IN RECENT weeks there have been a couple of articles in the Kirklees media that have reported local councillors’ concerns about the police not informing the public about crime in their area.

I would like to take this opportunity to add to the comments that we have already given in response to these stories and to hopefully better inform readers of the considerations we need to make.

Let me start by being very clear, we do not cover up crime, it is not in anyone’s interest to do so.

Local crime figures are made readily available and in the public domain at www.police.uk. – a crime statistics website that allows people to enter their postcode and see what crimes have been committed in their area.

Local councillors are in regular contact with their local Neighbourhood Policing Team Inspectors, and discuss crime issues in an area.

Equally, any members of the public who want to know what is going on in their community can also speak to their local NPT, either over the phone or by attending their local PACT meetings, which are held regularly and advertised on the NPT websites.

Being the victim of crime is a traumatic experience and we will always take into consideration the wishes of the victims. Some people ask us not to publicise a crime they have been involved in and we will respect that position.

We issue appeals for witnesses in the media when officers need to attract more witnesses to a crime. If this is not necessary, when for example an officer has spoken to all witnesses, or has made arrests, we do not always need to issue appeals in the media.

We continually take all opportunities to make people safer through issuing crime prevention advice, often through the media, which we would hope people use regularly and not just when crime occurs locally.

What is fact is that by working together we have reduced crime in Kirklees in the last year by over 4000 crimes. In the case of burglary, which has been the focus of these recent articles, we have seen just over 900 fewer victims of burglary in the last 12 months.

We strive to drive this down even further and continue our close working relationship with the public and media.

Superintendent David Lunn Kirklees police

Magical performance

SIX Zulu performers, 600 junior school voices and one-and-a-half hours of sheer magic at Huddersfield Town Hall.

Congratulations to the Mrs Sunderland Committee who had the foresight to engage this dynamic and highly entertaining group, to all the teachers involved and to the school children who will remember the day for a long, long time. It was a privilege to be there.

Ruth Horsfall

Edgerton

Backing the bridge

I AM delighted that Clr Marchington has got behind the proposal for a second bridge across the river Colne in Milnsbridge.

I remember well the original scheme to do this in 1983 by the West Yorkshire County Council. That scheme was radical.

There would have been a new road extending from the junction of River Street with Scar Lane all the way to Dale Street.

This extension would not be possible today because of the new homes that have been built.

In 1985 the Tory Government abolished the County Council before they could build the bridge. Of course the road congestion today is far more severe today than it was 1983.

In 2007 I was the Labour candidate in the Kirklees elections and strongly supported the Milnsbridge Enhancement Group proposal to build a second bridge. I helped to get an assessment of the proposal by Kirklees Council.

Unfortunately the Highways officers’ views were that a second bridge would not help the congestion problem in Milnsbridge. Perhaps they should have been more radical in their outlook.

If Clr Marchington is prepared to work alongside his Golcar Ward colleagues, Hilary Richards and Paul Salveson, we will see if the question can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Jeremy Cuss

Golcar

Public support needed

THE LibDems Budget proposal for a £5million grant for a second bridge in Milnsbridge is either naive or deeply opportunistic.

There is no doubt that a second bridge is needed and if the bid succeeds we will rejoice. But, as Clr Marchington well knows, a bid from Milnsbridge Enhancement Group (MEG) was turned down in 2007 when local councils were relatively awash with money.

Now that local government is being starved of money by the Tory/LibDem Coalition, a £5million bid suggests that this is party politics rather than a genuine plan for development in the Colne Valley.

In any case, £5million is an underestimate for the work the LibDems are proposing. That was the figure six years ago and didn’t include the ambitious redevelopment of the road network contained in their ‘plan’.

This daydream needs reality-testing. Decision-makers will need to know whether the improvement in traffic-flow justifies the huge expense; local residents will want to know whose houses will be pulled down; and all of us will want to know how disruptive the whole enterprise will be.

MEG has been asking for a second bridge for more than a decade but we acknowledge that there will have to be a full study of the implications. And we are sure that it needs a positive groundswell of support from the whole community, not just another publicity stunt.

Dr Polly McGrail

Chair, Milnsbridge Enhancement Group

Interesting view

I ENJOYED Clr Christine Smith’s argument (Mailbag, February 14) that the Kirkburton street lights “are all absolutely necessary, otherwise they would not have been erected in the first place”.

By the same logic, every council service must be essential, or it would never have been introduced. It’s a curious position for an opposition councillor to adopt.

David Griffiths

Huddersfield

Watch your words

YES, I know what R S of Holmfirth (Letters, February 13) means. I agree with him and with Brian Lawrence in my dislike of these commonplace and irritating words and phrases.

My annoyance is compounded by the knowledge that those who should know better often make errors in the words and phrases that they use – both in the spoken and the written word..

Wouldn’t it be nice if people would make ‘fewer’ (and not ‘less’) mistakes; if they would say ‘for you and me’ (not for ‘I’); if they would ‘lie down’ (not ‘lay’) – a hen can lay an egg., you can lay your cards on the table or lay down the law. You have to name what you are laying down.

Also, unless someone plonked you down, you were not ‘sat’, you were ‘sitting’.

And why do people say things like ‘all the parents decided to take their child out of school’? Just the one child that they share, is it?

Surely all these changes could be made and we could have better use of our language. Surely this could be possible, manageable or even feasible - but never ‘doable’!

One last thing: Will the phrase, ‘I could eat a horse!’ disappear from our language?

Elsie M Eva

Lepton