Be careful if you criticise airshow
ALTHOUGH most times I agree 100 per cent with Linda Colling’s views, her article on the airshow did not hit any positive notes.
We all know Sunderland has very little going for it as far as local or national attractions are concerned. The only thing keeping us in the dulling limelight is Sunderland AFC and a need to drink for England. Certainly not the Glass Centre nor the Winter Gardens, nice as they are.
The airshow is good for Sunderland. It proves we can do something on a local and national level. It attracts people to the area to be entertained and they like coming. Listen to the views of people from Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, all wanting to come back again. A chance to showcase Sunderland seafront, so why stop it?
1. There is a certain chav element: buggies, pyjamas, nappies, cans of lager, litter etc. You’re right, I’ve sat next to them at the airshow, but why should a small percentage rule the rest? We cannot close everything because Sunderland has a colony of pyjama-wearing buggy-pushers.
2. The people of Roker and Seaburn suffer for a couple of days litter, cars, noise. Bless. They need to look at other parts of Sunderland suffering for 52 weeks of the year (and not being able to move for a couple of days’ peace) and while you’re at it, google Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe. I think they might want to swap your two days of hell for a couple of theirs.
3. So we stop the Sunderland Airshow for all of the above. Wait for the letters when it reappears as South Tynside Airshow in a few years’ time. No bleating locals (think of the Great North Run – no problem), no worry about chavs, just get on with it and when people from all over the country say how much they enjoyed it we will say (as usual): why not Sunderland?
Beware for what you wish.
Thanks to friend
I WOULD like to thank my loyal and trusted friend Winnie Hardy for her help running Doxford Park Community Centre over the last seven years.
I feel very saddened it had to end the way it did. It is the end of another chapter in our lives.
Thank you again to all the people who supported us. I hope you do not feel we have let you down.
Pat Dixon, Dalton Terrace, Murton
I’M writing in response to the article “Privacy fears over electoral details” (Echo, July 29).
I would like to clarify that on 192.com we only publish information that is authorised under the law (including the Data Protection Act) and we remove anyone’s data if they prefer not to be listed. We publish the Edited Electoral Register and the Telephone Directory (excluding ex-directory information).
My Penman asked us to remove his information from 192.com on Christmas Eve, 2010. We normally remove someone from our website within three days of receiving their request, but since we received Mr Penman’s request over the holiday period, his request took a few days longer (under the Data Protection Act we have 30 days in which to act on such requests).
The Edited Electoral Register is an extremely valuable national resource. It is used extensively by people looking for old friends and family and by charities seeking to reunite families.
Keith Marsden, Managing Director, 192.com Limited
Give Debbie IVF
RE the story “Desperate for a baby” (Echo, August 4), I work with Debbie Trout.
She is a lovely, caring girl who always has a lot of time for other people. Debbie hasn’t had a lot of luck. As you know, she lost her mam when she was only 20.
It still affects her to this day. She very much misses her mam. I can’t begin to think how she feels, losing her mam at such a young age.
Debbie is perfectly happy with Kristian, who is really nice, but a baby would be excellent. I know she would be the perfect mother.
Debbie is lovely to Kristian’s daughter and they get on well, but it would be the icing on the cake for her to have her own child.
If I could wish anything for anyone, it would be a baby for Debbie and Kristian. If there is anything that we could do for her we would. I hope people support her and agree, like we do, that she should have at least a try at IVF on the NHS
I THINK Debbie and Kristian Trout should without doubt be entitled to the free IVF treatment.
The fact that Kristian has a child from a past relationship should not have any bearing on whether a young girl, who has encountered much heartache in trying to conceive naturally, should be given the chance to have her own child and is indeed being penalised for something which is beyond her control. The eligibility criteria is a disgrace and the NHS needs to take a serious look into it.