We should not be arming regimes
Tim Gavell’s article, headlined ‘Take off time for BAE training academy’ (Gazette, December 2), described the academy as a huge boost for the skills of current and future staff and part of lifelong learning for the next 40 years.
Are they having their ethics removed and their moral compass scrambled in this education? Recent reports that the British Government is subscribing the arms trade by £150 million a year, which also revealed the Government was accused of complicity with the ongoing destruction of Yemen.
Forty years on from the Lucas Aerospace plan, where they developed a ground- breaking plan for socially useful production and a responsible alternative to arms manufacturing, nothing changes.
Saudi Arabia, the country that executed 50 people in a single day in early 2016, that flogs bloggers, represses women and minorities, is a good ally to work with and important customer says BAE Systems.
What sort of justice is it when people who have experienced state repression are put on trial while the red carpet is rolled out for the regimes that are responsible?
Despite this and despite its own rules on arms sales,the UK Government continues to provide these regimes with weapons. Time for people to be lobbying their MPs to say how they feel about all this.
Donor register must be applied from birth
I write regarding the leading article headlined ‘Matty’s gift of life’ (Gazette, November 28).
Regarding donor registration, a large number of people would not object to their organs being used after death, but quite a few feel, actually signing up, maybe tempting providence. Superstition if you will, many also on religious grounds.
Many just lazy, can’t be bothered, and would not care either way.
The sensible thing would be all babies at birth put on registration. The onus of responsibility on the individual or close relative to opt out. Problem solved.
Tax will pay for a social care revamp
One of the glaring omissions from the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement was the future funding of social care. Leading up to the statement, health organisations, charities, think tanks and campaign groups had been calling on government to close the funding gap.
Since 2010, social care budgets have been cut by over £5bn and experts say that next year there will be a £1.9bn shortfall which will increase to £2.3bn by 2019/20.
It is well documented that the system suffers from a postcode lottery of charges, limited access to services, badly paid and poorly trained staff, a lack of proper regulation, low standards, inadequate “flying” 15-minute visits and a lack of dignity for both staff and residents.
As a result of cuts to funding, well over 1m older people no longer get the help they need in their own home.
Everyone knows there is a real crisis in social care, but the Chancellor didn’t even mention it. Yet the general public know that more of the same just won’t work. We need a new approach to social care that makes it part of the NHS and funds it through taxation.
Lancashire West Pensioners/North West Regional Pensioners Association
Why the wait for a new appointment?
On October 20, I received a letter from Victoria Hospital telling me that an appointment has been made for me to see a member of staff in the Cardiac Centre on December 5. A wait of six weeks.
On December 3, I received a letter from the Appointment Manager telling me that there will be no doctor available to see me, and “as soon as we are advised we will send you out an alternative date”.
I use to visit a gym every day and had to stop due to my pulse showing 152. I was taken into Victoria Hospital for four days. I was hoping on December 5 to get the all clear to get back into the gym.
I am annoyed to receive a cancellation so close to my appointment date. Also having to wait to get a letter telling me when my new date will be.
Political elite is set on stopping Brexit
It is obvious to most astute political observers that the political elite will ignore the result of the June 23 referendum and keep the UK in the EU. There are many factors that lead to this unfortunate conclusion.
First, the Government is clueless about its position in relation to leaving the EU, having no plan whatsoever, otherwise Article 50 would have been triggered.
Secondly, legal challenges are serving to confuse matters further. To counter these challenges if they were upheld by the courts, the government should state that it will seek to repeal the 1972 Common Market Act of Accession. This, of itself, would mean the UK leaving the EU. However, the government knows the majority of MPs and Lords would vote to remain.
Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the political elite will snub the referendum result and defy the will of the British people, as they believe, wrongly, that they know best. In this disgraceful exercise they will be supported by big business, who fear losing access to the single market.
When this happens, those people opposed to EU membership, should get off their knees and fight for democracy to be upheld.