27/10/2004

It is very cynical to suggest that the decision was made merely to support President Bush's election campaign.

It is understood by the Americans that the situation in Iraq would be very much worse for their armed forces had it not been for the British.

Some newspapers have been calling for a Commons vote on the issue, but the decision was reached through a united Cabinet, which is just as satisfactory.

Let us hope that the famous Black Watch battalion completes its operations in Northern Iraq successfully and is home by Christmas. - LD Wilson, Guisborough.

THOSE of us who supported the invasion of Iraq did so in the hope that the British and American governments shared our agenda.

Uppermost in that agenda was concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people - to rescue them from an abhorrent regime.

However, in destroying the essential services of Iraq - something that was totally unjustified by any military consideration - and then failing to restore them promptly, Britain and America showed conspicuous contempt for the well-being of Iraq and that is why they are in the situation they are in now: when anarchy and injustice prevail, terrorism and insurgency find a ready foothold.

Iraq, it goes without saying, is now a bloody shambles and I see no outcome for Britain and America there that does not include even worse bloodshed and humiliation.

As for the Americans, they appear incapable of learning from their past mistakes, but one might just have expected more of Britain.

However, from what I have seen of the British civil service, one would probably have been naive. - T Kelly, Crook.

I FAIL to understand the condemnation of our Government by many for answering the request for help by our allies the Americans to send troops to assist them in that zone of Iraq.

The dissenters should refer back to World War Two: if the Americans had not answered our call for help, we would now, along with Europe and the Middle East, be under the Nazi jackboot.

So let us not forget what would have happened if they had refused our call for help then. It would focus the dissenters' minds if they visit the war cemeteries in France and see the headstone of the thousands of Americans who answered the request for help, and never went home. They paid the ultimate price for our freedom.

So I applaud our government for answering the call of our true allies. - WE Hullah, Bedale.

SMOKING

SINCE the Government seems reluctant to save the lives of the thousands who die painful deaths due to passive smoking, why don't the relations of those victims take the law in their own hands?

A mother, father, son, daughter who died a very painful death due to passive smoking in their workplace should be liable for compensation as the employers know that passive smoking is often the most dangerous life-threatening horror that the non-smoker can be subjected to.

Many other dangers in workplaces are recognised and the employer knows that if he does not ensure that the effect is not reduced then he will be sued in an industrial tribunal and he will have to pay out vast sums in compensation. So if relations of these victims of passive smoking take action, the employer knows he is allowing a danger to lives to thrive in his workplace. - E Reynolds, Wheatley Hill.

HUNTING

HARRY Mead, in one of his columns, mentions a democratically elected House of Commons, with which statement I agree as long as it applies to Britain.

But the hunting ban applies to England in the main and not Britain, so I cannot agree that the word democratic applies.

At the moment there are MPs voting on English affairs who were born in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Africa and Eastern Europe, instead of only English-born people.

To the best of my knowledge there is not one MP in Scotland, Wales or Ireland who is a born and bred Englishman, so why have we to put up with any Tom, Dick or Harry voting on our affairs?

When Scotland was given its own parliament, any fair minded person would have expected that all Scots would give up their English seats, but alas they seem to stick like the proverbial.

As far as England is concerned it is still grit, Scottish grit.

It is very obvious why this British government is pushing for regional assemblies in England: divide and rule, prevent an English parliament being formed.

The other countries of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland are not split up into regions so why suggest this for England, if not as a method being used to keep all these non-English in post? - G Hutchinson, Spennymoor.

REGIONAL ASSEMBLY

I WAS astounded to note that you urged your readership to vote Yes to a regional assembly.

How dare you assume, like some totalitarian, to dictate as to how any of us should vote in the forthcoming election?

It is not your business to tell us how to vote. What is your business is to report both sides of the argument, clearly and without bias.

As for not wanting a new regional parliament building, just how long do you think the newly-elected fat cats would put up with a converted office block in Durham? - J Watson, Washington.

ANYONE intending to vote Yes for an elected regional assembly on November 4 should ponder long and hard on the following:

1 Just why is this Government, which is so addicted to centralised control, almost falling over itself to give us an elected assembly, which could theoretically prove very troublesome to it in the future? Is it for their benefit or ours?

2 In effect, you are only voting Yes for the basic idea of an elected assembly. What will you do if you do not like the detail when it is eventually announced?

3 The possible range of powers put forward at present are only from a Draft Bill prepared by the Government, but which has not yet been agreed by Parliament. The Essential Guide to the North-East Referendum, issued by the Electoral Commission, clearly states that the Draft Bill may change later.

4 Do you believe that we really have been given enough firm information on which to vote for changes which could have such far reaching consequences? There will not be any going back.

5 We are not being offered anything like devolved government or home rule.

6 Two-thirds of the seats on the assembly will be decided by the first past the post system, with only one third decided by proportional representation. That means one party domination.

So forget inflatable elephants and rats as well as the views of personalities and study the facts. - J. Routledge, Witton Gilbert.