6 CLIFFORD Lord (You Say, February 19) has conveniently "forgotten" the wholesale public anger that surrounded Labour's plans for Perdiswell, and the understandable emotion that outrage released.

The apparent intransigence of Labour councillors also fanned the flames of this anger. That he writes off the Perdiswell protesters as "just a small fraction of the population", perhaps demonstrates just how wobbly Labour's political compass, has become when it comes to recognising the will of the people.

I see his "explanations" regarding the sports pitch as a standard piece of political skulduggery. He has ducked the question of what his claims cost the public purse.

Had his party listened to the people, the problems of drainage and grassing he referred to need not have been addressed.

Thanks to Labour, Perdiswell will never be the same again, and while he may baulk at my use of the word destruction, Labour was told, by non other than our present mayor, in the debate over Perdiswell, that ".....they were guilty of vandalism (Evening News, Wednesday, August 11, 1999 page 3).

I suggest the difference between "vandalism" and "destruction" is semantic.

As regards Mr Lord's comments, relating to Margaret Wills, he knows perfectly well that I did not write the word "arrogant". His observations therefore strike me as somewhat disingenuous.

If Mr Lord considers that Perdiswell " is one of the few practical steps we can take...." I should hate to see an impractical step.

Perdiswell park-and-ride is an expensive Labour folly. I have repeatedly challenged its proponents to debate its worth, in the You Say columns. None has dared take up that challenge.

I can't stop Mr Lord labelling me and others "incorrigible protest correspondents", but one question begs answering.

Had Labour listened to those "protest correspondents", would they now be serving out the sentence of the people in the political wilderness?

N TAYLOR, Worcester.