Homes trauma
Your otherwise excellent article on the Going for Growth proposals in Newcastle (Street drama, September 13) failed to consider the most serious issue: the way they were explained by the city council to those affected.
In the weeks following publication of the draft proposals, my neighbours and I did our utmost to find out what was proposed for our street and how we could play a part in the consultation process. We attended meetings, phoned helplines, read documents and talked to local councillors. Every person we talked to told us something different.
It became clear that the people who had drafted the proposals had little idea where our street was, had no knowledge of our community and had not given any thought to the implications of their plans. It was also obvious that the council as a whole was confused about what it was trying to achieve, or how it was going to do it. Nothing I have heard in the last three months has altered my initial impression.
It is bad enough that my neighbours and I have no idea if our houses will still be standing in a year's time. What is much worse is that we have no idea what will happen if our houses are demolished. Will people be separated from friends and family? Will we be dispersed across the city? What help will we be given in relocating?
Living with these uncertainties every day brings stress that is hard to describe; imagine it was your home and your future. And many of my neighbours live in great poverty and are struggling with problems of drink, drugs, domestic violence, long-term illness or single parenthood. They are among the most vulnerable in the city, the least able to cope with radical change.
The city council should be held accountable for the distress and fear it has caused to 4,000 families. If, as your article suggests, this may be the future of inner city development, heaven help council tenants everywhere.
Name and address withheld
Unconvincing image
The frequently used clog photograph, supposedly depicting unemployment and poverty, doesn't (Risks pay off, September 20). Look at it closely. First, the man. His clogs and trousers are clearly dirty from work. I would guess he was a bricklayer's mate and on his way home. He does look as though he may have visited the pub.
Next, the kids. They look healthy and well fed. They have well polished clogs in good condition, ideal for wet Lancashire streets.
I hope you can find a more convincing photograph to illustrate similar articles.
Bill Charnock
Backwell, Somerset
Testament to greed
I was fascinated by your article on organ transplants from animals to humans (Xeno phobia, September 20). It is indeed a testament to our society's greed and selfishness that the argument for and against xenotransplantation is reduced to a matter of commercial potential versus potential risk of disease to humans.
On what basis have we decided that the mass production of pigs for xenotransplantation is morally justifiable? I think that if we considered the matter properly, most of us would find the concept unacceptable. Perhaps, then, this is the very reason that many of us choose not to consider the ethics of this and similar matters in our own minds. Instead, we leave it to governments or to large, influential companies to make moral and ethical decisions on our behalf - which is, at best, naive and, in my opinion, plain lazy.
John Stimpson
Thrapston, Northants
Human rights denied
No wonder short breaks (respite care) for disabled children are regarded by parents as life-saving, given the lack of alternatives (Give them a break, September 20).
But what do disabled children themselves think? What might they prefer? If asked and allowed to decide, disabled children would opt, not for tea with pretend aunts and uncles in another part of town, but for fun with real friends, in the street, round the corner, in their local school or youth club, or (just imagine) in each others' houses.
Of course, disabled children, like their non-disabled peers, need and enjoy time away from home. But whereas non-disabled children have a say in where, when and whom with, this is generally not so for disabled children.
We expect carers' research to claim their services are "invaluable" and their organisations under-resourced. However, my own work, as well as research by Jenny Morris, shows that the real shortage is in accessible mainstream provision.
It further confirms that separating disabled children from their families and peers causes more problems than it solves. It is also a denial of their basic human rights.
Deborah Sowerby
disability equality consultant
Whitchurch, Bristol
NHS scrutiny compromised
Sir Robin Wales (Letters, September 20) highlights, albeit inadvertently, the weakness of the proposal in the NHS plan that the scrutiny role should be taken on by local government. He writes: "London boroughs are already working to provide high quality services."
Well, exactly. So their independence as scrutineers must be compromised. They would be marking their own work.
Joyce Struthers
former chairman, Association of Community Health Councils
Bedford
Added terms of acceptance
How about adding an item to your terms for acceptance of an advertisement? "I certify that I have read and understood Graham Hopkins's The Write Stuff" (September 13).
Robert Polfreman
Ormskirk, Lancs
• Write to Guardian Society, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER; or fax 020-7713 4154 or email society@guardian.co.uk Please supply your full address. Letters may be edited
