AS the parent ofŠ a family of fiveŠI can wholly empathiseŠ with the other Kirklees families who have more rubbish than they can fit in to a single grey bin.

We are fortunate to have had two grey bins for a number of years, despite apparently not having sufficientŠ people registered at our address.

Given the comments in last Monday’s Examiner, it appears as though we’ll be tracked down by the Kirklees ‘bin police’ and have our second bin removed, although I have to warn Kirklees that it will be full of rubbish!

Even with two grey bins weŠ still often have to keepŠ rubbish bags in our garage until after our weekly collection so we’re obviously having too many family parties which generates a lot of foodŠ and drink packaging.

Or we are purchasing far too many items which, of course, contributeŠ to the central government’sŠVAT coffers, which I’m sure finds its way back to local government budgets.

This is not to mentionŠ the high band ofŠ council tax that Kirklees has applied to our property, which perhapsŠIŠcould propose should be the measure for bin usage?

Our need for two grey binsŠ is despite having two green bins which are often also full, helped by the fact that we have a dedicated recycling bin built into our kitchen at our own expense.

Everything that we can recycle is recycled with the exception of our shredded paper (to reduce identity fraud on government advice) and some drinks cartons that Kirklees is unable to process even though they have the recycling symbol printed on them!

To suggest that a family of five should have the same recycling facilities as a single householder doesn’t make sense. I’m sure that some families of four would also agree.

Surely Kirklees should give households some credit in being able to determine how many ugly wheeled bins they require on their drive or if it needs to re-budget for this increase in bin collections?

I noticed that the vote in theŠExaminer was 53.4% in favour of families not having as many grey bins as ‘they need’.

Perhaps the response was swayed by households with betweenŠ one toŠfourŠoccupants?ŠOr perhaps the question should have been phrased ‘Should families ofŠ fiveŠ be allowed to request the number of grey bins they require?’ A subtle difference that may have elicited a different voting response.

MB

Huddersfield

Walking to health

I AM writing to let your readers know that there is now strong scientific evidence that being regularly physically active reduces your risk of developing cancer later in life.

One of the easiest ways to be physically active is walking. As well as being something that most people can do without any preparation, you do not need any special equipment to do it.

This is why we at World Cancer Research Fund have launched our Walking Together campaign which involves people supporting us by organising sponsored walks for family and friends.

The money raised will help us continue funding cancer prevention research and raising awareness that people can reduce their risk of cancer by eating healthily, being physically active and maintaining a healthy weight.

But we also hope it will encourage people to get into the habit of walking, both as a hobby and also as part of their daily lives.

To find out more information about the Walking Together campaign email events@wcrf.org or call 0207 343 4205.

You can also visit our website at www.wcrf-uk.org/walk to find out more information, register your event and download lots of free resources.

Sian Fraser

Events fundraiser, World Cancer Research Fund

Protecting forests

THE charity FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) UK encourages you to mark the FSC Friday – September 24 – by looking for the FSC logo when you are shopping.

The FSC logo gives you the confidence that the wood or paper product you are buying comes from a well-managed forest and not from the illegal timber trade.

By increasing demand for FSC certified products, the British public can send a message back through the supply chain, encouraging more forest owners to manage their forests to FSC’s high environmental and social standards and thus ensuring a more positive future for the world’s forests and the people and animals that depend on them.

Please help us to celebrate FSC Friday. Visit www.fsc-uk.org for more information and for details of FSC Friday events.

Rosie Teasdale

Deputy Director, FSC UK

The year was 1931

I’D like to thank PF (‘Boring political talk,’ Mailbag, September 13) for backing up some points I’ve made – without realising it.

I’ve stated my opinion that anyone who writes in to give us their views should be willing to explain what they say.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think folk should accept responsibility for what they say and do. Sadly, as readers will have seen, PF hasn’t made any effort to do that.

Instead, s/he put words in my mouth and tried to change the subject. Anyone who’s dealt with stroppy teenagers who know they’re in the wrong but can’t accept it will have come across those responses.

Now, PF tells us ‘I couldn’t give a damn about 1931 – it was before my time.’ Sorry, PF but if that’s the case, why did you write in about it?

If anyone ‘can always look it up on Wikipedia,’ have you done that? Did you find out about how an international economic crisis started in the USA and caused a world depression?

About how what kicked it off were the crazy ‘free market’ economic policies which said governments should let business do what it wanted?

About how governments slashed spending and made things even worse?

Is it ‘so unfair’ if I say that you want to get attention by blowing down your vuvuzela and that the only way to deal with questions you can’t answer is to blow down it even louder?

I don’t want to bore readers any more than I have done. I'm happy to put the ‘1931’ issue to bed.

R A Vant

Holmfirth

Pheasant slaughter

WOULD you like food that was terrified, chased and killed for fun?

Would you eat it if you knew that it had been bred and reared in cages before being released to be shot at by paying punters? Would you eat it if you knew that it had been hit with lead pellets, left wounded until found and seized by a dog before coshing?

Because the shooting industry would like you to believe that the principal purpose of live-quarry shooting is to provide you with food, not to obtain pleasure from killing.

Pheasants fly little better than chickens. The birds are an easy target and flap their wings for no longer than 10 seconds before their weight overcomes their strength and they glide exhausted back to earth.

Annually in Britain, about 50 million pheasants and partridges are purpose-bred. According to the industry’s own figures, ‘only’ about 18 million of this total are shot and retrieved.

Of that 18 million, fewer than eight million are sold to game dealers. It is claimed that the remaining 10 million are handed over to shooters or taken by shoot operators.

The shooting industry’s mouthpiece, The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, knows that the biggest threat to live-quarry shooting is the public realisation that the vast majority of these hapless birds are not eaten – just destroyed. They are not wild. They were bred in disgraceful conditions.

Whether they taste good is a minority opinion. The pheasant shooting season starts on October 1. This enormous annual cruelty is repeated in the name of sport. Please make sure it is not in your name.

Kit Davidson

Shooting Consultant, Animal Aid

Fayre at the Hub

I WOULD like to thank The Examiner for the coverage for the forthcoming Enviro Fayre at the Hub in Kirkburton.

There was some confusion about the date – it is this Saturday, September 18.

It looks to be a very interesting afternoon, with all sorts of art and craft activities for the children, gardening tips from Colne Valley Garden Centre, displays from lots of community organisations and, best of all, a nice cup of tea! So come along to the Hub this Saturday afternoon and join in the fun. It’s free entry to everyone!

Angela Royle

Clerk, Kirkburton Parish Council