Tolls not real issue behind bridge car numbers

Sir,—Removing or keeping the tolls on the Tay Bridge will not affect how many cars use the bridge.

I live in Newport and if my wife and I take a bus to Dundee it costs £4.80 for a return journey as against an 80p toll.

Whether the toll is abolished or not, it doesn’t take much of a mathematician to work out that unless the price of bus tickets are reduced people will still use their car to travel to Dundee—even when you take account of city centre parking fees.

The wrong way round

Sir,—I agree with John Ridley’s comments in his letter (Courier, August 26) about the proposed development at Scone.

The first draft of the plan came out about 18 months ago, when the controversial element was the site of two proposed supermarkets. This time around, this barely even merits a mention. But according to the new draft plan, A & J Stephen, Scone Estates and Perthshire Housing Association support the new housing proposal and only Scone Community Council and eight residents oppose it.

The fact that only eight people oppose the development is probably because the other 4900 inhabitants of Scone had heard absolutely nothing about it prior to the issue of the revised draft plan.

I wrote to Perth and Kinross Council about the proposals the first time around, and did receive an acknowledgment of my letter and since then, nothing. Where is the consultation process with the local community?

Where is the transparency of what is happening? It seems the planning department of the council decide what is to go into the plan and then ask for comments. This is the wrong way round.

To contemplate such a large scheme—adding 700 houses to an existing 2000—without consulting the local population is, quite frankly, ludicrous and has the hallmark of “big brother knows best”. It certainly is not local democracy at work.

I sincerely hope that the response of the residents of Scone will ensure this proposal ends up in the dustbin, where it surely belongs.

Spin now a real art

Sir,—Spin is mostly associated with political public relations to present an issue in a perspective most favourable to a given point of view. The best recent example of the art I can recall was the “wibbly wobbly footbridge” built across the Thames linking St Paul’s Cathedral to the Tate Modern.

Modern bridge-builders with all of their computer simulations had failed to achieve what bridge-builders had been doing successfully since Roman times, yet they made a virtue out of solving a problem they had made. One that should never have occurred.

I say the above was the best example, but that was only until the recent press release from Forth Estuary Transport Authority which hailed the world-leading engineering excellence of FETA’s engineers in identifying the problem of rust in the suspension cables of the Forth Road Bridge.

Rust has been known about since the dawn of the Iron Age when, to prevent it, primitive man smeared animal fat on spear-heads.

Now, in a master stroke of spin, FETA’s PR consultants (paid by us) have made a virtue out of the fact that the highly-paid bridge officials and their costly expert advisers have noticed water has seeped into the supposedly well-maintained and sealed suspension-cable outer casing and has combined with air (which has also encroached into the supposedly sealed casings) to produce—RUST!

Who could have foreseen it?

Not any clearer

Sir,—I noted with interest the two replies to my letter (August 21) from, respectively, Ms Moore representing ASH and John Montgomery, presumably representing himself, although he did not state this specifically.

Neither goes any way towards clarifying the original issues I raised, thus:

1. If the data condemning passive smoking as a definite health risk is as good (and scientific) as she states, then why is the Executive’s website not stating this instead of using phrases like “ . . . could be attributed . . . ”, “ . . . is associated with . . . ”, and “ . . . it is estimated . . . ”? None of these, Ms Moore, sound very definite to me!

2. No comment by Ms Moore on the lack of prosecutions of retailers selling cigarettes to minors. Does ASH have a view?

3. Finally—and this is common with the single issue fanatics—Ms Moore somewhat arrogantly states—“We have taken decisive and comprehensive action . . . from our indoor public places.”

Who is this “We”? ASH is, I believe, a charity and I’m not sure how it can take action to affect the public, or is ASH assuming the functions of the Executive (who may perhaps help to fund it)?

Further, I note that John Montgomery quotes from the BMJ in support of his comments. Perhaps he is himself medically qualified, but likes to keep a low profile. I would just add that I know of no studies into the so-called effects of passive smoking where the highly important variable of pollution due to petrol/diesel fumes has been allowed for.

I am a medical doctor.

Visit the real world

Sir,—How nice to learn prisoners are to be treated with dignity and respect. Before anyone is given a prison sentence, they will have committed a serious crime and possibly may have previous convictions.

Decisions are now being taken by people who have possibly never even seen an angry man. Perhaps a visit to a town or city centre at weekends would give them an insight into the real world!