Lib Dems are at fault

I wonder if people realise that it was the Lib Dems who negotiated the contract, while they were in control of the city council.

The people of Sheffield voted the Lib Dems out, and it was left for the Labour Council to sign the contract off, because everything had been agreed.

With hindsight I bet they wished they had not signed it, but who knows what pressures were involved in achieving various agreements.

Mick Gethin

Westbury Ave, Chapeltown, S35

Deteriorating estate

I would like to respond to Gerry Leckey’s comments, (Letters, April 18), regarding issues I raised, (he calls them moans), in my recent letter about our deteriorating estate.

Why, just because there are ‘homeless people who have no roof over their heads’, should he consider I have no right to comment on the lowering of standards and the neglect of council properties?

The reason for my complaint regarding the rotting external doors is where is the sense in the council’s pointless exercise in wasting money on new double-glazed landing windows WITHOUT also replacing the doors?

This has resulted in still having a draughty building especially with the extreme winds and winter weather we get at Lodge Moor.

Is proper maintenance of outside areas too much to expect as general neglect reflects badly on an estate and doesn’t encourage people to take care of their surroundings?

Many tenants and residents try their best to do gardening work to improve their areas but the elderly find it increasingly difficult especially if suffering from health problems.

One very good neighbour has spent a large amount of his own money on providing plants and gardening which should really be the council’s responsibility.

If Mr Leckey had read my letter carefully he would have seen I never said that the rubbish and litter was confined to Lodge Moor but is a problem that has seen a marked increase ‘in many areas of the city’.

Just because this is a national problem, is he saying we should accept the situation and not try and do something about it?

Regarding anti-social behaviour, I am well aware of the procedures for reporting such incidents as several years ago we had a case in our block which involved a violent drug addict who posed a real danger and after 16 months of hell was evicted.

Without going into further details the council was extremely fortunate that serious injury to other tenants and residents did not occur during this period and my point is that more care should be taken in the allocation of council properties, especially when a tenant has a known history of appalling anti-social behaviour as in this case.

The wife of a tenant in the block has never fully recovered from the traumatic effect it had on her health.

Mr Leckey assumes that the extra lighting columns I mentioned, (which are additional to the street lights), are going to benefit our estate. Wrong!

Unfortunately they do not emit as good a light as the old ones leaving some areas darker, so how is that an improvement?

Also, according to the council’s own policy, workmen are not supposed to park their vehicles on grassed areas.

I did also say at the end of my letter that we still live in a very desirable area, but for how much longer?

Getting a discount under the ‘right to buy’ scheme is helpful but hardly any consolation if the property one has bought decreases in value due to any anti-social behaviour or the deterioration of an estate.

Susan Richardson

Westminster Crescent, Lodge Moor, Sheffield, S10

Abide by the Brexit vote

Having read ME Roper’s, “You know it makes sense”, letter in the Star, April 17, in which he/she writes about their perceived view of Terry Palmer’s alleged conversion to an EU “Remainer”, I do not know whether to take your correspondent seriously when reading the content of their letter. Is it written with tongue in cheek?

If their comments are intended to be factual, constructive and thought-provoking, then I am respectfully of the opinion that they have failed in their purpose.

In the specific case of Brexit, Parliamentary democracy is most definitely not working and democratically elected MPs are not reflecting the views of their 17.5 million constituents who voted to leave in the EU Referendum.

ME Roper states that Terry “seems” to be implying that MPs are not fit to vote in such an important matter, and by inference is suggesting that they should be listening to the people.

By their own admission and following a massive vote in favour, MPs of all political parties decided to pass the responsibility for taking the remain or leave decision to the British electorate because they did not feel that they were able to do this for them on such an important constitutional matter.

The Brexit result is now part of our history and Parliamentary MPs did indeed listen to the people in this matter by approving holding of the Referendum.

Unfortunately, many of those MPs are now making their own judgement on Brexit and wish to remain in the EU.

Consequently, they are ignoring the wishes of their leave constituents and adopting a personal delaying and sabotaging approach to derail the process.

This is most certainly a case of Parliamentary democracy not working, and is a major factor in M E Roper’s “absolute shambles” that many selfish MPs are endeavouring to turn Brexit into.

As for “a second referendum being the only way out of the mess”, thankfully both the Tory and Labour parties are in agreement that a second referendum will not be held and that Parliament will abide by the Brexit vote, even though many MPs appear to be acting to the contrary.

Cyril Olsen

Busk Meadow, Sheffield, S5