SIR – Re: Cllr Gareth Jones’ comments regarding the proposed football ground on Perdiswell and the recent developments in the city council regarding this.
I asked these same questions in May 2015 in the lead-up to the local elections in which Cllr Jones was standing as a candidate on a strongly anti-stadium ticket. He failed to give any response to these questions of which I am aware – which would have been extremely useful for the voters within his ward to decide on if he was deserving of their vote. 
I find it disingenuous of him that he could not even see fit to respond in any way to the points raised. I expected as much from a politician who has flatly refused in the past to meet and discuss any issues with the supporters trust who have submitted the plans to revitalise Perdiswell for the benefit of all citizens of this great city – instead of pandering to a select minority of protesters who want to keep a field that is in extremely poor condition and criminally underused.
As a result I think that he has abandoned any notion of democracy in his actions thus far. Contrast this with Cllr Neil Laurenson, who despite his concerns has actually bothered to enter into dialogue with the general public and the trust/Friends of Perdiswell – for which I thank him immensely for his input.
So once again I will ask Cllr Gareth Jones the following four questions – and hope this time for some sort of response instead of the drawbridge being pulled up...
I have seen Freedom of Information Request details from both the city council and the police which have confirmed that complaints about parking, noise pollution, light pollution and anti-social behaviour relating to the old stadium in St Georges are either minimal or non-existent.
1. In his objection letter to the plans for development of the site he pointed out that he had never received a complaint about noise on Perdiswell. Did he ever have similar complaints about the old football ground – which lies within the St Stephen Ward of which he was one of the councillors.
2. The plans are entered into the St Stephen Ward – Cllr Jones points out that they should be moved into Claines Ward. If it was moved out into Claines – then why would it affect his constituents – when it did not affect them when it was in his ward, many of whom live closer to the old football ground?
3. He states also that “Perdiswell is identified for sports use – which it currently enjoys”. I would like to therefore ask him how many local Worcester & District Football League or youth football league matches have taken place on Perdiswell over the last 2 seasons? A site with a changing room block newly built to great expense from Football Foundation funding now being used as a storeroom.
4. As a local councillor, what has he proactively done to get this site back up & running and well used, other than to look for scoring votes at election time?
KRISTER HALVORSEN
Worcester

Green policies an economic nightmare
SIR – Green councillor Neil Laurenson  (February 2) refers to the fact that “the rise in council tax will hardly help working families”.
Perhaps you should look at your Green policies, Neil. They will be an economic nightmare for the British people, with the taxpayer picking up the bill running into billions. Even your deluded leader Natalie Bennett can’t say where the money is coming from to build 700,000 new homes.
No border controls , unlimited immigration, failed asylum seekers can return to Britain, firms and people bringing immigrants here will not be punished. So you don’t represent the British interests at all.
Not very Green either.Your policies are a threat to Britain’s future.  And can you tell me if the ex-European Green leader, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a writer of paedophile books, is anything to do with your Green Party?
CARL MASON
BNP, Worcester

Money-saving election plans abandoned
SIR – Every department of the city council has had to make savings in the last few years, and more is to come. Yet plans to move to all-out elections every four years instead of the current arrangement of annual elections, along with proposals to slightly reduce the number of councillors, have been abandoned. This despite estimated annual savings of £77,000.
Members of any elected organisation must face regular re-election otherwise they cease to be representative or democratic. But how often is democratic? Every five years like Parliament? Every four years like the county council? Every year like the city council? Or every six months? Three months? Clearly there has to be some compromise between maintaining a democratic mandate and reducing the administrative upheaval caused by elections and their cost. And what of the city’s ‘annual’ elections. Only a third of councillors are elected in any one year, and each one (unless elected in a by-election) serves a full four years. So the council is not elected every year – only a third of it.
Surely councillors don’t need elections in order to be “in touch with voters” and to “keep politicians honest”  to quote Cllr Bayliss (Worcester News, January 28).
The council is now facing a considerable deficit in the coming year, to be plugged by the diminishing New Homes Bonus. This is not their fault, but surely the saving of £77,000 each year from these changes is worth having and any loss of democracy would not be noticed.  
LIZ SMITH
Worcester