Tories miss the point
Letter of the Week: Hazel Byard, Mirfield
Dear Sir,
I agree with Conservative councillor Margaret Bates that the balance between those on low wages and those on benefits needs re-addressing. However, this government’s policy is too crude to be fair.
If we are talking about caps how about a cap on the extortionate rents charged by some landlords who will take a large proportion of their weekly income in housing benefit?
How about a cap on bankers’ bonuses and a cap on bosses’ pay which has gone up by 49 per cent while most people are having incomes slashed or receiving increases far less than the cost of living increases? How about a cap on those who put their incomes and houses into offshore accounts and pay less tax than their cleaners?
Typically Conservatives set one lot of people on low incomes against another on benefits, playing divide and rule, whilst the Inland Revenue boss cancels £25 billion of tax owed by large companies such as Goldman Sachs.
Poor children will take the brunt of this ill thought-out measure unless child allowance is removed from the calculation.
Danny Lockwood can sneer at the archbishops, but they are quite correct in opposing this measure.
As for Coun Bates, your arithmetic is wrong, a benefit amount of £25,000 equates to a taxable salary of about £35,000 not the £40,000 you suggest. Your party has a reputation as the ‘Nasty Party’, so in this case it seems as if the cap fits...

Church story got situation wrong
From: Marie Dudley, Mirfield
Dear Sir,
It would appear to myself and other Catholic churchgoers that in the media interest into the tale of Denum – the little boy with Downs Syndrome not being allowed to make his first Holy Communion with his friends – important facts have been overlooked!
But then again, why should the reasons behind the church’s decision be printed? Could it be that it would get in the way of a good story, paticularly when the Catholic church and its teaching are involved.
In the 1950s and early 60s my aunt Jenny (Miss North) taught children at St Mary’s in Batley, in their preparation for this sacrament and its importance in their religious lives.
Sometimes for whatever reason a child would not make Holy Communion with their class friends but would make it the following year. In many cases this was simply because the child had missed religious lessons, possibly through ill health or joined the school late.
Parents back in those days respected the teacher’s decision and accepted the fact that their child needed extra time to understand the full meaning of this important sacrament and didn’t go running to the papers.
Now, with the passage of time and diversity of the pupils attending Catholic schools, preparing to receive Holy Communion has changed.
Parents and children are expected to attend meetings and parents give permission for their child to make the sacrament. As I understand, it is the early stages of the school’s preparations. Denum’s parents did not attend these meetings which began in october.
It was December when the boy’s mum began to show some interest – almost eight weeks of preparation and attendance at Sunday mass had already gone by and this is where the problems for the school and the church began.
Given the time lost it may have been felt, rightly so in my opinion, that the boy would gain a better understanding of the importance of Holy Communion by beginning the preparation process at the very start of the school’s teaching on the subject. The school never said Denum couldn’t make his first Holy Communuin, as was reported.
It was the lack of the commitment and participation by Denum’s parents at the beginning of the religious process that brought about St Mary’s decision and for no other reason. The true facts have certainly been overlooked by the media on this occasion.

Asbo letdown
From: Name and address supplied
Dear Sir,
When Kirklees Council is looking for ways to cut back, I hope they look at the anti-social behaviour department.
Having had to be in contact with them on many occasions I can say they were at best, useless.

Priest not St Mary’s problem
From: Anne Dickinson, Batley
Dear Sir,
While I have been extremely saddened by the media coverage aimed at both St Mary’s Catholic Church and school I was even more saddened to read last weeks ‘Letter of the week’ claiming my beloved church needed help!
I and my 18-year-old grandson regularly attend Sunday mass there and I don’t have a problem with the parish priest and my grandson neither, and I am sure the same goes for the silent majority of church-goers who attend the Sunday masses too.
However I do have a problem with the author of the letter, who in my opinion jumped on someone else’s bandwagon to lavish her own personal agenda on both our church and our parish priest.
Surely the woman realises all churches have declining numbers and have been for decades, but to try and lay the blame at the feet of the current priest? It’s not just wrong it’s insulting and I am sure in no way represents the views of the majority.
There has been a decline in the number of pubs and working men’s clubs locally over the past decade also, so should we lay the blame for them at the feet of St Mary’s Parish priest too?

Letters bring many pleasures
From: Alan Carcas, Liversedge
Dear Sir,
The one thing anonymous letter writers shouldn’t do is try to make other letter writers look small from behind their barrier of anonymity.
It does nothing for the validity of their opinions, especially when the ‘accuracy’ of their ‘argument’ is based on slagging off people about whom they know nothing, and makes people wonder even more what they have to be afraid of by putting their name to it all.
But I can tell your anonymous correspondent, and anybody else who cares to read this, (it still isn’t compulsory to do so), that yes, over the past 60 years I have written to many parts of the media around the country, and been published and broadcast.
And yes, I do enjoy hearing my letters read out on the radio, and seeing them in print, (it’s the next best thing to talking to yourself as I am sure many writers will admit). Any editor will tell you that seeing names in print is one of the main selling points of a paper, especially a local like The Press. And they MUST be spelled correctly!
As for people not knowing, or wanting to know, who the letter writer is, he couldn’t be more wrong.
I’ve had my share of reactions from people all over the country including a few very abusive ones from the green ink brigade.
My letters have also brought me back into contact with old school pals, and friends of 50 years ago in the Young Conservatives.
But the icing on the cake was a morning in late 1987 when a voice on the telephone asked me if I was the son of a certain member of the Carcas family, which he was researching.
He had been passed a letter of mine from the Yorkshire Post, by a friend  in Knaresborough.
I wasn’t a member of that part of the Carcas clan but we soon established which part I did belong to, and in a few days he brought me into contact with three elderly aunts in the south I hadn’t seen for over 50 years.
That letter in the YP has been instrumental in bringing me back together with my wider family, so certainly no regrets at pursuing my 60 year-old hobby horse with my name up front.
As for your anonymous correspondent, all I can say is, there might, just might, be someone out there looking for him, or her, and I repeat, what have they got to hide?

Vote? There’s no choice!
From: Derek Cartwright, Woodkirk, Batley
Dear Sir
Mr Carcas suggested we should join any political party and over the decades I have often considered this idea, but the older I get the less I could join one, because I don’t agree with any of them.
Lib Democrats – the Liberals could be said to represent fairness; the 1908 Old Age Pension Act; the National Insurance Act  Health and Unemployment (1911), introduced sickness and unemployment benefits.
Yet it has little support so could never form a government on its own. It is a party with a belief in the Big State and Europe.
Conservatives – who do they represent today? The rich, the public schoolboy? What do they stand for?
There are stories that their elite looked down on Thatcher, as not being one of them, and they appear to be going backwards in selecting their leaders from their Tory core.
Labour – a creature of the 20th century, the age of nationalisation, where they gained a large element of their support from.
They do not represent the interest of the majority, as increased pay for their supporters has to be paid for by the majority who are not in their sector.
I could not join any of the above, because I don’t think they represent many of us, which is reflected in how small the electoral turn-outs are.