Last week’s letter criticising cinema-goers for being prejudiced is an over reaction, according to our correspondents.
What a shame Ms Waheed and party didn’t enjoy their recent visit to the cinema (original letter here) but I can’t help thinking she has over-reacted to the events she describes.
I visit the cinema often and, believe me, such occurences are not unusual, but they shouldn’t be interpreted as racist, or personal, just plain old human nature.
People don’t like confrontation, especially when they have settled in for an evening’s entertainment, unaware that they are in the wrong seats.
Sometimes the problem is solved amicably, sometimes not, and not always to everyone’s liking.
Nor do other cinemagoers like their viewing disrupted, especially when the film has just started, and, yes, they can voice their frustration angrily and louder than is necessary, but, again, this shouldn’t be taken as personal.
It is just a knee jerk reaction to anyone causing disruption. It could happen anywhere for any reason.
It is also quite usual these days for people to remain seated whilst others make their way along rows to their seats, as there is ample room to pass.
Unfortunately, Ms Wahood and her companions have interpreted the actions and words of others as discrimination when, in fact, this was not intended.
The saying ‘Mountain out of a molehill’ springs to mind.
Anyhow, they should look on the upside. They were given superior seats, and the film was very enjoyable, so, in effect, they have nothing to complain about?.
NIGHT AT THE CINEMA
With regard to the letter “night at the cinema” I was puzzled as to why the writer expected other cinema goers to put up with her party’s late arrival for the show.
The message is easy: Next time, make sure you arrive at the cinema in plenty of time for the show, then you will not annoy other people.
There is always half an hour before the film starts, so there is no excuse for you to be late.
You seem to be completely amazed that other people were irritated with you, whilst you disrupted their viewing! Very selfish point of view.
By the way, I have no idea why the occupations of the people involved has anything to do with anything!
As I read with much interest about Nigel Farage’s visit to the Aylesbury constituency on Friday 13 March.
Your report suggests he went to Weston Turville, Stoke Mandeville and Wendover but didn’t stop anywhere in Aylesbury town.
Did the biggest population in the patch not deserve a visit or wasn’t it worth his while?
His two big issues - housing growth and HS2. He claimed that housing need both here and across the UK was a consequence of unrestricted immigration.
Such a simple analysis fails to recognise some clear facts about our population - we are all living longer and our household size is coming down - further increasing the unmet need for homes in this country.
On HS2 Nigel’s memory fails. UKIP have not been an opponent since day one - Wednesday 11 March was five years since HS2 was announced. And at that time UKIPs manifesto had plans to build not one but three high speed rail lines.
I also question UKIPs vehement opposition to HS2. Maybe Mr Farage, Adams or Yerby could tell us when they have ever voted against HS2 in Parliament or locally? And if they haven’t done that, perhaps they could point to the petitions they submitted about the project to Parliaments Select Committee?
In both cases they have nothing to point to - their words are empty, like many of their policies and promises.
What made me smile the most was seeing the photo that included Phil Yerby pondering over a map whilst stood in front of the Stoke Mandeville village sign.
As a District Councillor for the area he should know where the village is, but his attendance record for Parish Council meetings suggests something different.
I am sure that many local people would be more than happy to explain to Messrs Farage, Adams and Yerby the real impacts of living with HS2 for five years. Local people have yet to see anything but inaction from UKIP on HS2.
I urge you all not to believe the words but look to the actions.
Name and address supplied
GOOD FOR NIGEL If he wins in South Thanet (says she while cheering on Stewkley ladAl Murray) and UKIP win about 300 seats - No HS2
Churchwalk House, Winslow
Will our future MPs tackle tax dodging when elected?
The election is looming.
Tax dodging – evasion and avoidance - is a major issue for many.
One question I would ask all candidates – do you promise to tackle tax dodging?
One test of this would be a promise to close the co called “Mayfair tax loophole”.
This costs the UK, you and me, up to £700m a year in lost tax. George Osborne had an opportunity to close this in his budget - he didn’t.
So, will a future government close this and tackle other tax dodging scams?
This loophole isn’t difficult to tackle either.
It excuses the executives from private equity funds from paying higher-rate income tax on the often huge profits made by their investment funds.
They do so by taking advantage of a tax break designed to help entrepreneurs, to provide assistance in starting their new businesses.
It wasn’t supposed to be used by already wealthy fat cats. Their profits on these investment funds are treated as gains from their own personal investments.
So they claim capital gains tax rates of 28 per cent. Some executives are able to minimise their tax bill still further – to a rate of just 10 per cent.
Far less than what you and I pay. Far less than what our nurses working in the NHS pay.
The money they wagered on private-equity deals largely comes from outside investors, not the executives themselves and so isn’t a personal investment at all.
Therefore it should be taxed at the normal capital gains rate of 40 or 45 percent.
This loophole is easy to close; it is easy to differentiate investments made by private equity funds from the personal investments and risks made by the UK’s true entrepreneurs.
So will our future MPs take the necessary action? Ask your candidates as they turn up at your door, or in your streets!
NO, SHAME ON YOU
As I’d like to thank Justin Buckland for his hilarious letter “Shame on you” last week in response to my column commenting on the news that AVDC are considering competing with local private sector telecoms businesses.
I wonder if Mr B has actually read the column in which I clearly state myself to be a major advocate for broadband investment. My own village and home suffer badly.
For clarity, the point was that it cannot be right to use taxpayer subsidy to compete unfairly against existing local businesses.
Mr B refers to a meeting at which he claims “ONE THIRD” of the adult population showed up to support the initiative. There were 100 attendees.
The 2011 census shows an adult population of 984. This used to be 10% when I was at school.
Mr B accuses me of “numerous factual errors’.
The only facts in the article refer to the Village Networks Company which confirms them to be accurate.
Again, I do wonder if Mr B has actually read the column.
Me thinks ‘thou protest too much’ Mr B.
Oh dear! I fear that our ill-advised councillors are still ready to throw away the last chance of getting a better road from Aylesbury to London and Milton Keynes.
Have they no regard for the long -term public interest?
The recent Holiday Inn exhibition about Barratts’ Kingsbrook development indicated no new thinking about the seriously flawed ideas they have been promoting.
The County’s proposal for improving Stocklake is a step forward and the Eastern Link Road (partly funded by Barratts) should help to divert some of the Arla traffic.
However, the problem is the connecting road through Kingsbrook.
As currently shown it will effectively block any satisfactory route between Stocklake and the Eastern Link.
It’s just a village street, totally unfit for the constant stream of heavy traffic which will have to use it if Tring Road and Bierton are to get any significant relief. And relief is what they hope for.
Why construct a new road which just repeats the faults of all of Aylesbury’s other main roads?
The future residents of Kingsbrook are not going to be happy to have all this heavy traffic going through their estate all day. What then?
Finally, there must be a fundamental rethink about the junctions at Douglas Road and east of Bierton.
More sets of elaborate traffic signals will only cause further delays.
Let’s try to get something right this time!
O J Oliver
PARISH VOTE TOO
With regard to the forthcoming elections neither your leader earlier this year nor the website article by Aylesburian mention the fact that Parish Councils will also be elected on May 7th.
Although often regarded as of minor importance Parish Councils are nevertheless part of our democratic system of government.
They are financed through the Council Tax paid by all residents and should be run in a democratic way and answerable every four years to local electors for their actions.
Sadly this not always the case.
Interest and involvement is often so low that anyone who stands gets through “on the nod” .
When vacancies occur between elections then new councillors can be appointed by co-option. In addition unlike many other democratic bodies the same person can be chairman year after year after year.
The net result is that some Parish Councils resemble private clubs or as one of your correspondents recently put it “personal fiefdoms”.
Apart from displaying the Statutory Notice of Election on a board they may take no other steps to inform parishioners of the forthcoming election.
This alone may account for lack of wider involvement and a very low turn out.
Could I therefore urge your readers not to forget the Parish Council Elections, to use their vote and even to consider standing as a candidate.
The work is not ardous and it is neither necessary nor the norm to be endorsed by a political party.
PASSION FOR THE PAST
I was very disappointed to read the letter from Karl Vaughan in last week’s Bucks Herald regarding what he believes is poor treatment of his petition about the Old Police Station.
I have a very high regard for Karl as a tireless campaigner for Aylesbury and I would like to unreservedly apologise if he feels badly treated.
I had personally dealt exclusively with another individual with regard to the petition therefore it did not occur to me that Karl was the correct person for our response.
Clearly as soon as he made his involvement known we arranged a reply directly to him on February 4.
As a historian by background and a keen conservationist I understand Karl’s concerns.
The reality is that Aylesbury needs to move forward in the 21st century as a great place to live and shop.
In doing so it must preserve the very best of its past as well as embracing the future.
I have invested a significant amount of my personal energy in ensuring that the historic buildings owned by the County Council are restored to enhance the town centre.
We have already restored the 1850s Judges’ Lodgings. We are currently restoring the long derelict 1720s Old County Hall in Market Square which will include function rooms for local people and businesses to hire as well as hopefully being a floodlight attraction.
The 1850s Porter’s Lodge has been refurbished for low cost, local start-up businesses and the bulk of 1920s County Offices in Walton Street will be preserved whilst being converted into a mix of homes and shops.
We have also listened to the concerns re the 1920s Old Police buildings and will be keeping the main Old Police Headquarters in Exchange Street to provide hopefully exactly the sort of attractive restaurant opposite the Waterside Theatre that Karl has suggested.
I hope in time Karl will recognise that the County Council does care passionately about both the future and the past of Aylesbury and we can together work to make it a great place to live, work and shop in the years ahead.
Buckinghamshire County Council
SPEND THE CASH
As With reference to the pedestrian zone in the town centre, as faras I am concerned it is incomplete.
There needs to be metal posts blocking off the High Street, Market Square and Kingsbury Square. At the moment taxis, vans, lorries and cars are free to drive up these three zones.
A separate delivery zone should be built for vans and lorries who want to unload goods and products for sho premises.
Taxi passengers should disembark in Exchange Street.
The area of the town near to Tring Road Tescos, the junction that separates the Tring Road and Park Street and underpass, needs to be built.
It’s virtually impossible to cross at this particular point without encountering heavy traffic.
Also the Tring Road, Oakfield Road junction is also heavy with traffic, near to the mini Sainsburys and could be badly injured or even killed trying to cross there.
It is mainly traffic turning left from the Tring Road into Oakfield Road that causes the problem.
I feel the county council needs to spend some money here and build a pelican crossing.
Further more a bypassis needed to redirect traffic around the town edge. This is vitally important to prevent traffic congestion.
Mr M Lee
Grecian Street, Aylesbury