No excuse for bikes on the pavements
I write in support of Wendy Dickinson’s letter (‘Isn’t it an offence to ride on pavement?’ - Your Say, August 29).
Whilst I have sympathy for cyclists who feel vulnerable navigating their often precarious way through a congested highway system, there is no justification for our two (and sometimes three) wheeled friends to encroach upon our pavements. Neither should they be excused for very deliberately hurtling past dismount signs on the promenade with flagrant disregard for the wellbeing of pedestrians.
Errant cyclists, mountainous heaps of dog waste, and crusting pools of vomit borne of over-exuberant revellers, are increasingly rendering the on-foot negotiation of Blackpool and the surrounding area a tad wearisome.
This is in addition to the constant stream of motor vehicles convoying unabashed through the town centre ‘pedestrian’ zones.
Cyclists, dog owners, imbibers... please respect our designated areas and allow us walkers to safely enjoy our strolls in the sunshine (after all, local climes do not afford us all that many opportunities).
Lobby for future subsidies post-EU
As we get closer to leaving the EU there has been much talk in the media about the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, a second referendum, food and medicine shortages, the army to be put on standby and now subsidies.
We get subsidies on a range of things, from London to the regions, EU funded projects, including tourism to agriculture and it is a cause of concern to those who receive them, what happens when we finally leave?
Remember, the subsidies are part of the UK’s rebate and therefore British taxpayers’ money in the first place, not EU money as implied.
Britain receives around £18bn in rebate which is then spent on the various project leaving around £8bn as our net contribution to the EU.
While the Government has guaranteed that subsidies will remain until the general election in 2022, it would be prudent for those organisations that rely upon them to lobby for future payments after we leave, after all there appears to be sufficient funding available.
Broadcaster and Commentator
It’s hard to live a truly green life
It’s difficult to live a truly ethical eco-friendly life.
Even if one is a vegan, is that person able to ensure all their beauty products are cruelty-free?
What about cruelty-free medicines? Do they take unnecessary car journeys? Buy too many plastic products? Recycle everything that can be recycled?
Yes, veganism may be ‘in vogue’ at the moment but not everyone will take that final leap and become a vegan.
Therefore is it better for us all to take steps to consume less meat and make sure the meat we do eat is free range and humanely killed than for a small minority to go vegan?
Would this be more likely to increase welfare standards?
Another issue – and one which is often neglected by the media and politicians – is palm oil.
In just about everything I buy from a supermarket, palm oil is mentioned in the ingredients.
This seemingly innocuous ingredient is actually responsible for much of the destruction of the rainforests.
According to the Independent, in the past 16 years, an estimated 100,000 orangutans have died because of the quest for palm oil.
Because rainforests are being turned into plantations to grow the substance – and obviously the less rainforest there is, the less habitat for animals, such as orangutans, to live in.
Sustainable palm oil is a better option or if you can find food with no palm oil in the ingredients then that is better still.
I believe Iceland has ditched palm oil in its own brand products so it can be done.
For more information, visit https://www.greenpeace.org/international/act/take-action-indonesia-forests-companies-dirty-palm-oil/
Surely we humans should start taking responsibility for our home and our fellow beings who live alongside us on planet Earth?