Church funds; crossing confusion and festival praise - your views

8:52am Thursday 17th July 2008

Comments (17)   Have your say »

Church does not have spare funds

The article in last week's Keighley News regarding the "Greedy Homes Plan" for the vicarage in Cullingworth was misleading. I would like to respond on behalf of the congregation in Cullingworth. There are a number of comments made by our local councillor that were incorrect.

We have been without a vicar in Cullingworth for nearly two and a half years, during that time the house has been empty and subject to considerable vandalism. While it looks like a nice old building it is totally unsuitable to be used as a modern vicarage. We were lucky that the previous vicar had a working spouse who was able to support the considerable costs of running the property. We need to offer a new vicar moving into Cullingworth a house that is both suitable for purpose and affordable. Our current vicar is with us until next year but uses his own home in Oxenhope. We will be advertising for a permanent vicar who can live in the village; the applicants will do so on the basis of "House for Duty" which means the diocese will provide a house but the priest will not be paid a salary.

There is a misconception that the church has money to spare. The congregation in Cullingworth and all the other parishes in Bradford Diocese contribute, not only to the maintenance of the vicarage, but also to the training and administration costs of the clergy on a quota basis, but on top of that, support the upkeep of the church building.

All this we do gladly but it must be made clear there are no spare funds. We would prefer to keep our vicarage on the site and maintain its prominent position in the village. A new house would be eco friendly and affordable to run and would become a new focal point in the village. Sometimes it is necessary to make, what may seem like, unwelcome changes to ensure continuity for the future.

I approached the parish council a number of months ago to talk about the vicarage but was told this could be seen as a conflict of interest if conversations took place during the planning process. For Simon to quote the church as being "greedy" is incorrect and I invite him to talk to the church wardens so they can explain how the local church contributes to the diocese. As in all situations, if people took the time to talk to one another, although perhaps not in agreement, there would certainly be an understanding of the facts.

Robert Smith Church Warden, St John's, Cullingworth

Custodian of heritage

Debbie Child, Bradford Diocese human resources manager, is quoted as saying said the old vicarage in Halifax Road, Cullingworth, was being demolished "because it had become too expensive to run". While I fully understand and agree that the church is not a historic preservation society I cannot help but agree with Councillor Simon Cooke. The argument - demolish because it is too expensive to be run - could be applied to just about all of our heritage, a lot of which the Church of England (whether it likes it or not) is a custodian.

The article in Sir John Betjeman's old column, "Nooks and Corners" in this week's Private Eye rather summed it all up: "...the Diocese of Bradford has announced that the village's vicarage, a handsome victorian gabled stone house, is to be demolished after standing empty for two years, to be replaced by three new homes - although it could perfectly well be refurbished and lived in. So much for the CofE's commitment to sustainability and the environment. What has Cullingworth done to deserve such gratuitous vandalism?"

Rev Graeme Hancocks Cullingworth

Complex plight over noise

Re - confusion over noise nuisance. After reading the above titled letter I felt the need to write of my experience of noise nuisance.

Like the person who wrote the letter, I have and am having experience of noise nuisance and have gone down all the correct routes only to be told that nothing can be done without keeping a record for at least a month.

This I found very easy to do as the noise I hear is an ongoing problem that's gone on for many a month. I spoke to environmental health staff and explained what my noise nuisance was; unfortunately there was nothing that they could do.

This is because my situation is rather complex as a child who has several behaviour disorders makes the noise. The noise is day and night and as the child no longer attends school for some reason even though he is of school age, the only let up for us is when we go out or go to work.

I am sure many readers will think I am unsympathetic but after endless nights of noise going on into the early hours my sympathy has grown very thin. Because we are not the parents or carer of the child there is no help for us.

There's me thinking that in this world disabled and able-bodied people are treated the same not in this case it appears.

NAME AND ADDRESS Supplied

Get police back on streets

At 4.05pm on Thursday afternoon, July 10, my wife and I were driving our car out of the town centre car park in Cavendish Street. I slowed down at the exit point near to the attendants kiosk.

Walking towards the kiosk was a tall young Asian man dressed in a white bomber jacket and white baseball cap. As he waited for me to pass he flicked a lighted cigarette on to the windscreen of my car, it rolled down the screen and then began to burn the windscreen wiper.

I stopped my car, got out and removed the offending cigarette, I told him as he ambled towards the entrance to the Co-op what I thought of him, which was only met by a rude hand gesture.

What are we expected to do and perhaps more to the point what can we do when such an incident happens? There are no police officers now patrolling our Town Centre, not even the new community support officers - one wonders where they have gone? The town centre police station is closed with simply a phone outside. If you are in your car, to park it near to the old police station can be a nightmare.

Driving home, I calmed down realising that there was little I could do. I did decide, however, to phone the Keighley Police Station in the hope of speaking to a senior officer and hopefully seek his guidance on what to do if I ever encountered a similar incident. My local directory gave the number for Keighley Police Station as 617059. The line was constantly engaged and was eventually answered by a recorded voice at the police call centre in Wakefield.

I was told that my call was important and that I was in a queue, after five minutes a woman spoke to me and said she would pass my name and address, together with my phone number, to the local police who would make contact with me in due course. I am still waiting.

We all pay our taxes but we do not seem to be getting the service we expect? What do we have to do to get our police officers and support officers back on our streets, so that they can do the job that they are trained and paid to do.

NAME AND ADDRESS Supplied

Keighley Festival Committee says thank-you

On behalf of the Keighley Festival committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the community groups, schools, bands and musicians who took part in this year's two week event, and especially to the people of Keighley and visitors from further away who supported the diverse offerings from Music for All, to the British R/C Stock Car Championship and from the south Asian food demonstrations to the Festival of Transport.

This festival is sponsored by the arts and culture department of Bradford Council and it is thanks to that sponsorship that we are able to organise the events. If you feel you have ideas for events to be held at next year's festival or if you feel you have a little time to get involved with the committee, then please contact myself in the first instance on 0790 3044060 for a chat.

Thanks also to the Fell Lane Scouts for the use of their meeting room over this past year and to the gala committee who we now work in close harmony with.

Allan Clark Chairman, Malsis Road, Keighley

Monstrous piece of behavioural engineering

Your correspondent Phil Harrison is correct ironically to refer to the smoking ban as a "success". It is, of course, nothing of the kind.

The stated aim of, and the only ethical excuse for such a draconian and illiberal act, was to "protect people, especially those in places of work, from the unhealthy effects of passive smoking".The arguments were backed up with a mass of invented figures for notional deaths which were alleged, maybe, just possibly and perhaps to result from what Hitler called "passivrauchen". These notions have been proved baseless. So complete has been the debunking of "passive smoking" theories that anti-smokers are now too embarrassed to mention them.

Thus nowhere do we read of the "thousands of non smokers' lives saved" - as originally promised. There was never a stated intention of making social life impossible through a monstrous piece of behavioural engineering. A law that set out to do this would not have been acceptable in a modern liberal democracy. The "success" is now retrospectively applied to the hidden agenda - which dared not speak its name - the "denormalisation" of smokers and smoking. No other minority would ever be treated to such scorn and discrimination as is heaped upon people who have made the legal and personal choice of smoking.

A tiny example of the mendacity of the anti-smoking lobby was posted to me recently by Anne Cryer, who supported the smoking ban at a probable cost of thousands of votes. It came in the form of a questionnaire with questions so heavily loaded the postman could hardly lift it. It asked: "Has your life improved since the smoking ban?" To which one was permitted to answer yes or no. Where was the question that asked "has your life got worse since the smoking ban?"

Naturally, there was no option for the dwindling patrons or proprietors of local pubs to tell the truth - that social life in Britain is being erased in a firestorm of political correctness.

George Speller Hill Top Road, Keighley

When is a crossing not a cropssing?

I wondered if any of your readers could answer me this poser: When is a crossing not a crossing?

I have reason to cross Station Road, Haworth, every morning on my stroll with my dog. Now about a fortnight ago, the roads were resurfaced and the crossing on the corner was a part of that. Ever since then, motorists have failed to stop when I, and several other pedestrians, have been waiting to cross.

A few ignorant drivers have slowed to almost a stop and we have stepped on to the crossing, only for them to drive off again! This morning a taxi driver slowed and then speeded up and so I smiled a polite thank you. Of course, he had his window open and remarked offhandedly, "It isn't a crossing."

Which leads me to my initial question; so when is a crossing not a crossing eh? I would have thought that the Belisha beacons were a dead giveaway, as well as the metal markers going across the road. No matter that the white and black stripes that denote the zebra haven't been repainted, I would have thought it a courtesy to pedestrians that drivers actually allow us to cross. It seems that that is not the case though doesn't it? Mind you, we have a little trouble getting drivers to slow or stop when the crossing is in order! Perhaps Bradfor Council or whoever it is ought to do their follow up painting a little quicker - or perhaps install a Pelican Crossing, now wouldn't that be fun?!

Jayne Pickard Haworth