25/05/04

The intolerable evil that Tony Blair used to justify war was the fear that the regime of Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction against 'the West' in support of international terrorism.

No such weapons have been found, nor any evidence that they existed in recent years.

There is no evidence now - nor ever was there - to link the regime of Saddam Hussein to events surrounding September 11.

The United Sates gave military support - including access to chemical weapon technology - to Iraq in the war against Iran. Then the US changed sides in 1985 and supplied arms to Iran in the 'Irangate' arms for hostages scandal.

Given the historical perspective, it seems clear to me that the regime of Saddam Hussein was no worse - nor any better - than many of the previous regimes in Iraq (not to mention other countries).

Ten years of sanctions following the Gulf War, plus the attacks by Israel, had reduced the country to a beggar state with no ability to develop or purchase sophisticated weapons capable of mass destruction (eg atomic bombs, long range rocket delivery systems etc).

I now cannot believe that the military intelligence of this or any other country thought that such weapons existed at the time Mr Blair made his decision to go to war.

The war has been a tragic waste of life, without any redeeming features, and has not even remotely provided a 'noble and just' cause for armed conflict.

None of Mr Blair's reasons stand inspection. - Terry Jones, Swainby.

REGARDING the recent furore over prisoner abuse and human and civil rights outcry against coalition troops, why were these voices strangely silent during the recent slaughter of an estimated one and a half million Christians and non-Muslims by the Muslim majority in Sudan, and the ruthless ethnic cleansing there? - William Mawston, Rushyford.

SECURITY

I MAY have a completely different political view to that of Tony Blair (and I don't mind saying it) but the reality is, he is the Prime Minister of this nation, a great nation I may add, and has every right to be properly protected.

Of course, the recent flour bombing of the Commons again shows that vigilance is required at all times. Yes, there is an element of risk with such positions, and yes, it must be balanced against that of a free democracy, but we've had a stern warning and a lapse too many.

Mr Blair, his family and colleagues on all sides of the Houses of Commons, deserve better than this.

If we can't protect Mr Blair then what of the rest of us? - Jim Tague, Bishop Auckland Conservatives.

CONSERVATIVES

I THINK the Tories must be having a joke in suggesting that Michael Howard is suitable as a possible British Prime Minister.

As Home Secretary, he was responsible for cutting the police force by 1,000 officers and there was an increase in crime over the same period, as well as more asylum seekers coming into the country.

When Mr Howard was Employment Secretary, he oversaw a million more people unemployed.

And the Tory record generally needs to be looked at. In the first two years of the Thatcher government, no less than 40 per cent of North-East industry was destroyed.

And the Tories managed to have unemployment at four million and interest rates of 15 per cent. In addition, under the last Tory government, crime went up 100 per cent. So much for the "law and order" party.

I can never forget or forgive the damage the Tories did to so many individuals and communities in the North-East. - P. Rivers, Wallsend.

PENSIONS

PENSIONERS are one of a number of groups of benefit claimants who are being targeted to change their payments away from traditional order books.

Changing to payment through an account has implications for a number of claimants.

Most accounts require use of a PIN number. Many people, like those with learning disabilities or people with dementia, are unable to use a PIN number. There are implications for people like home helps having access to PIN numbers in order to draw pensions. At present a person may be able to sign on an order book.

Moving to accounts could reduce the independence of some people with disabilities. I am aware of individuals with learning disabilities who can sign for and collect their weekly payment on an order book. However, I am aware of the same people not being allowed accounts in their own right - accounts have to be managed by a responsible person. I have been aware of a woman with learning difficulties, who had no family, being unable to open an account with any mainstream branch - an account was needed so that she could pay bills to an emergency respite unit after the people who had cared for her for many years were seriously injured in an accident.

Many banks do not want accounts where all money paid in is immediately taken out. Benefits are needed for life's essentials. Banks can be awkward about wanting examples of utility bills, and evidence that people will not money launder, etc. Many people with long-term disabilities or pensioners in care home situations cannot offer these.

The collection of payments at a post office is an important social institution - people notice when Mary or Joe has not been to collect their pension.

The payment through accounts has led to post office closures across the UK. Branch closures make access difficult for many people as distances to the nearest post office increase. Branch closures also mean increased queues at those post offices that remain.

I believe it is important that benefit claimants continue to have a choice as to how payments are made, including by order book. This belief is echoed by the Liberal Democrats who have been campaigning against post office closures. - Jacqueline Bell, PPC Liberal Democrats, Richmond.

EUROPE

THE EU Commission has just approved Germany's plan to spend more than £2bn to support its ailing coal industry for 2004.

The aid is part of Germany's plans to gradually reduce production. It includes funds to cover the difference between production costs and selling prices, the costs of running the mines and money to cover exceptional costs arising from the industry's restructuring.

State aid is illegal under European Union law. However, this aid has been described as "compatible with the proper functioning of the single market", and it turns out to be legal after all.

Many of the people of the mining community that I was brought up in may well question why the German mining communities are benefiting from aid to sustain their pits from British taxpayers' money, who, we must never forget, pay £25m ever day to be in the EU. - Chris Williamson, Durham Branch Chairman, UK Independence Party.