Home   News   Article

READERS’ LETTERS: From the Bury Free Press of Friday, November 4

Readers' letters
Readers' letters

A selection of readers’ letters from the Bury Free Press of Friday, November 4.


On behalf of the county council, and mayors and chairmen of the borough and district councils throughout Suffolk, I write to urge everyone in Suffolk to support the 2016 Poppy Appeal of the Royal British Legion.

This year we have continued to commemorate the centenary of significant conflicts of the First World War – the Battle of the Somme (which particularly affected members of the Suffolk Regiment), and the Battle of Jutland (which was the only major naval battle of the war).

The Royal British Legion is asking everyone to support the Poppy Appeal for the memory of the fallen and the future of the living. Additionally, we are ever mindful of the sacrifices made by our Armed Forces, in more recent conflicts. The debt we owe to the brave people who protect our country and its way of life is as real today as it ever was.

The RBL created the Poppy Appeal to help those returning from the First World War. Over a century on from the start of that conflict, they are still helping today’s Armed Forces families in much the same way, whether coping with bereavement, living with disability or finding employment.

The poppy is a powerful symbol – it is worn to commemorate the sacrifices of our Armed Forces and to show support to those still serving today, and their loved ones.

I ask everyone to show special generosity in supporting the work of the Royal British Legion whose services are so vital to the care and welfare of our dedicated service men and women and their families.

--Colin Spence, Chairman, Suffolk County Council


Copy of a letter sent to the Churchgate Area Association regarding its proposals for traffic in Bury St Edmunds’ ‘mediaeval grid’:

Thank you for your most recent circular. I hope that you will consider my two remarks, although you may find them to be at variance to your organisation’s agenda.

It is offensive, but unsurprising, that nowhere in your proposal is there any provision for, nor even any mention of, disabled access to the centre of the town. Indeed, plan C abolishes, at a stroke, all the existing disabled parking on Buttermarket, Market Place and Cornhill with no suggestion of replacement.

My second point refers to those businesses in the centre of our town who are clinging to viability. Denying vehicular access to them, and more pertinently, their customers, will surely jeopardise their survival. Surely this not the CAA’s intention?

-- Dr John Urquhart, Westgate Street, Bury St Edmunds


Who is responsible for the erection of telegraph poles on the B1066 between Upper Whepstead and the junction with Pages Hill Lane?

A glorious wide open landscape/skyscape has been hideously desecrated and for what reason?

For 40 years there has been apparently no need for this visible connection, so why now when there is constant pressure to bury cables?

St Edmundsbury Borough Council must have been consulted and was the Council for Protection of Rural England aware of this crass violation of this precious area of West Suffolk?

Those guilty should be pilloried, or is this the moment to re-instate the village stocks?

-- Ronald Hynd, via email


I have, on many occasions, intended to reply to the excellent letters published from Tom Murray, such as the dangerous condition of pavements in Bury St Edmunds and other important issues. But I couldn’t agree more with his comments about St John’s Street (letters, October 28).

I look back to the time when there was the danger of the shops and the street being demolished and replaced by a modern complex, but due to public pressure and the beginning of The Bury Society, this was rescinded.

And as Tom Murray says, we now have a fabulous array of shops.

I have, on occsions, directed visitors to St John’s Street if they are in that area and I mention the independent shops.

-- Edna Coote, Out Westgate, Bury St Edmunds


Lord Alf Dubs’ amendment to allow unaccompanied children to be offered safe refuge in the UK was defeated in the House of Commons in April.

Lord Dubs arrived in Britain on the Kindertransport programme for Jewish children which took place during the Second World War. The United Kingdom then took in nearly 10,000 predominantly jewish children from Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.

In February this year Jo Churchill went to Lesbos to witness the affect the refugee crisis was having on the children and families who had travelled from Turkey to Lesbos risking their lives to find safety on the shores of Europe. The article in the Bury Free Press showed Jo Churchill holding a baby and giving the impression to the public of a caring person and also acknowledging as a mother she was glad that she did not have to make such a choices in her own life.

I am amazed that when Jo Churchill was given the power to make a choice in April to help thousands of unaccompanied refugee children and she refused to vote for them to enter the UK. Apart from unaccompanied children being let down, I am sure the Charity Save the Children who organised Mrs Churchill’s trip also feel let down by her actions, as they themselves are calling on the government to offer homes to unaccompanied children.

In her article she was asked how the trip impacted on her as a mother, well it seems to me, not a lot really. It seems she also feels that we should not be over-emotional and it is the right help which needed. As a volunteer on Lesbos also in February, maybe I became too over-emotional, washing the shoes which had travelled the salty sea on wet and cold children’s feet. I would like to suggest to Jo Churchill that the right help for the refugee children would have been for her to have voted Yes in April, heavy heart or not.

I am constantly disappointed in politicians who say one thing and either do the opposite or completely nothing at all.

-- Sue Spendlove, Hartest


Iliffe Media does not moderate comments. Please click here for our house rules.

People who post abusive comments about other users or those featured in articles will be banned.

Thank you. Your comment has been received and will appear on the site shortly.


Terms of Comments

We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions to the reader comments but we may intervene and take such action as we think necessary, please click here for our house rules.

If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report abuse button, contact us here.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More