SIR – I feel I must, as someone who has lived in the county and worked in the city for 42 years, express my views in this latest opportunity for Worcester to become a better destination for visitors and shoppers as well as its own residents.

I have seen, over that time, previous out of town or edge of town proposals being promoted but rejected. Elsewhere over that time other locations in our area have supported such proposals, including Cheltenham and Stratford. We must not dismiss another chance to enhance Worcester.

Such schemes have not killed trading in the centre but have brought further employment and revenue to the town.

The city must, this time, see the vast benefits this scheme will bring to Worcester in attracting shoppers to an experience not currently available and persuading them to shop and spend in Worcester and not travel to other retail locations as before mentioned, together with the likes of Merryhill and Solihull.

The county council, supported by the LEP, has promoted the new employment site known as worcester6 at junction 6 of the M5, which is also very much out of town but, as with Worcester Woods, is well sited for M5 access and hopefully shortly also convenient for the new Parkway station.

ANTHONY CHAMPION

Worcester

Norway EU claims wrong

SIR – The latest from Brexiteer Francis Lankester (Letters, May 3), about Norway’s position in regard to to the EU, is seriously misleading.

He writes that Norway’s contribution to the EU (of which it is not actually a member and has no say in formulating its rules) is “less than half our contribution”. What he carefully omits is that Norway’s population is smaller than ours, and that its per-capita contribution is of much the same order as ours. In fact, Norway is the EU’s 10th largest contributor, and pays in at around par with what it would as an EU member.

He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of trade and commerce by claiming that EU “packaging regulations” (observed by Norway) are “unimportant ones”. Overall, Norway actually accepts around three-quarters of EU rules (rather than the 26% plucked out of who-knows-where by Mr Lankester), including (as pointed out by a former Norwegian Prime Minister) “all the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, [and] employment regulations”.

The purpose of these, of course, is to discourage competition based on a race to the bottom in terms both of reductions in quality of goods and services and of reductions in our working conditions. We never hear, of course, why this should be thought to be such a terrible burden.

Crucially, Norway is signed up to the “four freedoms”, movement of goods, services, capital and labour, and takes in, again per head, more immigration than does the UK.

The claims in Francis Lankester’s letter consist purely of myth-making.

David Barlow

Worcester

Cheap point on refugees

SIR – Councillor Joy Squires’ criticism of the Government, in accepting refugees in numbers only from legitimate established camps in the Middle East, is patently wrong, as the arrangements currently in place provide a process to reject economic migrants and hopefully the few Islamic extremists committed to causing death and indiscriminate injury to law abiding citizens and serious damage to property. Interestingly, a Scandinavian country recently established that an admitted, unvetted “teenage lone refugee” was in fact 29 years old.

Furthermore, there are no Calais-style “Jungle camps” in Jordan and Lebanon and neither is an oil rich sheikhdom. Both countries could easily be destabilised without international help to relieve their refugee numbers and the financial aid provided by Western countries.

I know the Middle East quite well, having lived in Arab countries for a good number of years, including eight years under Sharia law.

Local councillors should address and resolve local issues, of which there are many that still need attention in Worcester, and not try to score cheap political points against the Establishment at the Palace of Westminster.

Brian Shaw-Rudd

Worcester

Impersonally offended...

SIR – I have just received a letter from National Savings and Investments and am appalled to see it addressed to “Dear Unknown” when it has my name and address clearly typed on it.

To be treated with such contempt displays a total disregard for their customers and raises serious doubts if these are the right people to be looking after our investments.

National Savings and Investments is backed by Her Majesty’s Treasury and proudly displays on the notepaper the logo for Investor in People and the Charter Mark for Excellence. It therefore begs the question how much lower can they sink before they have to reconsider a reprint of their stationery.

To add insult to injury in her letter, signed by the Customer Services Manager, she stated “we wanted to let you know personally of the changes.”

JOHN I WAGSTAFF

Worcester