A one-sided argument Lack of due diligence?
Reading the recent ‘Alternative View’ by Emma Kay (Greyhound’s lives should not be a gambling chip in a cruel sport, The News, March 13, 2024) I wonder if there has ever been a more one- sided piece printed in The News?
The attack on greyhound racing with quotes such as, "Innocent creatures do not deserve to be doomed to a life of uncertainty, injury and death” is quite incredible.
I wonder how many greyhound meetings Emma has attended and how many owners, trainers and kennel staff she has discussed this topic with?
Indeed, if there are ‘thousands’ of injuries and ‘hundreds’ of deaths, then there must be thousands of owners, trainers and kennel staff who are merciless in their behaviour and who should be charged with animal cruelty under the rules of Emma Kay.
The truth is, as usual, a person has taken a one-sided slice of statistics to form an opinion of something they do not like.
How many greyhounds are there in training, how many races do they compete in annually, how many of those live a perfect life and are cared for until their natural dying day?
If you provide a chart demonstrating all of that and your opinion then proves correct, that it is a barbaric event, then I will eat the humble pie.
My guess is that the percentages you portray are miniscule in comparison and that all those connected with this sport have the well-being and welfare of greyhounds at their very heart.
Dean Kimber Hayling Island
An open letter to Mayor of Gosport
It has to be completely questionable when a public body such as Gosport Borough Council spends £600,000 of public money on a dilapidated Victorian Cinema (historically known as "The Criterion") without any due diligence applied to the transaction.
It would expect that there had been a business case worked up to determine the future financial viability of the building. Perhaps, and importantly, a full structural survey would have been carried out and a report considered before purchase.
In normal circumstances it would be inadvisable to enter into a contract to purchase a building that was not structurally sound and free of any potentially dangerous defects.
As this was being considered as a future venue for public events, perhaps it would be wise to ensure that the access and car parking was sufficient and complied with the relevant regulations that apply; that the venue would be a viable asset for the people of Gosport?
Assuming all of this preparative work had been carried out then surely the next step would be to consult the people of Gosport before the final decision was made and the money spent?
Where did the authority to enter into this transaction come from?
The borough solicitor had not carried out the so important procedures to determine the legal implications to the borough that would arise. The only explanation appears to be that responsibilities of these senior council officers for the safety and management of the assets of the council were circumvented.
It cannot be imagined that this purchase would have gone through without all of the normal checks and balances being set aside.
If this was the case, what were the circumstances under which council members allowed what can only be described as a highly questionable course of action that defied all the rules applying to due diligence and of members' interests. Where is the voting record?
Why Mr Mayor did you not carry through your function as "The Conscience Of The Council", as detailed in the Constitution of the Council to ensure that all due diligence had been implemented?
The truth is, as usual, a person has taken a one-sided slice of statistics to form an opinion of something they do not like