SIR – I would just like to say a massive thank you to Councillor Richard Udall for pointing out the blatantly obvious, that if this ‘super-village’ development goes ahead we will need a ring road and a new bridge, otherwise traffic is going to grind to a halt in St John’s. Well I don’t want to take the wind out of your sails Mr Udall but we have needed to finish the ring road and build a new bridge for the last 20 years.
If there is road works somewhere in Worcester St John’s grinds to a halt, if there is an accident, if there is a breakdown, if there is a flood, if it snows, if there is traffic on the M5, if there is a delivery in St John’s then St John’s grinds to a halt. Now my question is, why have none of the other councillors picked up the blatantly obvious. Now for as long as I can remember, Worcester Highways have proved themselves to be of the highest of incompetency for getting things wrong and wasting taxpayers’ money, so my next question is, why is it still going on to this very day. Worcester County Council wake up, the third Worcester bridge is inevitable, the sooner you do it the cheaper it will be.
JOHN MATTHEWS
Worcester

Lords stood up for the working poor
SIR – The House of Lords is in the hot house over what critics dubbed ‘constitutional outrage’. Said to have defied the elected Chamber over a money matter and now waiting on the naughty step for Headmaster Cameron to decide on their fate. 
Those unelected peers so often portrayed as anachronistic parasites dozing through debates and bussed in from the Shires when  needed  were actually doing a public service. They were rejecting  the idea that three million working people should be made significantly poorer when that was not spelled out before the election and when no interim measures were in place to soften the blow. If we applied the ‘convention’ strictly then the commons would be able to abolish the old age pension and claim constitutional outrage once the Lords intervened. 
Few would think such a ‘convention’ acceptable. Perhaps indeed when welfare and money are so closely linked the Lords should be able to do as they did and the convention should be modified to that effect.  Is it  healthy to contemplate a working population of whom millions are on as much as a breadline as if they were unemployed ? So we think it acceptable for tens of thousands of working poor cap in hand to pay day lenders and feeding their families rather too frequently from foodbanks. It is a virtual ‘workhouse’ when people are subsisting in that manner. Because for many losing £1,300 a year would be life-changing, even dangerous. It could lead to malnutrition, debt and homelessness. 
The Lords have  defended  not  undermined democracy and as a result there will be some further consideration  to the consequences  before the axe falls as surely it will eventually. 
ANDREW BROWN
Worcester

Don’t rob children of these green spaces
SIR – What is it about Evesham that means that we roll over and let things happen? We got a bypass built without any provision for the footpaths it cut through, we put up with a cut cost bridge replacement scheme and there are more but now it is building on Abbey Fields.
Evesham does need to grow; it needs places for people to live but equally it must be a place where people can ‘live’ and this green area is key. Abbey fields should be protected as a public amenity. The town should be looking at incorporating it into an extend park stretching from Abbey Park to boat lane.
Losing it would effectively be theft from our children and grandchildren. 
It is fairly obvious that our elected representatives are either unable or unwilling to protect Abbey Fields from development and that is a situation that we should not accept.  
We can do something. Write to your MP, object to the planning and write to the secretary of state and support Keep Evesham Green. 
COLIN EDWARDS
Evesham

Blair should stand trial for war crime
SIR – In an interview on CNN, Tony Blair said that he felt that he had made the right decision in backing the invasion of Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein
He apologised “for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong” and for “mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.” Thus, we now have his admission that the Commons was misled.
The invasion of Iraq did not just remove Saddam Hussein. It destroyed the state of Iraq.
Using the Nazi tactic of Blitzkreig, renamed ‘shock and awe’, US and British forces rained bombs and missiles down on Baghdad destroying so many government ministries and buildings that they ran out of targets, also killing hundreds of civilians sheltering in bunkers. 
Although ruled by a brutal dictator, Iraq was a modern secular state with schools, hospitals, universities, museums and infrastructure.
The invasion saw the destruction of the Iraqi army, its police force and civil service which was purged of members of the Ba’ath Party. Sunnis and Shias who had lived in peace with each other became mortal enemies. Tribalism prevailed and militias took over leading eventually to the rise of the so-called Islamic State.
I look forward to the publication of the Chilcot Report in the hope that it 
will lead to the arrest and trial of Tony Blair for this war crime.
PETER NIELSEN
Worcester