I CAN now empathise with those members of the public who suffer regular, irrational attacks on their integrity from council leader John Byrne and some of his Labour colleagues, following his over-the-top response (Yours Truly, June 19) to my earlier correspondence.

The technique is simple: he accuses you of saying something you never said, attacks you for saying it and then even demands an apology!

Firstly, I did not say that the names on nomination papers were secret or that someone revealing them was "sinister", though another correspondent mistakenly did think they were confidential. I do still maintain, however, that in practice more than 99 per cent of voters never read or even see nomination papers, and you would have to go out of your way to discover the names of those nominating candidates. Candidates' expenses are also public documents but how many people actually read those?

I repeat, if people signing nomination papers can expect to be attacked in the local press by Labour Party supporters then it is not going to make the democratic process any easier.

Secondly, I still believe that there has been a deliberate "run down" of places in certain residential homes for the elderly, before the outcome of consultation on home closures. Now Coun Byrne may call this "reducing the reliance on residential care for older people" and "a very large reduction of placements". It follows, he says, that "there will now be many empty places in homes".

I cannot see the difference between what he is saying and what I said. Either way, Labour are pre-judging the consultation verdict and that is not our policy. We support choice and agree that services for the elderly in their own homes should be improved but not at the expense of closing all residential homes, and so reducing genuine choice.

Thirdly, and worst of all, he claims that I said education staff had acted improperly and calls on me to apologise. Here, I begin to wonder if he has lost it.

What I did say was that not allowing clients into our council homes while consultation continues would be like consulting on which schools are to close and at the same time not letting any pupils be admitted to certain schools pre-selected for closure. This would be illegal and I hope our officers would not even consider it. Therefore, no slur and no accusation of impropriety (I do wonder about Coun Byrne's standards, however, when he can just make up an accusation like this).

My own view remains that the consultation over homes closures has not been sincere. I find it hard to believe that the lack of admissions from hospital in the period of consultation is not linked to the closure policy. Were the two homes concerned not considered appropriate for any prospective clients who have undergone assessments in recent months?

COUNCILLOR

ROY-E. WALKER,

Conservative

Group leader.