Why oh why?

Who asks the people, Dad? Well, it's usually the local council, son.

Does the council have to take any notice of what the people say, Dad? No, not really, son.

So why does it do it, Dad? So later it can say it asked you.

Why does it do that, Dad? So when it all goes wrong, it has someone to blame.

Does it do it often, Dad? No son, only when it's something really important.

Like what, Dad? Well son, like what to do with a really important piece of land in the middle of town.

What's important about it, Dad? Well son, some people might want to steal it and make a big profit.

Why doesn't the council just stop them, Dad? Because the people have said they'll give the council a bit of their money, son.

How much, Dad? Not much really, son.

What will the council do with the money, Dad? Well son, it has already spent some of it on the consultation exercise and it'll probably spend the rest on trying to clear up the mess when it all goes wrong.

I don't understand, Dad. No son, neither do I.

Richard Paul-Jones, Coleman Street, Brighton

No more stores

BLATCHINGTON Road in Hove was much nicer when there were Victorian buildings on the stretch of it where the Co-op supermarket now stands. Surely a lesson was learned from this?

So why repeat this gross error by building a similar store on the old gasworks in Hove, when there is the chance to create something on the social scale of the delightful Lanes? How one loathes the idea of ending one's days in a place which looks like everywhere else!

WHAT price convenience? Running low on a couple of items, I popped across the road to the convenience store, which is a few yards closer than my regular supermarket. My shopping came to £1.50. Not a lot, but the identical items cost me only £1 at my regular store, a difference of 50p. Again not a king's ransom by any means but on a bigger bill, say £30, the difference would be a staggering £15 more.

Even allowing for the cost of shoe leather or petrol in getting to the big supermarkets, it would take an awful lot of loyalty to do a regular shop at the convenience store.

I WAS surprised to see Adam Trimingham's article describing those visiting Lewes and Uckfield during and immediately after the recent floods as "gawpers" (Argus, October 19) . We were away during the floods and when we heard about the water and mud through homes and shops, we were sorry for all concerned.

We often walk around Lewes, and thinking the worst was over, took a trip over last week. Nothing could prepare us for the sight of so much destruction. We didn't go to gawp but we saw the devastation and agree with those who say there should be no more building on flood plains.

Who pays now?

HOW can one best describe a local planning authority which endangers people's health, welfare and livelihoods by permitting the building of homes and businesses on the flood plain of a river? Incompetent? Irresponsible? Culpably negligent?

No doubt the granting of planning permission on the flood plain of the River Uck converted a tract of low value land into a piece of valuable real estate, but what could possibly induce people to be so careless with public well-being?

Who now ultimately picks up the bill?

I WOULD like to clarify several points in Sally Hall's article describing the pioneering scheme Working Links as a public-private partnership involving Manpower and the government's Employment Service (Argus, October 20).

In fact, Working Links is a private company responsible to shareholders and is run to make, in its own words, a "normal" profit out of long-term unemployment in Brighton and Hove. Work previously done by Jobcentre staff has been privatised. The fact Working Links is not a partnership is demonstrated by the criticism of Jobcentres in the article. Jobcentres are part of the government's Employment Service, supposedly part of this partnership.

Working Links uses Personal Job Accounts (PJAs) to find people jobs but they are pots of money which include clients' Job Seekers Allowance and other benefits and funds set aside for training. The article fails to mention when a client is placed in a job, Working Links gets to keep any balance in the PJA as profit. This payments-by-results raises several serious issues.

Firstly, I believe it encourages Working Links to work hardest on behalf of unemployed people who are easy to place in to jobs, rather than giving equal treatment to all. Secondly, it means taxpayers' money set aside to assist unemployed people find work is being pocketed by big business. This scenario is at best unsavoury.

Sally Hall's article contains alleged criticism of Jobcentres by both unemployed people, and regrettably, Working Links staff. While I cannot comment on individual cases, I must point out Brighton and Hove Jobcentres have an excellent record of finding people jobs. In the year ending March 31, 2000, Brighton and Hove Jobcentres found jobs for 6,315 jobseekers.

The Jobcentre trade union, PCS, is campaigning to return the work presently carried out by Working Links to the public sector. We firmly believe the interests of the unemployed are better served in public, not private hands.

MICHAEL Panting enviously observes other bus companies' achievements for accessible transport (Opinion, October 20). Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Company has been investing in new easy-access buses. By next spring around half our fleet will be accessible to wheelchairs, more than any other major bus company in the southern counties.

As to the point about drivers ignoring latecomers, I would say only that when pulling out of bus stops, drivers look out for the last-minute passengers but safety considerations mean they may not always see them.

We welcome all feedback and letters are responded to by return. However, we have no record of receiving Don Crone's letters (Opinion, October 23). He is very welcome to contact us and we will look into his points.

Why oh why?

DAD, what's a public consultation exercise? It's where you ask people's opinion about something, son.

Who asks the people, Dad? Well, it's usually the local council, son.

Does the council have to take any notice of what the people say, Dad? No, not really, son.

So why does it do it, Dad? So later it can say it asked you.

Why does it do that, Dad? So when it all goes wrong, it has someone to blame.

Does it do it often, Dad? No son, only when it's something really important.

Like what, Dad? Well son, like what to do with a really important piece of land in the middle of town.

What's important about it, Dad? Well son, some people might want to steal it and make a big profit.

Why doesn't the council just stop them, Dad? Because the people have said they'll give the council a bit of their money, son.

How much, Dad? Not much really, son.

What will the council do with the money, Dad? Well son, it has already spent some of it on the consultation exercise and it'll probably spend the rest on trying to clear up the mess when it all goes wrong.

I don't understand, Dad. No son, neither do I.

-Richard Paul-Jones, Coleman Street, Brighton