I WAS disappointed that Councillor Johnstone chose to end her article (July 4) with a puerile and unwarranted attack on our new Prime Minister. She will know that Gordon Brown has invested more money in public services than any other Chancellor in histor
I WAS disappointed that Councillor Johnstone chose to end her article (July 4) with a puerile and unwarranted attack on our new Prime Minister.
She will know that Gordon Brown has invested more money in public services than any other Chancellor in history. To accuse this Government of being stingy in this area is a complete travesty.
She will also know that during her own period in the children's and young people's services brief for the council savage cutbacks were the order of the day.
So savage were the cuts that the young carers programme, which is invaluable to families with disabled members, effectively ceased to exist.
You may also want to watch:
After three election defeats and with the real prospect of losing once again in 2009, it's time for the local Tory party to face the facts.
It is the Conservative Party that starves public services of resources, not Labour or Gordon Brown. In the unfortunate event of their returning to office, public services will once again be destroyed.
- 1 Landmark A14 viaduct demolition is captured on camera
- 2 St Neots Covid vaccination centre is on the move
- 3 Colourful benches have been placed in St Neots
- 4 Body discovered in Hartford believed to be missing Nathan
- 5 PM set to announce postponement of lockdown easing today
- 6 Car crashes into safety barriers as driver flees scene
- 7 Hotel has everything you need for a relaxing staycation
- 8 Burglars used paving slabs and sledge hammers to smash into homes
- 9 Buckle hits half-century but Hunts boys fall to Northants defeat
- 10 Paedophile offered 'naked massages' to undercover police officer
There is also every chance that irresponsible economic policies will be re-introduced, causing mass unemployment and crippling interest rates.
In selecting David Cameron as leader, the Tory Party may have chosen someone who at least looks and acts like a normal human being. However, as Councillor Johnstone shows, the party in the country has not changed one tiny bit.
Under-investment and cuts will be de rigeur under her stewardship, and the quality and range of council services will get worse, especially for the most vulnerable citizens. The Tory Party is undoubtedly still the party of cuts.
When the election comes, it might win the Huntingdon constituency. But until it really changes, and people like Councillor Johnstone change, it must know that it doesn't stand an earthly of forming the Government of the country.
My message to Councillor Johnstone, therefore, is: Make cheap snide remarks about the best Chancellor of the Exchequer in history if you want to, but get ready for another 10 years of successful Labour government.
BILL O' CONNOR, St Neots Labour Party
* I FEEL compelled to respond to the letter from Anne Kasica of the SHG (July 4).
The RSPCA does not prosecute owners for being poor. It prosecutes against neglect and/or cruelty. It is both naive and irresponsible of her to have stated otherwise, as I'm sure she didn't see the animal in question herself.
The RSPCA requires veterinary support, advice and evidence to proceed with prosecutions and indeed euthanasia, if necessary. It is no surprise to me that up to 50 per cent of the animals received by the RSPCA die - probably most are put down because they are beyond any treatment.
As an animal-lover, pet owner and qualified veterinary nurse with several years experience in practice, I have seen at first hand sickening neglect and cruelty cases brought in by the RSPCA (and even on occasion owners themselves).
There is no excuse for neglect or cruelty. There is a plethora of animal charities to assist owners with treatment and cost, such as the PDSA, the Blue Cross, RSPCA and, specifically for pensioners, the Cinnamon Trust - information that would have been available to them had they taken their pet to, or even just spoken to, the vet.
I have a dog and, as much as I'd like to have more, I don't because I can't afford it. Perhaps I'm a little old fashioned in thinking that, if you can't afford to look after an animal, then you shouldn't have one, or at least not so many.
Then perhaps fewer animals will have to suffer unnecessarily and the RSPCA will spend less time in court.
CATIE FRANCIS, Waveney Road, St Ives