge update came crashing through our letterboxes, informing of the increase in all services, I was pleased to see that pothole repairs were being implemented to a very rough patch of road in the middle of Hoyles Lane, Cottam.
This had been quite a dangerous spot (of many in the lane) for a very long time so, hope returns.
However, when the ‘repairs’ had been completed, it was quite dismaying to view.
The work was a complete disaster, and the carriageway looked in a worse state of repair than previously.
I would like to ask – to whoever would be responsible for sanctioning this road repair – do you think that this is the quality expected from a contractor on a select council list?
Who viewed the ‘quality’ of the repair and sanctioned payment from the community budget?
I do believe that no one person in authority actually views any repairs at all and payments to contractors are made without any form of quality control whatsoever.
If this fact weere to be disputed, I would recommend a visit to this area of Hoyles Lane, Cottam. Look at it, it’s an absolute disgrace and, above all, a joke.
I think that, if the Lancashire Post were to start a campaign with readers to identify this type of workmanship throughout the area, with images attached, it could draw attention to the shambolic state of our roads.
Pothole repairs indeed.
It is resurfacing that is required, not shoddy patches that last 18 months with “the right kind of weather”.
Keep moving, no sitting
I was born and brought up in Chorley and have seen many changes – some good, some not so good – to the town centre.
Now 70, and with a partner whose mobility is quite poor, I am concerned that the seating, which appeared quite briefly in Fazackerley Street, has now disappeared altogether.
This town centre street used to be a nice place to sit and chat (as we older Chorleyans like to do), especially as it had the benefit of some small trees (the only ones in the town centre I believe).
Now it has become a sterile, lifeless expanse of block paving where no socialising takes place, and where the elderly cannot rest their tired legs.
A loss to the community, in my view,but unfortunately a ‘sign of the times’.
Keep moving, keep shopping, no sitting allowed.
P F Wallwork
Death penalty’s a deterrent
I have just come across a newspaper cutting, dated March 5, 2014.
It states that, in 1964, there were 296 murders – a homicide rate of 6.3 per million in England and Wales.
In 2010/11, there were 636 murders – a murder
rate of 11.7 per million – roughly double that during the final period of the death penalty.
Surely this proves that the abolition of the death penalty was a great mistake on the part of our Government?
We are becoming more vulnerable than ever, the people that we have voted into power are not protecting us as they should.
Murderers nowadays are sent to prison for a few years, to be kept in better conditions than many of our pensioners and unemployed people.
They don’t have to wonder where their next meal is coming from.
The death penalty of hanging was brutal, but so were the murders that were committed.
Murderers should not be let off so lightly.
They have proved they cannot be trusted amongst a vulnerable public.
Mr C Lambert
In the referendum, both sides were able to put their point of view.
David Cameron stood by his promise and Theresa May has continued the negotiations to honour the result.
The voters’ job is over and we must respect their decision, even if we do not like it.
Making the Government’s job significantly harder than it needs to be in hope of changing the outcome is not acceptable in a country where the ballot box delivers democracy.
It is time for us to unite behind our Government in order to ensure we get the best deal for United Kingdom.
In the publication of my letter (LP Letters, May 2), it would have been a courtesy of a member of staff to provide a footnote, pointing out that the letter had been submitted by me hours before Amber Rudd’s resignation, and not behind the points raised by Chris Moncrieff’s article of the previous day.
Denis Lee via email