Vandalism admission is ‘awful’

4
Have your say

IN reference to your recent story (‘Bloom group’s vow on vandalism’) in which police admitted that Hawick has had a vandalism problem for years, the powers-that-be should hang their heads in shame.

Years is just not good enough, that’s just awful and shows a failure to do their jobs properly. The Hawick folk have been let down, also the good folk of the town, young and old, that give up their time to promote it.

So come on ‘the powers’, make 2012 the year that we only get good reports about Hawick.

COMMUNITY COUNCILLOR HELEN FORD

I am writing to express my appreciation regarding the generosity of the people of Hawick in relation to the recent Will Aid Scheme in which this firm (Bannerman Burke) took part.

At this stage sums in excess of £1,300 have been donated to the Will Aid Charity thanks to the contributions made by our clients to this very worthwhile charitym, and I on behalf of the firm would like to take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the donations given.

JOHN P. HUNTER

SO, John Lamont wants better roads in the Scottish Borders and blames the SNP Government for “turning its back on the Borders”.

Methinks the Tory MSP complains too much and complains without looking at the history of trunk and main roads. Up until 1997 the Westminster Government and the Westminster Minister for Transport was responsible for all roads in the UK although a quick look at that body’s record may give cause for concern as the M6 and the A1 both stopped far short of the Scottish border as far as investment and up-grading was concerned.

From 1997 through to 2007 I seem to recall that it was the Labour Party who had a kind of “executive” running Scotland under a devolved regime along with the Lib-Dems and even then there was no investment in any major road works between the border and the M8.

In 2007 a major breakthrough came when the first SNP Government came to power at Holyrood but in a minority situation we saw Labour, Tory and the Lib-Dems oppose most things simply because they could. Only since May 2011 have we seen a majority SNP Government after an election that the entire devolution process was supposed to make impossible.

Yes, we need more roads and better roads in the Scottish Borders both north-south and east-west but why not get on to your mates in Westminster, John and ask them why there has been a total lack of spending almost from World War II on any major road construction which could bring commerce and industry to this part of the country? Ask too why it was the Tories who scrapped plans to dual the A7 from Galashiels to Eskbank in the 1980s?

The Scottish Government is hamstrung by a lack of capital from the Westminster Government run by John’s friends so perhaps he can bring a few hundred million of Scotland’s oil cash back to his own country to spend on the roads, if he asks that nice Mr Osborne or even that nice Mr Cable!

COUNCILLOR KENNETH GUNN

RORY Bannerman’s bombastic letter in the Hawick News earlier this month made a repeated mention of “we”. To whom does he refer to – the community of Hawick, the taxpayers of the United Kingdom or to world society in general?

Mr Bannerman is entitled to express his extensive views publicly and level-headed people should respect his right to do so. No letter is printed in the Hawick News without the writer’s contact details having been provided. There are many valid reasons to write to the press anonymously and, should the letter writer wish to remain anonymous, it is for the editor to allow that anonymity and no-one else.

However, less even-minded people might perhaps (another word Mr Bannerman seems fond of) wish an anonymous group joining together and pinning a badge over Mr Bannerman’s mouth before sending him on a wee holiday to Mount Erebus.

From there, and safe from the inequalities of the system; the injustices of the world and the inadequacies of the ill-informed he could erupt in ignorance while those who live in misery through antisocial behaviour pray that one day “responsibility” will be given priority over “rights”.

Not every action is defendable.

NEIL BORTHWICK

I had to respond to your recent article on antisocial behaviour.

This time last year my daughter moved into an SBHA house on Weensland Road. It wasn’t long before she realised her neighbour was an antisocial tenant who had moved or had been moved from Selkirk.

She had done all the things suggested in your paper what people should do. She recorded, went to the police station and reported things and phoned them.

The final straw for my daughter was when her neighbour and three of her friends came banging on her door shortly after she finished work at 5pm. Needless to say my seven-year-old granddaughter was terrified.

When her neighbour and friends left her own premises she went to the police station and reported it. She was told that without her having a witness if and when it happened again they could do nothing to help her.

She and my granddaughter moved out the next day. This was approximately eight weeks ago.

SBHA have a lot to answer for. My daughter had as many meetings and phone calls with the antisocial deptartment in Selkirk and was told each time to fill in diary sheets.

They know and everyone else knows this is a total waste of time and paper. I bet not once did anyone ever from that department pay a call on the neighbour to warn her about her behaviour.

I also noticed David Paterson on the photo accompanying the article. I contacted him about the situation and he came to my house.

After 20 minutes of mixed conversation, very little to do with the reason he called, he stood up and said he had a meeting to attend and would return the next morning....STILL WAITING.

ANNE MILLS