Tag: letters

Letter: Disruptive Neighbours

letter1

Dear NEN

Disruptive Neighbours

For a year now the tenants upstairs have been making excessive noise, from three to ten hours daily. Having spoken with the mother, she assured me the kids went to bed 6 and 7pm – sadly she is not telling the truth.

We have spoken a few times, nothing has changed and they have refused mediation three times which I thought might be helpful. This has been, and is, affecting my health very badly (many visits to GP) and four times in the last few weeks I have eaten a meal in a bedroom to get away from it.

They have put rubbish in my assisted uplift wheelie bin so no room for mine and lot of unnecessary communications with the council’s Refuse Department to sort it out. The Council, Scottish Police, their landlord and my MSP are aware of the situation and the Council appear to be able to do little to help. The father has been verbally abusive to me twice. What kind of neighbours are they?

Unfortunately there seems to be little consideration for others living in a block of flats. Their language to their kids is foul and also towards each other. I first heard these words on the football terracing in Glasgow.

Often I can’t hear TV so record programmes (at my expense) and sometimes can’t hear the playback the next day. Of course, kids have to play but it is the excessive noise that is unbearable.

There has been damage to a light fitting which rattles often with the force of the banging. Their behaviour means that I am a victim in my own home and I am sure there are lots of others in the same position.

Hopefully the law can be changed to assist those who have these problems in the future.

Name and address withheld 

Letter: A fair share for wealth creators

letter (2)

Dear Editor

Government money for investment is raised through taxes of all kinds on the people. Private investment comes from the rich and very well-off.

The biggest investment of all is the labour power supplied by working people every day of the working year, transforming money investments into products.

Both government and private investors, after costing materials and labour, keep the surplus – called ‘profit’.

Government profit should be ploughed back into society in the form of public services. Those who give their labour power – without which there would be no profit – do not receive any of those profits; they of course get wages of varying amounts for a year’s work … as opposed to the ‘efforts’ of the rich who in making one investment telephone call!

Private investors, as ever, look to maximise profit, keeping costs as low as possible, particularly wages and working conditions (zero hours contracts are the modern way): this is where trouble starts.

If wages are restricted by private industry or the government, the ability of the working people to buy what they have produced is cut. This eventually leads to private investors withdrawing and closing down companies – reducing further the ability of people to buy goods.

The situation is made worse if the government – like the present Tory/Lib Dem one – is dominated by and operates in favour of private investors, and not those who produce the wealth in the first place.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

 

Letter: No fracking need!

letter (2)

Dear Editor

It would seem the oil extraction companies, finding their vast profits falling, are withdrawing investment. The question now arises: where will they invest their money, and in what?

In America there has been heavy investment in ‘fracking’ to extract gas. This has led to widespread contamination of the water table, with toxic chemicals making it impossible to drink or even use.  The recent television programme on the dangers of ‘fracking’ should be shown over and over again to alert people before extraction companies start investing.

There have been some indications that authorities may oppose fracking; presure must be put on them to do so.

As with wind generators, a danger arises in that private land owners will make deals with fracking companies: this must be prohibited.

Fracking is neither needed nor wanted; it poses a potential disaster by polluting our water – all done in the name of making profits for some.

Fracking as a news topic is disturbing by it’s absence: this can only mean ‘Danger Ahead’.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: heed the lessons of the last five years

letter1

Dear Editor

When it comes to voting in May we must choose somebody who we think will work to make society much fairer to everyone.

At the moment we live in a capitalist society in which the Conservatives absolutely believe, whereby the owners of wealth more or less decide what will happen through their ability to invest in industry and business to maximise profits, moving their money out of industry and business if the profit is not enough.

This ability or power to close places of work dies cause dreadful hardship to an individual and their families; also the knock-on effect damages society as a whole.

99% of the population should not be at the mercy and whims of the very wealthy 1% deciding if we work or not. Elementary fairness should mean all wealth produced be used for the benefit of all.

Everyone must choose carefully in May to avoid a repetition of the last five years.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

 

Letter: Unity is strength

letter1

Dear Editor

The most important thing for the labour movement is to protect unity: without this, individuals and sections of the population become isolated and open to manipulation, followed by a lowering of their standard of living.

The powers that be continually use the press, radio and television to destroy that unity, attacking all sections of the labour movement whether individuals, the unions or the Labour Party, hoping to achieve and retain political control. In May we have a choice: do we vote Conservative, Lib Dem, Labour?

We know exactly what the Tories have done over the past five years, and what they intend to do. We know more or less exactly how the Lib Dems will perform.

That leaves Labour as the only hope to do what we would like to be done. This is the reason for the powerful campaign against the Labour movement.

Of course at present in Scotland the SNP seems to have attracted many labour movement supporters on the assumption the SNP will better represent the working population, therefore remaining part of the labour movement working for change.

If that is so, then co-operation between the SNP and the Labour Party is essential to throw out the Tories and the Lib Dems everywhere. May 2015 is crunch time; we must not lose this opportunity of getting rid of them.

We need unity now more than ever to save our social and public services on which we all rely. Ukip does not and cannot speak for the working population; it’s policies are conservative, divisive and backward-looking.

A.Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

Letters: Different Class: by hand or by brain

Dear Editor

When the UK had massive industries like coal mining, ship building, steel works and many others the term ‘working class’ was generally used to describe manual workers, although that work often involved great skill and use of modern technology. It was, and still is, an honourable description of the majority of the people – although the type of work has changed, not being manual, it is still wage earning.

Opportunities for some, such as the chance to take further study or to train – sometimes with financial support – has given them a more comfortable life, but it soesn’t take them into a different class: they remain wage earners. The interests of 90% of the population are similar, secure work giving them a stable and comfortable life with opportunities to develop interests and skills.

The capitalist system under which we all live is the cause of economic crisis: it is not possible for that system to give permanent security. It is an illusion, carefully nurtured, that an individual can be one of the 10% for whom everything is fine.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

 

Letter: Putting Children First

Dear Sir/Madam

Sadly this time of year sees a rise in the number of people seeking help from family solicitors to divorce or separate. We want as many parents as possible to know about the help available from the Family Decision Making Service.

We know that children cope better with separation when their parents work together to reduce conflict. We also know that’s not easy and that’s why we are here to help.

Three well-respected children’s charities work together to deliver this one-stop-shop service covering legal advice, support to make parenting plans and emotional support. Our help is completely confidential and free of charge.

More information and help is available at ww.familydecisionmaking.org.uk or by calling 08000 28 22 33

Yours faithfully
Alan Forgie
Family Decision Making

unnamed

Letters: Unite to save essential services

Dear Editor

The vast majority of people support the NHS because it is  service there for them if required. Politicians will know the wrath of this majority if they move against this universal service: the people know there are attempts to privatise some of the NHS and those politicians will learn a lesson at the ballot box.

Other essential services needed and used by everyone must also become universally, not privately, owned. The main ones are gas, electric, water and railways. The first three are needed by everyone, otherwise modern society cannot function. The railways, although not used by everyone, are a main vein transporting goods and people.

There can be no justification for these essential industries being used for private profit by those who have money to invest: it is obscene to pay them dividends when there are other people who cannot afford to heat their homes.

Profit made should be used to maintain those industries and benefit the users: this should apply to all energy companies. To reach this situation the population will have to apply the same pressure and support it gives to the NHS. These issues are common to all, around which maximum unity is possible.

A. Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens

 

Letters: share necessities

Dear Editor

Most people’s work contributes to the common good: some work has an immediate affect on our lives and we depend on them absolutely, for example workers in the electricity, gas, water and transport industries.

When we get up in the morning, switch on the light, use the bathroom, use gas or electricity to make tea, make breakfast, rush out to catch a bus, tram or train to go to work. Without these services we cannot function – there are necessities; we are dependent on those workers as they are dependent on us.

This necessity is precisely why these industries were privatised, making good profits for a few: this must now change. It is high time, in this 21st century, that these industries are run for the benefit of all.

No doubt there are other examples where this principal could apply.

A.Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: bearing the burden

Dear Editor

When Chancellor Osborne made his autumn statement  I believe he did his best to confuse most people with his ‘percentages of this and percentages of that’ but he did make one thing perfectly clear: the cost of closing the deficit will continue to be passed on to the working population by cutting public services and benefits, holding down wages below inflation and telling people to work harder and longer.

THe crisis we are in was cused by financial institutions, speculators and banks worldwide, but of course the blame is put on to others: stories are being repeated over and over again to get people to accept them as truths. First the Labour government was to blame, then it was the scroungers, the work-shy, the disabled, people living longer, families having one bedroom too many – all of these stories designed to set once section of society against another, enabling crippling policies to be imposed on all whilst constantly repeating: ‘it’s the only way’, ‘it is in the national interest’ and ‘we are all in this together’.

It is the classic Tory approach of divide and rule, enabling them to impose drastic cuts on 90% of the population; I say 90% because the top wealthy 10% are not affected or bothered.

If money was borrowed creating a deficit that has to be repaid, from whom was it borrowed? At what interest rate was it borrowed? Was it at a fixed rate or was money lenders’ method used? We need to know, but whatever the answers there is no need to inflict such damage on people’s lives – with promises of more to come.

The 90% of the population didn’t create the problem but are being made to bear the burden.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens