Your Letters - June 29

Fake rape

WITH reference to your front page lead concerning the false rape claim made by a local 17-year-old girl, and the subsequent reprimand she received, it is evident the authorities are too soft on these type of allegations.

A man faces a long prison sentence if convicted of such an assault, yet false claims go unpunished, as happened in this instance. This makes it far too easy for these claims to be made, when the girl knows she will walk away unpunished IF she is found out. If she isn't found out, an innocent man faces an agonising and traumatic period while the case is run. The CPS and police do get hoodwinked from time to time, as history has proven.

The situation is made worse when the police spokesman states such false reports are "rare". The facts suggest DI Poplett's claim is nonsense - where did he get his statistics from to make such a statement? The fact is 90 per cent of rape claims fail to lead to a conviction, suggesting a large number of claims are false, even when accounting for guilty men going unpunished.

The figure is staggering, and it can only get worse all the time the police treat false claimants with kid gloves. When a genuine allegation is made the evidence will be obvious, such an assault requires the use of significant force. This force will be evident under medical examination.

Where claims are made where there is no sign of force or violence, the police and the CPS must view such cases with extreme caution. There are any number of reasons why someone would make a false allegation, and all the time there is no risk to the accuser, such false allegations will not only continue, they will increase.

It's up to the police to get tough, and view all rape allegations with caution - to do otherwise will be to the detriment of the genuine cases. As DI Poplett correctly stated at the end of his statement "attacks of the type alleged are extremely rare."

Well done to the Observer for making this story their front page item.

M. SWAIN (Mrs)

London Road.

Road chaos

YOUR bold editorial nails an important point (Ducking the issue on road chaos) June 22. Road traffic is increasing at over one per cent a year. Studies already show that estimates of traffic are seriously inadequate and that the reality is that traffic levels on both the relief and relieved roads are almost always higher - some considerably higher - than forecast.

But the fact is that it is now openly conceded that the link road was never intended for traffic relief - it was always to trail a massive housing and business development, which makes the chaos you speak of inevitable.

The Masterplan is unsustainable and most of the text is PR puff. Indeed, there has been no sustainability evaluation or any evidence presented as to why the scheme is so vital. Such concerns have been expressed at the highest level. The Report of the House of Commons Environment Audit Committee, February 2005, concluded: "There is a serious risk (that) the principle beneficiaries of housing growth will be property development companies, whilst the principal loser will be the environment:" Likewise, there has been no evaluation of the effect of the scheme on water, energy and food supplies and sources, or of the generation of further waste and the ability of facilities to cope. On food we import 40 per cent.

There are also just some 23,000 agricultural workers left in the country. I don't know which is the most surprising: four farms biting the dust to provide land for this scheme or the apparent indifference of our MP, Gregory Barker, who is also a shadow environment spokesman. Is this another instance of tailoring your words to suit your audience?

We are being delusional if we think that the big retail chains with their fragile mega-mile supply lines can feed us indefinitely.

The time has come to put an end to random "development" and its inevitable increment. The most serious thought and preparation must now be devoted to the tug-of-war between public and private transport. Motorists rightly feel that they are being picked on. That must stop.

It is also true that public transport isn't up to scratch. But it is also true that continually dismissing public transport from one's mind will result in us telescoping the necessary adjustment from one to the other with devastating conseqeunces.

STEPHEN JACKSON

Second Avenue.

Village agenda

Re: Hood site redevelopment

We appear to be getting more emotive misinformation about the Hood site redevelopment plans, this time from Mr Earl who purports to represent Little Common Business Association (not necessarily an unbiased organisation which has the best interests of the residents at heart).

A swift survey of the village revealed the following shops :- 2 Home Improvements, 1 Hardware, 1 Dry Cleaners, 1 Chinese Takeaway, 5 Estate Agents, 2 Beauty Salons, 1 Taxi, 1 Interior Design, 2 Barbers, 1 Pharmacist, 1 Bank, 1Off -Licence, 2 Convenience Store (1 large, 1 small), 2 Gift Shops, 1 Delicatessen, 1 Carpet Shop, 1 Plant Shop, 1 bathroom Supplier, 2 Hairdressers, 2 Cafes, 1 Florist, 1 Optometrist, 1 Solicitor, 1 Kitchen Supplier, 1 Dress Shop, 1 Building Society, 1 Chip Shop, 1 Betting Office, 4 Restaurants, 1 Furniture Shop, 1 Fish Shop, 1 Care Services, 1 Window Blind Supplier, 1 Electrical Goods, 1 Post Office, 1 Insurance Broker, 1 Dentist, 1 Butcher, 1 Newsagent, 1 Greengrocer, 1 Baker, 1 Bridal Wear, and 1 representing a charity but I could not understand what they supplied. This diverse group appear to be surviving and some even appeared to be thriving and prospering. Which of them are under threat from having another Convenience Store, Mr Earl? Why do you wish to restrict the residents of Little Common to a choice of 2 Convenience Stores when you suggest that you wish to preserve choice, Mr Earl? Why haven't these busineses collapsed because of the presence of the existing Convenience Stores, Mr Earl? Of course, with or without a new Convenience Store (not a supermarket Mr Earl), some of the existing businesses will disappear over the next decade because that is the nature of a vibrant market economy.

Most will move forward, adapt and benefit from the influx of new customers that a new store will bring.

Small businesses thrive by operating in niche markets and offering the sorts of goods and services which don't fit into the 'economies of scale' of large businesses. For them, trying to compete in the 'mass markets' is pointless and doomed to failure. Most of the businesses of Little Common have nothing to fear but a lot to gain from this development and the customers deserve to have the choice that it will bring.

The 500 protesters (most of whom are merely anti-Tesco) are free to continue to support the existing Convenience Stores which may, or may not, rise to the challenge.

Frank Wood

Collington Lane East.

Tip logic?

HAVING recently spent half an hour queuing at the local Pebsham tip, not long by any standard I know, having known some people queue for over an hour or more, I felt I was adding to pollution, something which we are all constantly being told we must cut down on, by having to drive there in my van, and keep my engine running while constantly edging to the site.

I counted 25 vehicles behind me all doing the same thing.

I am all for recycling and have no problem with it, but it seems the discarded household items we no longer need which crews used to be able to take away and can no longer do so, is turning into a kind of farce.

Not only are we all adding to pollution by having to take these unwanted items to the tip ourselves but, quite honestly, can we really spare the kind of time we are expected to wait to unload our rubbish?

As we now have to recycle everything, may I suggest that the council re-arrange collection of other unwanted items from our doorstep'driveways, say once a month?

I know they are only too willing to collect unwanted furniture, white goods etc (for a price!) but what about things like a broken plastic linen basket or a damaged garden pot. So they want us to pay to have these taken away if we are unable to get there under our own steam?

The only option for us with our own transport is for us to use our cars and drive to the tip, thus creating pollution.

I am sure the council will comment that they have no more budget or manpower to make a collection as I have suggested but I feel quite confident that they would be able to find the resources needed to collect if there were a fee involved. They might also say that they are doing everything that the Government expects of them but for once could we, a little seaside town on the Sussex coast, lead by example and not be led like a load of sheep!

Jean Tucker

Woodville Road.

Too late

TODAY (June 22) saw the second green waste collection in my area. I am still waiting to see my green bin; however I have managed to stockpile two grey binliners full of garden waste which I presume the council will collect on their next green collection day.

On the subject of recycling I am of the opinion that it is a futile "too little too late" effort on our part when you consider the growth and pollution output of America, China, India etc. and is just another means of extracting money from the taxpayer, at the moment as I understand part of our council tax goes on the refuse collection service, allthough we have been provided with wheelie bins I am sure many householders will in an effort to avoid smells and vermin still buy black binliners(out their own pocket) and line them, and then of course once this scheme is established the "spy" chip in the lid will bring in the "weigh and pay"programme.

As an ex dustman I could go on, but will finish with one last point.

If the powers that be are serious about recycling why do they not standardise all plastic containers, who is going to bother looking inside (or indeed able to see) the tiny numbered triangle on the bottom of said containers to see if it is the acceptable number, I am probably throwing away more "recyclable" materials now than ever before.

R.E.Wilks

Woodsgate Park.

There is no collection of garden waste yet. - Ed.

Simple enough

What is wrong with all these people who can't understand recycling? I admit that I was totally against it, but now I'm a total convert. Is it so hard? Read a newspaper, put it in the paper bin. Drink a can of fizzy drink or finish a milk container, put it in the tin/ plastic bin. Could it be any easier? As for the wrong houses getting the bins or not and a few mix ups over collection days, give the company and council a week or two to sort out a mini percentage of errors. Don't make this a political football either. Now there's a thought: which bin would a football go in!

Paul Minter

Uplands Close.

Planning policy

WHILE Frank Wood (June 15) is happy to defend Rother's planners, we see that Richard Paine (same issue) is as cynical as we, as an Action Group, have become over the years in our efforts to save the Gullivers bowling club greens from development.

Then Stuart Earl (same issue) makes the point that properly-elected councillors are appointed to the planning committee to democratically represent the views of the people, and should not be intimidated by big business or big costs in defending sensible and popular planning committee decisions.

Then D.W. Wooller (same issue) writes to say that surely planning laws are meant to protect the environment and the community, and that it would be a shame to give in to the bullying tactics of a developer with deep pockets. And Harold Lescroat (same issue) asks 'Are there no standards in public life anymore?'

Well, alas, the answer appears to be 'no', because our councillors are unfortunately fed information on planning issues, and guided by, the planning department! Even when constituents give their representatives the facts and figures our councillors do not know what is discussed between planning officers and developers at 'pre-planning meetings.'

It is time our planning officers, paid by our taxes, were more accountable and not so choosy as to which piece of legislation or planning guideline they choose to present and use in their Decision Notices.

Christine Madeley

Chairman

Gullivers Action Group.

Skate danger

SKATEBOARDING on the terrace of the De La Warr Pavilion is annoying, especially to those expecting to enjoy a quiet cup of tea or a doze in the sun - and the tiling suffers too as the 'boarders' practice their stunts. They are also a potential hazard to themselves and others.

No doubt the Trust have a public liability policy but could they, by condoning skateboarding, be invalidating their insurance? Because if a member of the public or a skateboarder gets injured, there is sure to be a claim for compensation.

I've been told that the 'boarders' use the terrace because the construction at Galley Hill is too dangerous. So yet another conflict of age and interests - solutions please to Rother DC and the Trust.

D.C. WOOLLER

Collington Rise.

And finally ...

ROTHER is to be congratulated on its choice of re-cycling pamphlets. When is the adult version to be published?

D. Duly

Newlands Avenue.