WHEN every vote counts it is astonishing that David Cameron flaunts his contempt for animal welfare.
The Conservative election manifesto states: “The Hunting Act has proved unworkable. A Conservative government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote with a government bill in government time.’’
This will bring back fox hunting, hare hunting and hare coursing, stag hunting, some form of summer riverside hunting and all the havoc associated with these cruel pastimes.
Some hunters have too easily flouted and ignored the Hunting Act but surely that is reason to close the loopholes and better enforce the Act, not to repeal it.
This plan for a return to bloodsports is not in the environment or animal welfare sections of the manifesto. Instead, it is in the ‘civil liberties’ part.
So it is the hunters’ self-claimed ‘right to be cruel’ against to the wishes of the vast majority that David Cameron seems to support.
As hunting can thrive without the pursuit of live quarry why return to the cruel old days? Seeking ‘change’ is fine but change for the better is needed, not a return to past savagery.
We must keep Trident
I’M LOOKING at the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to increase the income tax threshold to £10,000 at a time when the annual deficit is approaching £170bn.
To pay for this Mr Clegg proposes to play fast and loose with national defence by not replacing the Trident nuclear missile system.
I just remember the last time Liberal opinion neglected the nation’s defence in the second half of the 1930s.
Germany was obviously preparing for war and we were saved by only three things:
1) Mr Churchill’s fight to bring home the folly of disarmament in such a dangerous situation.
2) Mr Chamberlain’s buying time with the Munich agreement in order to re-arm and bring the Spitfire into service.
3) The bravery of the fighter pilots of the RAF.
In today’s situation with North Korea and Iran on the verge of becoming nuclear powers, can we afford to economise on defence?
I think not.
Right to ban holiday
I THINK Royds Hall High school headteacher Melanie Williams is quite right to ban schoolgirl Paige Wignall from going on a holiday with her grandparents.
Ten days away from school is a lot of missed work, no matter what year you are in.
If the teachers decided to take holidays mid term, parents like Paige’s would soon start complaining.
Teachers have to take their holidays at the most expensive times of the year and parents should respect that and do the same.
I would never take my kids on holiday mid term.
I JUST can’t get my head around the story I was reading in the Examiner on April 30 that our fire and rescue service staff are subjected to attacks and abuse.
Our emergency services should be applauded and given a pat on the back. Don’t these people realise that every time staff turn out they are risking their own life to save others?
You never know, the folk who are doing these disgusting acts might have to dial 999 one day. How will they feel then?
Anyone caught should be dealt with and given a prison sentence. So, to all our men and women doing this kind of work – well done.
Roads in disrepair
MAY I thank Mrs S Connolly (Mailbag, April 21) for confirming that the A62 Manchester Road now does not need any further road repairs. That was precisely what I meant when I too wrote to the Examiner on April 17 and stated that Manchester Road near Marsden was in perfect repair.
Unfortunately for the people of Longwood, Golcar and Milnsbridge they have not this same privilege and Mrs Connolly would see how lucky she really is if she visited many roads and streets within these three districts, particularly Benn Lane, Longwood Road and James Street which are absolutely atrocious.
Can anyone understand the thinking behind the council’s priorities concerning our roads in Kirklees? I would certainly like to be educated, because at the moment it mystifies me.
Dr David Hill
Independent candidate for Golcar Ward
NICK Clegg has said we need an immigration system that works.
The Conservatives and the BNP both propose a cap on immigration.
The former is arbitrary and undecided and the latter not in the interests of the UK. The Liberal Democrats want to open the floodgates with an amnesty on current illegal immigrants and I can only imagine the plans that will be hatching to abuse this policy.
Further, the Lib Dems’ idea of regional immigration is impractical, unnecessary and certainly not able to be policed and would probably require another amnesty within a few years.
The UK is not a static unit but grows and changes with the developing world. Issues such as the economy and immigration require solutions that reflect our country today, which the Conservatives acknowledge as their reason for removing exit controls during their time in government. That is why the Australian points based system introduced in 2009 is the strongest, all-round solution for the UK today.
Most people acknowledge that Australia protects its borders well with a system that awards immigrants with credits for contributions, actions and skills that will benefit the community in which they aim to live.
Under Labour’s system, new jobs are advertised to UK citizens for four weeks. No unskilled immigrant is allowed into the country, they must speak English, contribute to the economy and play their full part in their community.
The UK enjoys the benefits of both outward and inward migration. I would personally like to encourage higher levels of migration within the UK to increase the distribution of jobs and maximise the opportunities available to those who already live here.
I welcome the Clegg effect as it has opened up political debate. It has also increased the scrutiny of Lib Dem policies which is essential, especially in three way marginals such as Colne Valley.
In the case of immigration, the Lib Dems’ amnesty would open the floodgates and the Conservative/BNP approach is simply wrong.
IT has become clear that all the three major parties have anti-Catholic and anti-Christian policies, if Christians were in any doubt.
The politicians who would control our lives are intent on wiping out the freedom of those who question the homosexual agenda and the right of Christians who believe that homosexual practice is immoral to speak about their faith.
The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have stated that teachers in faith schools must not be allowed to teach children that homosexual practice is against the teachings of their church or mosque and must state that homosexuality is normal and the equal of heterosexual marriage.
David Cameron for the Conservatives has said that Chris Grayling, Shadow Home Secretary, has no right to state that Christian bed and breakfast owners should not be allowed to deny something which offends their deeply held faith to take place in their home.
However, according to Channel 4, a homosexual couple may let their rooms exclusively to same sexual and male bisexual couples.
Now Mr Cameron has de-selected a Conservative candidate because he does not believe in same sex homosexual conduct. This candidate, Philip Lardner, has now also been suspended from his primary school teaching post for his views.
Mr Cameron has said, in effect, that Christians who hold such beliefs are, ‘deeply offensive and unacceptable.’
It seems that freedom of speech and action is permitted only to those who oppose Christianity. Although Catholic adoption agencies were told that they could not refuse to place children with homosexual partners, homosexual adoption agencies may have a policy of only placing children with those in civil partnerships and refuse to place children with heterosexual couples.
Many Christians must now consider carefully whether they will support those who not only hold such views but would impose them.
Name and address supplied