I WOULD remind Councillor Mike Connolly (Your Letters, April 1) that if CARE (Care and Respect for the Elderly) had not instigated a judicial review then Warthfield and Whittaker House EPHs would be now closed and the consultation would never have taken place.

This does not exactly "demonstrate the council's intent"!

In answer to his comment that a wide range of care packages should be available, and that "the council recognises that for some people residential care will always be an option", he should tell that to the elderly who once resided in Claremont EPH.

And how can intensive home care and the yet-to-be-seen very sheltered and extra sheltered housing schemes help people to retain their independence in their own homes for longer?

The arguments put forward by "Slingsby, Ogden & Co" are the same as they have always been: leave well alone Coun Connolly and all those elected members who voted to reduce the number of residential places on a fictitious basis that Bury "has an over reliance on residential places compared to home care".

How on earth can that statement be justified when reports by SSI, Audit Commission and Best Value have suggested that Bury should consider other ways of supporting elderly people in addition to care provision. Note, "suggested" and "consider" are not exactly directives to the council.

And I would implore Coun Connolly not to say that they "can't put into place other services until we get funding from the closures of residential homes". This contradicts his previous statement that "It's not about money".

EILEEN SLINGSBY,

CARE,

Countess Lane, Radcliffe.