I FEEL that I really must respond to Charles Kersham’s denigration of the new Mann Island (Daily Post, June 29). While the actions of city planners in allowing such catastrophes as the 6 Sir Thomas Street and Josephine Butler House debacles are to be condemned, the new Mann Island is an enormous credit to all concerned.
Let us first clarify the position.
The new Museum is built upon what was once a car park. The only view it ruins would be if Mr Kersham were walking on the Mersey to view the Three Graces. It is a magnificent building, the only new museum in the world which has been built for many years, and the only museum dedicated to a single city – our city of Liverpool, of which I am inordinately proud. Its position and design complements the Three Graces perfectly.
The “black monoliths” to which Mr Kersham refers are indeed part residential, and I would share with many the worry that we have too many “luxury apartments” as it is. But I would also point out that they are in the middle of construction, and it is hardly fair to judge their final appearance now.
I confess that I had my doubts about the canal crossing Mann Island in front of the Three Graces, but credit must go to our council (for once!) for making Liverpool a truly European city. The quality of the workmanship, the respect paid to the memorials, the space created, are wonderful. If some decide that this ruins their city, then could I ask what was so attractive about the dirty, smelly bus terminus which occupied the site once? What was so wonderful about a car park? Conservationists in Liverpool have a hard time defending what we have, without their energies being wasted yearning for a totally mythical past.
Ian Poole, Mossley Hill
Cancer concern
AS THE UK's only lung cancer charity, we are very concerned about the inequalities in lung cancer services and outcomes across the country. Our recently published Lung Cancer Report Card (available at www.roycastle.org) highlighted the anxieties which patients themselves have about this.
Everyone, irrespective of where they live, should expect the same level of care. More needs to be done to investigate differences and to ensure these are remedied.
We continue to press for better public awareness of lung cancer signs and symptoms, more funding for research, earlier diagnosis, and equitable access for all patients to best treatment and care, including active anti-cancer treatments and lung cancer nurses.
As a national charity based in Liverpool, we share concerns about the high number of lung cancer deaths in Liverpool. We fund research based in Liverpool into prevention and early detection of the disease; we deliver stop smoking support and youth projects to help prevent the disease; and we provide information and support to people affected by lung cancer.
We will continue this vital work to improve outcomes from the disease, and to raise awareness of lung cancer, as early detection and treatment leads to improved outcomes from this devastating disease.
Dr Rosemary Gillespie, Chief Executive, The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation
No consequence
IN REPLY to Graham Haselgrove's support of our local MP, Ben Chapman ("A shame he has to go" Daily Post, Wednesday, July 1), I must take issue with his views. The fact that he states there was no overall loss to the taxpayer is of no consequence whatsoever.
As an educated and intelligent person, our MP should have – and no doubt did know – that to claim for mortgage interest payments he was not making, was wrong. To use the excuse that he asked the Fees Office if he could make the claim and that they agreed beggars belief. A prime example of the blind leading the blind.
In a commercial world, most people who claim expenses are only able to claim such costs incurred wholly in the pursuance of their business and are only able to claim these on production of valid receipts. People who make false claims are likely to have them thrown out, it’s not a matter of going to the boss and stating: "I know I didn't incur this expense but is it OK if I submit it?" Those who knowingly submit false expense claims also risk being sacked and/or facing criminal prosecution.
Every MP who has made false, dubious or unreasonable expense claims has, and rightly so, stained their reputation. The Fees Office would not have had to rule on dubious claims if they had not been submitted in the first place.
John Hodgkins, via email
For good and evil
STUART WILKS-HEEG'S views on the non-positive impact of new technology on democracy are erroneous. Technology can be used for good or evil, but if the governments of non-democratic socialist states restrict access to the web, then any fool can arrive at the obvious conclusion (Daily Post, June 30).
If people exposed to the doings of Lancashire County Council, or any other political institution, disengage from politics, as our politicians have made it, then that is their democratic decision. It is what social scientists call the open society doing its job, thanks to what he describes as just a medium of communication.
That is not necessarily disengagement from politics in general. In fact, from wherever you go, the evidence is that people are very much engaged with politics; they are not apathetic, just helpless, isolated and frustrated.
Perhaps Stuart should acquaint himself with some of the literature on this subject. New technology may not provide a quick fix, that could only be achieved by taking to the streets, but used properly it could facilitate participatory democracy in a number of ways.
One can reasonably suppose that any who play down the value of the new technology in the democratic process will be hiding some non-democratic motive.
JF Lambert, Mossley Hill
