Search

Arguments not consistent

PUBLISHED: 11:45 23 June 2008 | UPDATED: 20:42 05 July 2010

THERE does not seem to be many weeks when there is a letter from John Thompson.

He is almost always pontificating about the evil of motorists, the bridge, or cycles and cycle lanes.

THERE does not seem to be many weeks when there is a letter from John Thompson.

He is almost always pontificating about the evil of motorists, the bridge, or cycles and cycle lanes.

It seems to me that his letters are only published to cause controversy and stimulate debate. If this is the case why not give him a column of his own? He could then air his views in a separate area and leave the letters page more space to those people who genuinely want to be heard.

Many of his assertions do not stand up to any sort of objective investigation. He appears to be steadfastly against a third crossing but does not seem to appreciate that the static traffic caused by bridge hold-ups causes more pollution than by allowing free flow of traffic.

If Mr Thompson was consistent with his arguments he would have suggested that instead of all this tinkering with the current crossing, at the cost of a huge amount of time and money, a new bridge with four lanes would have at least helped to solve the hold-up problems.

K N MURPHY

Via email

Most Read

Most Read

Latest from the Lowestoft Journal

Hot Jobs

Show Job Lists