RECENTLY, local councils were being praised for opening footpaths on the Malvern Hills as if some selfless, heroic deed had been enacted (I recall, prior to this, they were being equally praised for keeping them closed).

May I venture to suggest that this congratulatory fervour was somewhat misplaced.

After all, it was not, and still is not, councils that have been forced to suffer during the foot and mouth crisis, as rural businesses have. It is not they who have agonised over how long the could survive during the complete or considerable loss of trade and earnings. Indeed, some of these councils have been given lots of lovely money, have they not, to spend on 'regeneration' and 'promotion', whatever that will mean in practice, apart from more bureaucracy. You may be sure this money will rarely find its way to those who deserve it, and even then only with great difficulty.

Let us not forget that this crisis is still with us, not to mention its aftermath. All of which begs the following questions: Should the Malvern Hills have been closed at all after the removal of livestock? What has changed? If there is no risk now, was there one then? Has it all been a costly mistake?

Before our gratitude overwhelms us, consider the question of rate relief for businesses affected. Anyone attempting to secure this will be confronted with the usual nightmarish, convoluted procedures worthy of the creative imaginings of a Kafke or an Orwell, the result being that many people will not be bothered to pursue it, given their existing stressful circumstances. And even if they attempt this, to add insult to injury, they will still be expected to continue paying the business rate for the period of depleted or non-existent trade.

I suggest that if anyone is worthy of praise it is those who have struggled to keep themselves and their businesses afloat during this sickening and shamefully mismanaged affair. Alas, not all will achieve this.

M SEARBY, Jubilee Drive, Upper Colwall.