How will we benefit from this tram system?
WITH reference to the tram system being built, it would seem to me that the people that proposed it have no interest in the people of Beeston and Chilwell.
For example, for one whole year some people will not easily be able to catch a bus to Long Eaton, Derby or even Nottingham.
Further to this, it would seem that we don't know if the present bus services will run on the same route as they do now when the tram system is running.
It would be good if someone could explain why Beeston will benefit from this tram system.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.ukView details
Our heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
As a very long-term resident I cannot see what the so-called improvements will be.
Peter Lawton (via e-mail)
WITH the arrival of Wetherspoons, Costa Coffee and Tesco in Bingham, I predict that there will be at least five shops and at least one pub closing.
Presumably they can all find jobs at Tesco?
Having seen what superstores have done for Long Eaton, the future for Bingham is not bright.
DAVID BASTABLE (via e-mail)
I AM trying to trace the relatives of my father, whose family are from Nottingham.
The surname is Corthorn. He is Harold and for most of his life has lived in Brighton, having been born in Woolwich.
He is now 80. His mother was Stella and his father was William Harold.
He remembers an aunt called Netta, I know she was only a few months older than him. It would be lovely if contact could be made.
I can be contacted on firstname.lastname@example.org.
CHERYL FELIX (via email)
APPARENTLY, Nottingham City Council has delayed finalising the planning agreement for Victoria Centre's redevelopment, as the parties involved have very little interest in refurbishing the Broadmarsh Centre.
When the two centres opened during the 1970s, readers may recall how Nottingham was divided, causing city centre trade to plummet and some of the best shops disappeared forever.
There is credence in demolishing the Broadmarsh Centre and constructing one fit for purpose with an integrated bus terminal, instead of the current mishmash of two bus stations and the utter chaos associated with passengers converging along Friar Lane.
One certainty is that it could prove a financial disaster to have two competing shopping malls in the city, as each could struggle to find sufficient tenants for full occupancy.
In that case shoppers would patronise Derby, Leicester or Birmingham for the greater selection of trading outlets.
Upon reflection, concentrate the resources on Victoria Centre making it the retail showcase of the Midlands; make the other centre, the transport hub.
I AM pleased to find that my recent letter prompted a reply (Opinion, March 13) from Sarah Wootton of Dignity in Dying, as I am sure she would not have bothered to respond if I had not made my case cogently.
Any visitor to the website of Dignity in Dying will find harrowing stories of individuals citing agonising conditions which cause them to seek assistance to die.
If this is not a reasonable definition of using emotive arguments to justify their case, in other words seizing on anguish, it is hard to know what is.
The central plank of Dignity in Dying's campaign is that the terminally ill should have the right to end their own lives or instruct someone to help them achieve this.
This "right" simply cannot be conferred without a fundamental shift in law and ethics, which, by its very existence, would render everyone in society vulnerable in a culture which regards euthanasia as a solution to one of life's dilemmas.
This is simply too great a price to pay for "freedom of choice".
The idea that the most realistic way to avoid acute suffering at the end of life is through euthanasia, and that opponents of this idea want the terminally ill to suffer, is not true, and is in fact a preposterous argument.
It is used to label opponents of assisted dying as callous and unfeeling.
Those who feel as I do advocate better palliative care for the terminally ill – in other words, helping people to reach the end of their lives naturally in as much comfort as possible and protecting them from having treatment withdrawn from them in hospitals without their consent.
The trouble with this, of course, is that it is phenomenally expensive to administer.
Can Sarah honestly produce a convincing argument that such a law as she proposes would never be subject to further changes introducing more and more "freedoms" for hospitals and doctors to make decisions concerning the end of life?
The growing use of the Liverpool Care Path in hospitals to end the lives of the terminally ill, often without the consent of patients or relatives, clearly illustrates how this process works.
And can she honestly say that in other countries where euthanasia is legal – for example Belgium and Holland – that research into end of life care has not deteriorated?
Can she explain what "safeguards" she has in mind?
I contend that the only real safeguard that can be put in place is for the law to remain as it is.
Sarah cites public opinion. Public opinion is famously unreliable as a guide to action – it is very often wrong and is subject to manipulation by powerful forces.
I do not have on my side, images or stories of people begging to be allowed to live, because Sarah's campaign group has not yet had its way. I hope never to be able to cite such images.
As I said previously, for which I have been told by an anonymous correspondent that I talk "utter nonsense", this Pandora's Box must remain closed.
WE have the joy of intensive campaigners stuffing numerous items of literature – if that is an appropriate word – though our letterboxes.
All promise to have all the answers and rectify the problems within our community or the country.
It is this charade that's making the election process a bit of a pantomime.
The electorate is turning its back on the process and even in hotly contested by-elections it's difficult to really see if the winner has a mandate considering the turnouts.
Will it eventually be the same here as it is in Italy, where elections are viewed as a form of protest or entertainment?
We constantly hear about politicians and councillors wanting to listen and get in touch with the electorate, yet nothing appears to have changed.
Don't we care any more, as it now seems common practice to promise but never deliver?
Manor Green Walk