Resort bosses turning their backs on beach
I was very concerned to read that Blackpool South beach has dropped off the list of Britain’s best beaches, three years after first receiving the award.
Although the drop in water quality may have been small, the damage to Blackpool’s reputation as a family resort is much bigger.
I’ve thought for a long time that the council spends too much time on developing the big attractions and ignoring the benefits of beach holidays. When visitors spend all their money on the attractions they’re not inclined to stay for more than a weekend. Combining time on the beach with visits to the big attractions could encourage people to stay longer and benefit those small hotels and guest houses which struggle to fill their rooms mid week.
I think it’s also true that most blue flag beaches provide excellent facilities for visitors but there is nothing at all on the South Prom. One reason, I’m sure, why the South Beach attracted far fewer visitors than it deserved (even when it had a blue flag).
Mr R Cope
Newton Drive, Blackpool
Socialist misery shared equally
Increasing the minimum wage for teenagers to match it to what is paid to adults is yet another crackpot socialist economic idea and a shameful attempt to bribe 16-year-olds to support Labour.
This at a time when security guards and catering staff at Sellafield have refused an offer of £8.21 an hour. I assume most of the strikers are over 16 and would be delighted with an offer of £10 an hour. However, all pay rises have to be paid for by someone, usually the public. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell’s determination to align Britain’s economy with that of Venezuela is breathtaking. In line with socialist policies, the misery in Venezuela is shared equally.
Why EU’s stance on immigration?
In the EU election campaign pro-Remain parties emphasised the benefits to the country from unlimited inward migration. One candidate even sported a T-shirt message extolling immigration for his leaflet photograph.
Given this belief that such migration aligns so well with the national interest, it seems puzzling that the EU should feel it necessary to mandate an open-door policy as a core principle rather than leaving it to the judgement and self-interest of each state to achieve this.
One might indeed have imagined that the principle of subsidiarity would require it to delegate this decision. The British government has on occasion gone beyond the dictates of the EU in accepting migrants.
This matters because the EU’s insistence upon a seemingly superfluous rule was so clearly a deciding factor in the 2016 referendum. Their belatedly scrapping the rule is the only circumstance in which that referendum result could now legitimately be put aside. Why are Remainers not urging them to do this? Why is the EU prepared to drive out one of its largest financial contributors for the sake of a rule which, on their own reasoning, can make no difference?
Why protest climate change in the UK?
We are all aware that the climate is changing, some of this is natural, which we can’t control and some man-made, which we can manage better through business and individual self-management. But it is naive to believe we will ever achieve a zero-emission state, as many eminent scientists have already said.
The UK has reduced its CO2 emissions by 50 per cent to a one per cent contribution to the world’s emissions.
Whilst the protesters have every right to protest, they have no right to disrupt anybody going about their normal business and that includes what must be an unlawful act to barricade BP’s headquarters.
Hopefully the police or legal action will ensure the company, which has the right to carry out its lawful business, will not be too inconvenienced and they are removed forthwith. The protesters do themselves no favours acting in this way and in light of the UK’s world-leading policies in emissions, they would be better advised to go and protest in the other countries which are major emitters of CO2.