20/10/05

Her suggestion that there is no risk in eating poultry seems to ignore the inherent dangers of intensive farming.

Simple measures that could be taken to reduce these risks have been long advocated by the Green Party, but are being ignored by this Labour Government.

Whilst migratory birds carry the virus, the greatest threat of an outbreak is amongst susceptible domestic poultry. The rapidly growing birds, common in today's intensive poultry farms, take 42 days from birth to slaughter and spend much of their lives on urine-soaked litter and weakened by the use of antibiotics. Overcrowded conditions facilitate the rapid spread of the virus and an increased potential for human infection.

Elimination of the overcrowded and inhumane conditions of factory farming would limit the likelihood of such spread. Also, the unnecessary transport of live birds to slaughterhouses needs to end. Small local slaughterhouses are better for animal welfare and prevent the spread of diseases over long distances as we saw in the foot-and-mouth epidemic.

Surely taking precautions now is better than Labour's do nothing approach? - Leslie Rowe, Richmond Green Party.

PATRICIA Hewitt tells us how well Britain is prepared for a pandemic of bird flu. I really don't think so.

Within a fortnight our health service and intensive care facilities would be overwhelmed. I think we are in danger of taking our eye off the ball.

All the recent publicity given to the virus reaching Europe in birds may seem alarming, but by rigorous regulation in Europe, people and poultry can be kept apart.

Not so in China where, historically, most flu pandemics have started. There is no reason to believe that it will be any different next time. Not difficult to understand why when one considers that millions of rural Chinese live literally cheek by jowl with their hens, ducks, geese and pigs. All these animals are natural hosts for influenza viruses. It so happens that pigs are one of the main transition hosts between birds and man.

Whenever the event happens, it is to be hoped for all our sakes that the state controlled media in China is not foolish enough to try and engineer a cover-up, thus giving the disease a head start. - Peter Hill, School Aycliffe.

POLICE MERGERS

IT seems that the Government is bent on amalgamating police forces, but the answer is not in taking power away from local people. However, the decision has been made, so it matters not whether the headquarters is in Durham, Teesside or Northallerton (Echo, Oct 12).

Nor is this about police authorities, it is about the service we receive, so we must work to ensure the best possible result for our area.

It is possible that a regional force dealing with serious crimes, which need specialist skills in officers could be successful, but dealing with local issues should be dealt with through locally-based policing.

Despite there never being enough police officers, those we have work hard on our behalf and what is successful is the divisional command structure based on local authority areas with the police working with the councils and their community safety partnerships.

I believe that we should work to maintain this model of local policing. - Valerie Halton, Guisborough.

I AM all for the merger of North-East police forces, but only if the region is separated into two different forces. I would like to see the forces of Darlington, Stockton and Middlesbrough become the Tees Valley Police Constabulary, while from the north of Hartlepool and Newton Aycliffe up to the northern borders of Northumberland, the second force could be known as the Northumberland & Durham Police Constabulary.

That way the region's two police forces should be able to survive on their local funding. To have one North-East police force would be foolish, as major "southern" regional towns like Middlesbrough and Darlington have no connection at all with Durham or Newcastle, so a local name should be created to bond our local forces in the south of the region, as well as up in the north. - Christopher Wardell, Darlington.

EURO DEBATE

MYTH of the week goes to Dr Bateson (HAS Oct, 15) for suggesting the EEC (formed 1973) and EU (formed 1990) have kept the peace in Europe.

You find it all the time from the pro-EU fanatics - they either have a loose knowledge of history or deliberately look to deceive the public.

In reality, peace was kept only in a small part of Europe, which happened to be under Nato protection and the nuclear umbrella. Not the EEC, not the EC, not even the EU could protect anyone from the Soviet Union without a great deal of American help, something the "EU luvvies" find hard to digest.

Nato was established in 1949, not only to discourage Communist aggression but also to keep the peace among former enemies within Western Europe. In forming Nato, each member country agreed to treat an attack on any other member as an attack on itself.

The EU now systematically undermines the one successful alliance that has kept peace in Western Europe without putting very much by way of protection in its place. And for what? To give itself a notional foreign and security policy.

As the eurosceptics say: Love Europe... hate the EU. - Jim Tague, Bishop Auckland Conservatives.

DR BATESON is absolutely right when he says that Britain has always been European, but it concerns me that he fails to see any difference between geography and politics. It's a facile argument, and one with very little understanding of European history, to equate a physical proximity to the European continent with reasons for a political union.

Neither is a federal Europe a guarantee of freedom from conflict. Has Dr Bateson already forgotten the tragedy of Yugoslavia? The 60 years of peace we have enjoyed with Germany have been the result of the happy co-existence of democracies, and not the gift of the EU. There has never been a case of a free and democratic nation starting a war in Europe.

The war Dr Bateson imagines will never happen is inevitable if the disparate nations of Europe are forced into a one-government-fits-all union. There is one thing as certain as tomorrow's sunrise and that is that the European empire, if it becomes a reality, will self-destruct. There is not a single empire in the history of the world that has ended otherwise. Is that a lesson we, or our children, must learn again?

If we must have enhanced ties with Europe, let them be trade agreements that are just and fair; unlike our entry into the EU bought by Ted Heath with the sacrifice of Britain's fisheries. Let us go back to being free and separate nations with our own identities. Love of freedom and respect for self-determination is hardly Luddite, but handing over the reins of government to a foreign power is treason. - Janusz Ostrowski, Capheaton, Northumberland.

SCHOOL CLOSURE DEBATE

COUNCIL leader John Williams' dismissive response to Saturday's demonstration against the closure of Hurworth school only goes to illustrate the arrogant and cynical approach of Darlington Borough Council ( Echo, Oct 17).

By calling this legitimate campaign event staged by concerned parents and residents a "stunt" is insulting and unbecoming of someone in his position.

Perhaps if he bothered to discuss this topic with the people of Darlington, he would discover that what "amazes" us all is that they should want to close one of the town's few good schools, rather than concentrating their efforts on problems afflicting many other schools across the town.

He and council chief executive Ada Burns have repeatedly stated that they are listening, yet their actions prove the opposite.

The introduction of a City Academy into the scheme has only increased the level of opposition, with campaigners gaining support from across the political spectrum and educational establishment.

Mr Williams would be better occupied engaging in serious debate on the options for education in Darlington rather than insulting those very people he was elected to represent. - Ian Holme, Hurworth.

HOW can John Williams claim that the majority of residents were behind the plans for an education academy (Echo, Oct 17) when the residents of Darlington only learned of the City Academy plans on October 4?

When did the council "listen" to its residents? Where, like Sunderland City Council, were the polls asking residents if they wanted a privatised school in the borough?

Where has the consultation been with its residents regarding any of the council's ever-changing plans for the closure of Eastbourne and Hurworth schools? - Anne Owens, Hurworth Place.

EASTBOURNE School came out of special measures a year ago whilst under a Federation headed by Eamonn Farrar, who happily took the credit.

In March, Mr Farrar praised the Eastbourne headteacher, Karen Pemberton, and declared the Federation was to end because of its success.

Weeks later, Ms Pemberton was suspended due to conditions at Eastbourne which (while paid a lot of council taxpayers' money) as Federation Head, Mr Farrar hadn't noticed.

Then, Mr Farrar and the council's director of children's services Margaret Asquith announced Eastbourne's closure and a new Hurworth School be built in Eastbourne's catchment area - and now we're told it's to be a City Academy.

So many things don't make any sense. We as taxpayers and parents have a right to know how money is spent and a say in whether education in the town is privatised. - G Alexander, Darlington.