Our readers from across the county give their weekly take on the biggest issues impacting Kent and beyond.

Some letters refer to past correspondence which can be found by clicking here. Join the debate by emailing letters@thekmgroup.co.uk

We should try to manage without cars

I have just visited my parents. There are many changes from when I lived in Kent 30 years ago but one stands out – the volume of cars. While cars are everywhere, surplus parking is nowhere. Why? Because terraced streets were never built with the cars of today in mind.

I only tasted the inherent problems in my limited stay. There’s permit parking and still no space. I found myself parking streets away and then up early, moving it to avoid a fine.

I saw once green gardens at the front of homes are now concreted over. On one street I rejoiced when I saw a lady tending to her traditional front garden. It was lovingly kept and stood out. The rest of the street looked more like a used car lot with cars on every front. It only needed the price signs and a salesman!

Then, there’s double parking that makes driving the terraced streets constantly hazardous. Watch out cyclists, wing mirrors and pedestrians. Incidentally I only noticed one cyclist on my visit – he was riding on the pavement!

Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned pollution!

The crazy thing is most cars spend most of their time parked. I walked a few streets around 9.30 on a Monday morning. On each street, I only found around three out of every 10 cars parked overnight had gone anywhere. The streets are crowded but need they be?

In many cities, towns and villages across the world they are developing car limited urban areas. It takes many conversations, time, money and planning but once in operation and bedded in, few would have it any other way.

We love our cars but surely, we need to start daring to imagine how different and better things could be without them in the centre of our towns. The world is changing fast. There is a climate, environmental and resource crisis in our world today and our fossil fuel transport plays a big part. We are already seeing cars moving to electric.

Yet the solution in a crowded place is surely not replacing one problem with the same problem, only fuelled differently. We need less cars and, in a town situation, we might even imagine living almost without them!

There’s plenty of evidence already that limiting cars make cities, towns and villages better places to live. A desirable developed urban area will increasingly be those with sufficient public transport that negates the need for all but essential other vehicles.

Loyalty to the car runs deep and opinions don’t change easily. Some places have no car days in particular spaces to help communities begin to imagine an alternative way. Why not investigate the possibilities and start a conversation?

Richard Beadle

Relax hosepipe ban for watering veg

We are being encouraged to grow more fruit and vegetables in our gardens and many people will be doing this for the first time this year.

Already, in June, Southern Water has brought in a hosepipe ban and these new gardeners will be discouraged from growing vegetables again as they struggle to keep them alive lugging heavy watering cans about, filled from water butts, if they have any.

It is heartbreaking to see plants that we have carefully nurtured and that are doing so well gradually wither and die. There are many exceptions to the ban so why is there not an exception to allow us to water with a hose fruit and veg that is for our own consumption? Strangely, schools are allowed to water vegetable plots with a hosepipe if they have any.

Rae Gibbens

We’re letting the snowflakes take over

I was born just after this country had emerged from the greatest war the planet has yet seen, and from which we emerged victorious because of the courage of the British people, and those great allies who joined us in the fight against the most evil regime ever to have disfigured human history.

In the years that followed we live through the fear of a nuclear war, but did not allow ourselves to be seduced by the siren voices of those such as CND, whose policy was to get on their knees and trust in the goodwill of the Soviet dictatorship. We knew that we were in peril but had the will to stand firm and again triumphed. Safe we were not, but neither were we cowed.

At my grammar school in the 1950s we were expected to treat teachers with respect, always referring to them as ‘Sir’ or ‘Miss’, and knew that any serious infringement of the rules would result in punishment, up to and including expulsion. Later, in our adult lives most of us abided by the norms of society, but were not afraid to confront those with whom we disagreed, and would not be reluctant to give offence, if that was what was justified, not accepting limitations on what we chose to think, say and believe.

What a contrast we now see. A few schoolchildren, whether from a desire to mock their so-called progressive teachers, or because of mental problems, are declaring that they self identify as something that they clearly are not, and in so doing are disrupting the education of the vast majority with their antics. In my day any child spouting this nonsense would have been very quickly disciplined, and if recalcitrant, would have been expelled. Today however, many teachers, who should clearly have never been allowed near a classroom, are not merely indulging this rubbish but actually encouraging it. When fellow pupils refuse to humour these fantasies they are frequently insulted by the adults in charge, who clearly believe in this absurd ideology.

When youngsters reach university they are then immersed in a milieu which claims that the principle of free speech must be overruled by the requirement to prevent ideas contrary to the received wisdom of the ideologues being discussed, with a demand for ‘safe spaces’, or in other words that debate should be suppressed. Later, in the world of employment, arrogant HR officials are allowed by too many organisations to impose the idea that nothing must ever be said that might offend even the tiniest minority, while ignoring the vast majority of sane people.

How have we as a society allowed all these pusillanimous and pathetic, snowflakes to gain so much power? Normal, decent people should call an end to this preposterous posing, and restore common sense to centre stage.

Colin Bullen

Many reached the same conclusion on EU

On reading the letter from Michael Charles, either he has a very selective memory, or was not actually living at the time, or too young to make an informed judgment, when Edward Heath took us into what was then colloquially referred to as the Common Market.

Thus began our reluctant membership of what was to become the European Union and that reluctance built as the organisation set itself on the path of ever closer political union and the UK government finding itself having to lend financial support to a currency of which it was not a member and finding itself becoming increasingly isolated as decisions were being made towards achievement of that political union, but to which the Thatcher government was fundamentally opposed.

She believed in less government interference in peoples daily lives, but the EU wanted more. That made her realize that the direction in which the EU was going was not going to be right for the UK. She had reached the same conclusion as de Gaulle some 30 years earlier and the same conclusion as Tony Benn had voiced during the 1975 referendum campaign that the UK electorate would end up being controlled by people whom they had not elected and could not vote out.

So, far from doing this country a service, Edward Heath led us into an organisation that ended up costing us billions whilst creating a never ending gravy train for the people running it who could not be held accountable, no matter how badly they failed.

Brexit may well be viewed as a failure by many, but over time as the UK reaches out globally, I believe it is more likely to prevail than an organisation that is run by people who not only refuse to recognise it has fundamental problems, but also show no desire to address them.

C Aichgy

Why did MPs abstain over Johnson?

In his article ’We probably haven’t seen the last of Johnson’, Paul Francis asked whether Boris Johnson could expect support for a political comeback from Conservative MPs in Kent, stating that Kent MPs have ‘largely remained mute on Boris’s latest scrapes, even though most backed him in the leadership contest’.

Mr Johnson’s behaviour during the Covid crisis can hardly be described as a ‘scrape’. When given a free vote on the report, MPs by a majority backed the committee’s conclusion that Boris Johnson had deliberately lied to Parliament over rule-breaking parties held during the epidemic. As a result, he now stands as the first Prime Minister in British history to have been found guilty of lying to Parliament and the first to be denied a pass giving him continued access to Parliament. In addition, if he had not resigned as an MP he would have been suspended from attending Parliament for an unprecedented 90 days. The Privileges Committee argued that these penalties were justified by the extent to which Mr Johnson had abused his position as Prime Minister and in the process, damaged the integrity and reputation of our democracy in Parliament.

As to the Conservative MPs in Kent remaining mute, this is only partly true. Of the 17 MPs with constituencies in Kent, 16 are Conservatives. Of these, three had the guts to endorse the report and one voted against. The remaining 12 joined the other 213 Conservative MPs who declined to vote one way or the other. Overall, MPs did the right thing and voted by 354 to seven against, to endorse the report. But what does this massive abstention by Conservative MPs in general and those in Kent in particular, say about their regard for our democracy and respect for the findings of an important House of Commons Committee?

Why did they abstain? Did they either feel that the 90 day suspension was unnecessarily high and fierce or were they notionally voting against the motion without being uncomfortably grilled by the press and their constituents? The answer is that we simply don’t know.

Boris Johnson, our most discredited Prime Minister, still skulks in the background of politics and as Paul Francis wrote, we probably haven’t seen the last of him yet.

John Cooper

Put people before profit

During my life I have known a great many people, politicians, councillors, teachers, social workers, volunteers and many others who have sought within their ability to improve life for their communities.

What I have also seen has been that conditions have become more difficult for them to achieve success. Every change in local and national government has transferred power away from communities.

The latest proposal being made for a Mayoral system for Kent and Medway takes this process a step further and must be opposed.

Local authorities have to serve three different groups, the community, business/commerce/financial interests and government.

Business requires quick decisions. In order to meet their demands, debate, discussion and a consideration of all factors involved have been curtailed.

The result being that the needs of communities (and of the individuals within them) are not considered and are not met. We all suffer as a consequence. As control passes to corporate bodies to the exclusion of individuals and the community, they come up against the major defect facing local government.

Nothing can be achieved without money.

The national government holds the purse strings and their main concern is the national economy. They are subservient to the requirements of the major financiers.

When considering demands for devolution, we must keep in our minds the basic requirement that is ‘power to the people’.

Like many people, I often feel isolated and alone but I know that my needs are the same as other people and that if my needs are to be met it will only be because the general needs of the community are met.

Together we can make a difference but not if we fail to challenge the present structure and demand that people come before profit.

Ralph A. Tebbutt

Titanic wreck should be left alone

It was, without doubt, a tragedy that five people died on board the Titan when it imploded.

But much as I sympathise with the families of those who perished in the accident, I cannot help but feel a sense of unease that a liner which sank with the loss of 1,517 lives should become an attraction for a group of wealthy tourists.

There is an element of ghoulishness about visiting the site of a bygone disaster purely to satisfy one's curiosity. It strikes me as being inappropriate to allow people access to the shipwreck as a means for commercial gain.

Furthermore, it shows scant regard for the descendants of the Titanic's victims who might well take the view that it should be treated as a graveyard, and not a source of 'recreation'.

Michael Smith

Reality check

I could not decide whether Miss V. Helmsley-Flint’s plea for Colin Bullen to be Prime Minister was sincerely meant or the height of sarcasm!

Bill Ridley