Graveyards are not playgrounds

Sir - I see from your article (T&A August 11) that another church has taken the step of laying down gravestones in case they fall on somebody.

Can I remind both children and parents that graveyards and cemeteries are not playgrounds. Most of these monuments will stand another hundred years but not if someone decides to swing on them.

Nature does sometimes intervene and they have to be 'made safe' but that is the only reason!

As someone who is involved with Undercliffe Cemetery it would be lovely to think that people will visit the cemetery and enjoy the surroundings - after all they were meant as a 'place of recreation' as long as due respect was given.

They are not cycle tracks or drinking dens and the monuments are not climbing frames!

R Davison, Idle, Bradford.

Lost opportunity

SIR - I was disappointed to read that Robert Kilroy-Silk (left) is not to contest the forthcoming Hartlepool by-election.

The ostensible reason is that he does not wish to relinquish his seat in the European parliament.

Disappointed, because the chance has now been lost for a seat in Strasbourg to be inscribed with the time-honoured legend, "Kilroy was here".

Peter Wilson, Thornhill Grove, Calverley.

Moving forward

SIR - The latest series of BBC's Restoration got me thinking about the derelict buildings in Bradford, the old Odeon cinema being one of them. What would it be like if it was restored?

Although I do not want to see it go, I think it is inevitable, but the two ornamental towers should be retained and incorporated into a new structure.

But if it means that Bradford gains a striking new piece of modern architecture that will provide much-needed facilities such as a concert hall, art gallery, conference and exhibition centre, then it must be supported for the good of the city.

Leeds is planning its own venue, so wouldn't it be great if Bradford got in there first.

The site has remained derelict for far too long and a firm decision, with public backing, should be made by the end of this year.

Then work can begin on creating something that will move Bradford forward and make it a city to believe in.

Jack MacPherson, Killinghall Road, Bradford.

Ignoring evidence

SIR - The response from the 'two Browns' to my letter of support for Tony Blair was rather disappointing (T&A, August 6) - sarcasm disguised as wit from Sid and bluster from N which demonstrate once again the validity of the Campbell dictum that endless repetition does not necessarily make something true.

Instead, Sid should now provide an example based on evidence rather than allegation that Mr Blair has lied and N should produce a verdict by a British court of law that the war was illegal.

Otherwise their opinions can be properly ignored as the product of paranoia caused by their inability to accept that four parliamentary and judicial inquiries did not produce whitewashes but statements of fact.

The Prime Minister has said many times it was his judgment that took us to war and it was the judgment of the two Browns that he was wrong although both were made in 'good faith'.

The difference is that he accepts there are points of view which can never be reconciled whereas the anti-war faction are so convinced they are right they have given themselves unlimited licence to insult, denigrate or humiliate anyone who happens to disagree and to demand inquiry after inquiry until one comes up with the verdict they want.

Brian Holmans, Langley Road, Bingley.

Make them pay

SIR - Why should the public be expected to fund and improve on the services of a private company, be it Yorkshire Water or any other concern?

We know this is a service which is vital to our health and economy, but at the end of the day it's still private. Any funding should come from profits or private sources not from the customer.

This reinforces my view that the water utility should never have been privatised. Who will be next expecting a bail-out by the public - Mark's and Spencer?

Michael Breen, Bolton Hall Road, Wrose.