Tag: letters

Letters: Word Play

letter (2)

Dear Editor

Most people now believe – with justification – that privatisation is a backward step, where provision of services in most cases comes second to making profits, yet the government and some local authorities are still selling off services.

They are aware that the word ‘privatisation’ is a ‘no-no’ so the term now used is ‘out-sourcing’: the outcome and results are exactly the same.

Another word being used to confuse people, in relation to protecting land from developers, is ‘safeguarding’; it should mean exactly that but to the confusers it means reserving the land for future development.

Confused? Taken in? That’s the whole point!

Very many examples of word play can be found; they can and do have serious consequences.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

D-Day: liberated people deserve tribute too

d day 3

Dear Editor

TRIBUTES

Every year, D-Day 1944 is celebrated, particularly in Normandy where the people express gratitude for their liberation by organising many ceremonies.

Tremendous efforts are made and much  kindness and respect is shown to those veterans attending. It is very moving to be on the receiving end of such friendship, particularly when so much devastation was inflicted on Normandy during those summer months of 1944.

There are very many monuments, commemorative sites, museums, etc. maintained to express this continuing gratitude, but I have long thought that the Allied governments should erect a suitable tribute dedicated to the people of Normandy for their endurance, courage and sacrifice. It is long overdue but should be done.

I believe this tribute would attract the support of many sections and ages of the UK population, particularly as 2015 will be the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

d day liberation

 

Letter: More funding needed to protect our parents

Tony Delahoy on the final part of a deeply troubling BBC documentary … 

care

Dear Editor

The third and final part of the BBC television programme ‘Protecting our Parents’ (Thursday 2 May) further illustrated the total inadequacy of the available resources – both staffing and funding – in addressing the human needs of frail individuals who are trying to understand the position they are in, at the same time being asked to decide their future accommodation needs.

Relatives, if available to help, are usually elderly themselves, with limited physical ability and torn by guilt.

One lady, who had dementia and at times could be aggressive, was a changed person after having one-to-one care: it was discovered in these one-to-one sessions that music was very comforting to her.

The extension of one-to-one care will need many more staff, more funding and more training. All authorities, national and local, say money is scarce so it is worth reminding them that all wealth is produced in the first place by people, and that money extracted from that wealth in various taxes still belongs to the people, who in turn elect others to manage to fund what the people need.

The Protecting our Parents series has shown the problems that exist now; the offloading of the elderly from hospital (to prevent ‘bed blocking’) to a sparse choice of expensive care homes, or a home care package which is inadequate, not only for essential needs but for mental inclusion in life.

A rapid increase in building NHS ‘halfway hospitals’ with fully trained staff is urgently needed to cater for the elderly who are in need of other care or accommodation.

Much more funding must be allocated to recruit, fully train and deploy staff to enable all round caring be given in Protecting our Parents.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Protecting our Parents – who cares?

care

Dear Editor

Part two of the BBC programme Protecting our Parents, shown on 24 April, revealed the inadequacy of all-round care provision for the elderly.

All staff shown were indeed caring but handicapped by having to work within existing rules and funding constraints.

A disturbing feature was the ‘test’ by a psychologist to determine the patients’ capacity to make decisions (in other words removing decision-making from them) with questions such as: ‘what day is it?’; I would imagine most people after being in hospital for weeks would hesitate before answering. There were  of course other similar questions, and on their answers a decision is made on the patients capacity of doing so, with all that it implies.

The ‘test’ came across as inadequate and faulty, needing radical appraisal.

The second part of of the programme reinforced the first – that provision of care in all forms, from rapidly building NHS Hospitals for the elderly run by fully qualified staff, that care at home visiting time should be greatly expanded – if necessary to 24 hour caring operated by fully qualified staff.

This can be at least a start in showing we do care about protecting our parents.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letters: protecting our parents

carer

Dear Editor

The first part of the BBC programme Protecting our Parents, screened on 17 April, was very moving, highlighting situations of caring that could face the parents of anyone.

Parents are individuals with thoughts, feelings and wishes: in short they are human beings in vulnerable situations.

As illustrated in the programme gentle but subtle pressure is put on patients to decide on moving to a care or nursing home, or returning to their homes with a ‘care package’ arranged by the local authority. The first option could involve considerable financial cots, the second totally inadequate visiting time and care.

We are constantly being told the numbers of elderly people will increase over the years and the country will not be able to afford the care; the implication being that even the inadequate level of care given today cannot be maintained.

How dare they approach the situation from that point of view; they must be oblivious of the mental and physical suffering caused through inadequate care?

Care of the elderly – having given a lifetime of service and care of children yet to serve the future – are and must be absolute priorities for the nation.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

 

 

 

Government bingo!

Dear Editor

I thought George Osborne would be interested in my extended playing of Bingo, with the caller’s comments:

By itself, number 1 … Tory philosophy

By itself, number 4 … Out the door – bedroom tax

By itself, number 5 … Wasted years

By itself, number 8 … show them the gate!

Number 10 … Cameron’s Den – not for long!

Legs, 11 … Osborne will need them!

Unlucky for some, 13 …. for about sixty million!

Blind, 20 … Cabinet profile

Two little ducks, 22 … Quack, quack, Jeremy!

Three and one, 31 … we’ve been done!

Blind, 40 … plus Ali Baba

Five and seven, 57 … Tory heaven

The Brighton Line, five and nine, 59 … Let’s call time!

Clickety click, 66 … Any new tricks?

Any way up, six and nine, 69 … mine, mine, mine!

HOUSE!

Prize – a lemon! Game over.

 

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

bingo

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letter: Need before greed

letter (2)

Dear Editor

Particularly during and since the Thatcher times people have been encouraged to think only of themselves. It has the divisive effect – which was it’s intention – of tearing people away from their natural instinct of caring for others. The evidence that the policy of looking after number one is the wrong thing to do is all around us, those with the most wealth have the most power.

A divided people are easier to manipulate: those in work against the unemployed who have to exist on benefits, the disgusting campaign against the disabled living on benefits, pitting those who work in the private sector against those in the public sector, the disgraceful ‘bedroom tax’ action taken against tenants and the continuing privatisation of public property …

The situation is not unique to this country; exactly the same is happening in many parts of the world, demonstrating that the capitalist system under which we live cannot solve their problems. What can we do? We can make a start to change things by identifying essential needs everyone has in common, to maximise unity; these essential common needs will show that no individual or groups of individuals should have the power to restrict or withhold them in the pursuit of profit. The following is a most obvious list of common needs upon which that unity can be achieved and removing them from those who only see those needs as a source of private profit:

  • Heating and power: this basic necessity should be treated as such, not as a source of private profit
  • Water & sewerage services: As above, absolute health essential
  • Transport: Essential public service to enable easy access to and from work and social activities
  • National Health Service: To ensure treatment is a permanent public universal service paid for out of taxation.
  • Recreation and Learning facilities of all kinds: Work is not an end in itself but a means of developing an intelligent quality of living in whatever choice of interest.
  • Greenbelt and Open Spaces: Selling these off to developers to be stopped immediately and lawful public consultation on any building applications.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens 

 

Letter: Attacks on quality of life must be resisted

Dear Editor

In the past, many things were struggled for to enhance the quality of life. National Parks, Green Belts, local parks, sports fields, libraries, museums, rights of way, etc, etc.

Recent times have seen all of the things mentioned above – and more – threatened, closed, built on, sold to developers. Added to that, laws are shamefully being passed enabling this to continue.

Very many thousands of people are worried and are resisting, despite their incomes and employment being under pressure, and it is vital that this resistance is greatly increased.

Local ideas and schemes must be pursued and developed and local authorities must assist their communities in enhancing the quality of life now and for the future.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

VictoriaPark

 

Letter: Basic needs

Dear Editor

To express thoughts in words is sometimes difficult; hopefully the following is clear enough.

There are many needs common to everyone in the UK: amongst them are the NHS, gas and electricity, water, transport, schools and employment, they are basic needs. In Scotland only the NHS, schools and water can be classed as universal services; even these are faced with attempts to privatize them.

Gas and electricity supplies are absolutely basic for life, yet these industries are in private hands, operating for private profit. There is no way individuals or groups of individuals should control such basic needs.

Most people have to use public transport; buses, railways and trams to get to and from work – again, a basic necessity that should not be run for private profit.

Loss of employment is devastating for individuals and families, long-term unemployment leads to depression and loss of dignity.

A creator of unemployment is the withdrawal of investment by groups of individuals – and banks – moving their money from one place to another, home or abroad, to maximise profit. Again, this is not right and must be changed.

The services outlined above need to be in public hands, a view on which I believe most people would agree. There are so many areas of life common to all on which a unity of thought and action can make them universal services.

Pitting one section of the population’s interests against another must be resisted at all times.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens 

 

 

 

Letter: People, not commodities

Dear Editor

Despite the massive potential wealth of the UK, around two million people are unemployed, causing great hardship, depression and a loss of dignity. If people are willing to work, and the materials needed are available, what then is the problem and what can be done about it?

We live under a system of capitalism whose main concern is to make profit: if it cannot, in any industry or enterprise, the owners of wealth will not invest, switching their money to where it can, irrespective of any damage or hardship caused in doing so. This cannot be right; it only appeals to the greedy and selfish and the events of the last few years have shown just how much damage has been inflicted on people.

Investors, then, have considerable power; supported by people in powerful decision-making positions, protecting the existing set up.

If switching of investment purely for profit is the creator of unemployment, then this activity must be changed. An initial steps could be to put a limit in place on the rate of interest on an investment, coupled with a minimum term of investment to prevent money being pulled out and putting an industry and employees at risk.

This immoral position of holding the threat of unemployment over people purely for private gain is long overdue for changing – people are not commodities to be used and discarded.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens