We need more details of city's spending cuts
IT would be both interesting and informative if the council could expand on their succinct statements of the proposed areas where cuts in funding are to be made (Post, December 19).
Cuts to the council's adult services budget will only bring further chaos and confusion to the older and disabled people.
In contrast the closing of the cash counter at the library would probably supply only a tiny amount of funds compared to the proposed £25 million which is said to be required.
So please council show the public some actual figures and details which assist you in making these decisions.
Come and Join us this evening FOR STEAK NIGHT and get a FREE...View details
Tonight is steak night at Spagehtti Amore so bring this voucher with you to get either a FREE PINT or GLASS OF HOUSE RED when ordering steak
*terms and conditions apply
Selected drinks only
Please take voucher or quote thisisnottingham offer when calling
Contact: 0115 896 2165
Valid until: Tuesday, May 21 2013
WITH reference to the comments from Albert Godfrey ("Pupils could all read and write at this school", Letters, December 18). As a former pupil of Highbury Infant, Junior and Boys' school believe there is one mistake and at least one omission.
I think you will find that Fred Riddell did not teach at that school until about 1954, and not 1944 as stated. He also fails to mention a venerable old teacher of that period who retired in the mid 50s, namely Mr Hartley.
It was certainly a school full of characters.
I READ with interest that the city council is going to clamp down on pavement parking on Woodside Road, Lenton Abbey (Post, December 12).
May I suggest they clamp down on pavement parking throughout the city, and start by example and telling most of the Nottingham City Homes drivers to park on the road, and then move on to the police and tell them to park on the road.
I can understand some drivers at times have need to put two wheels on the pavement, but never to block the pavement.
You also see that most of the time people will only have to walk another couple of yards and they could keep the pavement clear, or park on the same side of the road and the problem is solved.
I go to the Lenton Abbey estate on a regular basis the parking around there in places is absolutely atrocious.
I have never have to park on the pavement, a lot of time I have had to walk a few more yards to park properly, but yet again this is another problem self inflicted by motorists.
I WAS disappointed with your recent article about Gedling Borough Council spending £54,000 on locality co-ordinators ("Council defends new roles after campaign group jibe," Post, December 12).
For a start, these posts were introduced as part of a wider reorganisation that actually saved money. Was this made clear to the Taxpayers' Alliance when the Post went in search of its feedback? I doubt it.
And was the Taxpayers' Alliance told how positively these posts have been received by the very people it (the Taxpayers' Alliance) represents? I doubt it.
And come to that, why was the Taxpayer's Alliance approached at all?
Does its spokesperson Mr Oxley know anything about Newstead or Netherfield? Has he indeed ever been to either Newstead or Netherfield?
Has he any experience of how best to tackle antisocial behaviour, domestic violence or youth disaffection? I doubt it.
So quite why the Post sought his opinion baffles me. Was the Post looking for a negative angle on a positive story? Probably. That's a shame.
Gedling Borough Council
IN response to Jonathan Staites' letter (Post, December 12), I would like to clarify the following issues.
Meetings of the Police and Crime Panel have been widely advertised through each of the websites and public meeting notices of the various councils involved in the panel (i.e. the city council, the county council and all borough/ district councils in Notts).
I am also aware that the two meetings of the panel which took place on December, 3, 2012, also attracted prior coverage from the Nottingham Post.
With regard to the timing of panel meetings, it is felt that daytime meetings will maximise member attendance as the majority of its members attend meetings of their own councils during the evening. It should be noted that the panel does intend to meet at different venues across Notts in future.
The panel's councillor membership has been agreed in line with the relevant legislation. The panel had previously agreed to seek to increase its councillor members via additional co-options to best achieve political balance across the whole of the county and to better represent the population of the city.
All of these councillors have been democratically elected by the public and each council has chosen their most appropriate representatives on the panel, based on their roles and experience.
The panel has appointed two independent members on an initial temporary six months' basis.
Members had agreed to target representatives from the Probation Trust Board and local magistrates to address a knowledge gap. However, the panel may choose to seek to recruit further independents from the wider public when next reviewing its membership in June 2013.
As with the vast majority of other council meetings, the public do not have speaking rights at panel meetings.
However, I understand that the Police and Crime Commissioner is developing other means of engaging the public to best reflect their views within his work.
The panel unanimously supported the appointment of Chris Cutland into the post of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner and noted that Mr Tipping had been quite clear within the run-up to the election about his plans to appoint a deputy.
The panel will continue to offer a warm welcome to Mr Staites and any other members of the public who would like to attend future meetings.
COUNCILLOR JOHN CLARKE
Chairman of the Notts Police and Crime Panel
I SEE Councillor Steve Barber is desperately still trying to justify his (and that of his few other train-spotting mates') enthusiasm for the Beeston/Chilwell tram (Letters, December 12) by suggesting ways of minimising the massive disruption caused by its construction.
Firstly he talks of Taylor Woodrow's failure to meet their contractual obligations.
He says that Taylor Woodrow seemed a good choice (is he now doubtful?) and goes on to say that the firm seems to find the task "challenging" (council speak for "they are not up to the task"?).
He goes on to say that the proposal to close Chilwell Road has "upset a few people". Does he refer to the traders on the road who now fear for their livelihood? Surely this prospect does more than "upset" them!
His solution to the possible closure? A shuttle bus! This will be imaginatively named – wait for it – the Chilwell Road Flyer. Just a minute. If the road is only closed one way, why can't I fly down it in my car? In which case what would be the point of a shuttle bus?
Next he proposes a "well-signed cycle route". Presumably Councillor Barber thinks that those people who won't be hopping on to the "flyer" will get on their bike (if they have one) and, and... I'm not sure.
But why a new cycle route, well-signed or otherwise? There already is one; it's called a pavement.
Finally, Councillor Barber maintains that the tram "will benefit Beeston once completed".
Does he also think that the tram will benefit Chilwell and, if so, how?
MALCOLM G ELLIS