*

SIR,

WE would like to address several comments in the ‘Times comment’ colum on page 5 and also the “What you gonna do” artical next to it, of last weeks SYT (20/01/11).

It mentioned that passers-by were left to decide. The people in that room were not passers-by. Most of those people attend the PACT meeting every month, they work,live and some volunteer many hours of their own time for the good of the community they feel passionate about, so they are very well placed to make such decisions

It also mentions about “non democracy” - this is what pact meetings, which, are open to any member of the public and well advertised and therefor I cannot see how this can be non democratic, indeed this is how policing in the town should be provided by letting the residents decide how their community is policed.

The question asked near the bottom regarding a cull is quite simply ridiculous. To allow this to be printed, some may say brings into question your editorial jugdement. The British armed police are one of the most regulated armed police forces in the world and also one of the most highly trained. If anyone thinks that this is for a cull then they need to stop watching so many hollywood movies!

Again, some would say comments written in this way paints an unjustified very bad picture of Mexborough.

It would be a gross waste of tax payers money to have police sat in an office because they are not allowed to patrol our streets just because they are armed, when they could be out on patrol attending, maybe to the three issues you raised in the Times comment column.

The “What you gonna do” artical does not state that - at no time durring that meeting did the police say they felt a need for armed police to be on the streets of Mexborough. It was made very clear that it was for extra police visibility.

Was that not the aim of the South Yorkshire Times organised public meeting less than two years ago?

Mathew Brettell,

Mexborough Resident

*To reply to the South Yorkshire Times email letters@dearnetoday.co.uk