Hear All Sides

ASYLUM SEEKERS

WHY is all the criticism levelled at Australia about the so-called refugees? Most of whom are certainly not.

They hoped to land undetected but,unfortunately, their boat began to sink. All credit to the ship which rescued them.

Australia should have the right to decide if 400 Afghans should live in their country or not.

Most refugees are not refugees but people who have paid gangsters a huge sum of money, in their terms, to get from a poor country to an affluent one.

The criticism should be directed at the country they have left and most of those countries are glad to see them go and often help them to leave.

If there is to be an open door policy for these countries, it will not be long before half the population of China moves to Australia. They already have a huge Asian number.

Mexico could take over the US and no doubt most of the poor countries of Africa would move into Europe and Britain.

Would it solve the so-called poor countries' problems? No, the affluent countries would then also become poor themselves. - E Reynolds, Wheatley Hill.

BATTLE OF BRITAIN

THE letter "Unsung heroes" (HAS, Sept 3) by R Kirkby cannot go unchallenged.

He states that the ack ack batteries shot down more fighters that the RAF in the Battle of Britain, and that Churchill was referring to the men and women of all services in his famous: "Never in the field of human conflict" speech.

He is wrong on both counts. Firstly, artillery pieces were in short supply for the Battle of Britain and, anti-aircraft guns were notoriously ineffectual in the early days of the war. On one occasion, 13,500 rounds were fired over London with insignificant damage being caused to enemy aircraft. Their value was in deflecting bombers from their targets.

Without doubt it was the fighters and "The Few" pilots of the RAF who accounted for the majority of German losses in 1940. No fewer than 1,733 being shot down with 643 damaged. (German sources).

This is not a criticism of the efforts of those who served so valiantly in the ack ack batteries, but simply to say that the facts do not support R Kirby's letter. - AE Eaton, Newton Aycliffe.

LABOUR PARTY

MY astonishment grows at how life-long Labour supporters can now revere Tony Blair's befuddled mix of "policies".

From saying there is no way whatsoever that private medical insurance could solve the problem in the health service, he is now increasingly in favour of using private finance and using many hitherto Tory policies.

How long can he conceal the growing disparity between the haves and have nots, mainly due to excessive taxes on items used by the less affluent; that the proportion of national income spent on pensions has fallen; or that the percentage of population on means-tested benefits has increased substantially? The percentage of GDP spent on public services since 1997, in nearly all cases, is less than under the last five years of Conservative government.

To compound this, morale in these services is at an all-time low and new recruitment is being outweighed by employees who can't wait to get out, ie teachers.

I suggest Mr Blair has many more problems to overcome than the newly-elected Opposition leader, whose party will be able to concentrate on being united in pursuing policies which can benefit all sections of the community. - JW Heslop, Gainford.

MINERS

AS an ex-miner I found J Young (HAS, Aug 31) very offensive. All miners would agree there were other occupations that had tough working conditions.

The point is that miners, after nationalisation, were just in the mines for the pay, conditions and to miss national service was way off the mark.

A lot of men left the mines to join the forces, police force, etc because they did not want the work and the conditions. That was in the 1950s.

Lots of occupations have pension funds, although some miners receive pension as little as 35p per week.

The comments on handouts I will ignore and treat it with the contempt they deserve. - P Hemingway, Willington.