Many politicians in the three main political parties have made various excuses or given the public the incorrect reasons for the closures.
In many cases they have blamed the internet, electronic banking or changes in business practices.

The official reason for the closures given by the Government was that the Royal Mail was losing millions of pounds each week – the truth is that the cause of the closures are directly related to two EU Directives.

The Postal Directive 97/67/EC has the objective of fully opening up the EU's internal market for postal services by 2009. This is known as "liberalisation" in Euro-speak and by the end of 2007, the UK, Finland and Sweden were the only countries out of the 27 EU member states to have opened up their markets to full liberalisation. 
This means that other European countries have been able to deliver postal services in the UK, but have not opened up their countries to postal competition from the UK.

This has resulted in the Royal Mail losing about 40 per cent of its business to foreign companies, and due to this unfair competition, Post Offices Ltd made a loss of £174m in the year ending April 2007.
The Government has subsidised the Post Office via the Social Network Payment by £150m per annum but cannot increase the subsidy because it would be breaking the EC Treaty.

New pricing rules for postal services were introduced in August 2006 to comply with EU legislation which required post items to be priced by size as well as weight. This has caused problems for both Post Office staff and for the general public, with mail being undelivered for various reasons.

The legislation was put to the European Parliament by the unelected European Commission and nearly all Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat MEPs voted for it to become EU Law. 
These are the people who are responsible for the proposed 2,500 Post Office closures.

Derek Norman
chairman
Hunts and Cambs Branch
UK Independence Party
 
Utter nonsense
>> I write in response to Ian Dobson (Town Crier, April 24). I have for some time watched the diatribe that the so-called independents have written.
I have watched the hypocrisy and the spin these people have pushed upon St Ives and I have always ignored their efforts to diminish what has been accomplished by a dedicated team of councillors on our town council. But having read the latest letter from Ian Dobson, I feel that I should respond to this misinformation.

Mr Dobson claims that when I was mayor I started a process of selling the Corn Exchange. This is utter nonsense.
When I was proudly serving as mayor, I actually introduced the consultant that brought the experience that was greatly needed to look at the whole project. He was given the remit to bring back various schemes that where affordable by a parish council.

He concluded in his reports that any scheme on this site was not achievable within the financial parameters that we had set. We reluctantly made the decision to dispose of the building with a view to reinvesting the money in the town.

When ACE (Action Corn Exchange) came along and asked for a chance to save the building, we did not turn them away and tell them that our minds were made up. Far from it. We gave them every opportunity and every assistance to bring back a presentation to the council. When they presented their scheme our independent consultant concluded that they had not got their figures right and their scheme was at best going to cost £1.6million.

Why were they so surprised when the council, whose best estimate had been £1.4million, did not go forward with them?

When Mike Purchas came along with a unique rescue plan he asked me to work with him to bring back a financially achievable scheme to the town council. I proposed that the town council should go forward with Mr Purchas and to that end the Corn Exchange project is now going forward.
As for the judicial review that Mr and Mrs Dobson keep banging on about, it seems funny that when the council said that it was happy to defend its decisions, they lifted it the next week.

I feel that I have done my best for the town and everyone has the right to their own opinion. My opinion of the independents is that they are party political without the rosette. I am a Conservative and proud to be.
 Cllr Jason Ablewhite
St Ives Town Council

Thanks to Ted>>
Thank you for publishing the story about Ted Jarvis and his work for the Huntingdonshire Volunteer Bureau car scheme (Town Crier, April 10).
He is a very caring person and has been wonderful to me and my husband who was taken very ill in August.

Ted came to my home daily and took me to the hospital and back. He stayed with me in the ward. I feel that not only did Ted help me, he also helped to bring a very sick man back to life.
Ted still does my shopping each week and takes me every six weeks on a Monday to get a large shop when my gardener visits and also and stays with my husband for my piece of mind.

Thank you both for all your help.
I hope this letter will help both the volunteer service to persuade drivers to help people like myself and others who have trouble walking.
Please note the volunteer service is not free and we have to pay by the mile for each trip.
June Francis
Daintree Way
Hemingford Grey

Teachers' strike>>
Why did the teachers think it was right to go on strike?
It was reported last week in national newspapers that the average teacher's wage is £34,000. That's not exactly poverty pay.

The NUT also said £20,000 is not enough for a starting wage (Town Crier, April 24). Well I'm sorry but that is more than a lot of people get at the start of their careers. If these people do not like what they get paid then they should get another job.

Lots of people work hard and are on low pay, but they do not go on strike.
Why did the teachers go on strike when there are exams coming up?
T Jacobs
Hunts

Don't forget us when deciding on cemetery
>> I have been very interested in the St Neots cemetery issues (Town Crier, April 10).

I have had some correspondence with the town council clerk Philip Devonald with regard to the new siting of the cemetery and allotments, and he informed me that two possible sites were being looked at – one on the edge of town and one possible site near the town centre.

However, it seems that land east of the A1 by Bushmead Road now seems to be the favoured site.

It would be nice to know where the other site was going to be and whether residents of St Neots had any input.
I, like Mr Hall (Your View, April 17), were of the belief that the ground next to the cemetery was going to be used.

Mr Devonald has told me that the land was unsuitable as it was too low at the confluence of two rivers and would not gain approval from the Environment Agency because of drainage problems. I have lived in St Neots all my life, walk past the cemetery on a daily basis and have never seen problems with flooding.

I was told that the EA advice is informal and based on generic guidance/regulation. The basic requirements prevent water draining through decomposing bodies and thence into nearby watercourses.

Is this informal advice going to be made formal with a full report from the EA?
I understand that no decisions have yet been made and there will be more discussions. All I ask is that councillors take into account the needs of St Neots residents in burying loved ones in a place they have grown up in and want to be near those who have already departed.

The land next to the cemetery and the allotments in St Neots is a lovely green space which is used by a number of people. If it is not going to be used for a cemetery, then please leave it alone. St Neots is growing so fast, leave us somewhere that we can enjoy and continue to enjoy for many more years. 
Mrs V Jarvis
St Neots

Much-treasured space must be left
>> The Government has been insisting on using any 'spare' space for housing for many years now. They now have bags of money to throw at developing open space.

We know only too well that parking for Huntingdon workers is a problem. We live with it five days a week, but if the fair stays in Huntingdon it should stay exactly where it has always been, before it was a tarmaced car park.

We do not need the children's play area moved or reduced. There are far more suitable areas for a multi-sport facility. It would not improve the area for tourism at all as the area is more of a tranquil place.
An extra cycle lane/footpath would be good, but a gazebo and lighting would only attract night-time anti-social behaviour.

A couple of benches, and a couple of picnic benches around the edge of the field (away from drain covers) and some more in the park area plus additional bins near the main pedestrian entrance and pavilion, would all be improvements.

Also a cafe would be good for tourism, surely. The riverside field is Huntingdon town's public playing field and is Huntingdon's jewel.
It is not underused, even if a carnival is not held.

If the planners, councillors and car park users were all local to Huntingdon town and used riverside regularly for peaceful free time leisure, as many people do, to escape feeling hemmed in by so much housing and development, they would understand that this playing field is the last flat green open space we have.

Why do we have to keep fighting to save it. A simple, easy to maintain piece of green space – we need some guarantees that it can remain as it is. It does not need money thrown at it.
It is very much treasured as it is, respected and cared for as it is and should be left as it is for future generations.
Sue Bushby
The PaddockHuntingdon