WHO needs Comic Relief when we have Bury councillors?

We were delighted to hear that members of the council have written to the Prime Minister, opposing his probable incursion into Iraq. I am sure he will give it as much consideration as Bury Council give their detractors. It is a pity that not one of the same councillors registered any complaints about the closure of care homes locally.

I would, however, not only expect, but indeed demand, that these councillors give their unreserved support to our brave soldiers, sailors and airmen should they be asked to fight. Unlike councillors, servicemen don't have a choice in what they do!

Meanwhile, Councillor John Byrne continues to publicly defend his "weak" and ineffectual council against the Audit Commission's findings. He would have done well serving under Wellington at Waterloo because he promoted people who knew how to defend a hopeless position.

The deputy mayor, Councillor Paul Nesbit, responding to a correspondent in the Bury Times (March 7), knows how to tell a good story. At £84 allowance per week, the sum total for 48 councillors over a period of 52 weeks should, according to my pocket calculator, be £209,664. Even allowing for national insurance and income tax, it comes nowhere near the actual total of £540,000 and this "weak" council wants to increase this payout with the addition of three more councillors!

Councillors have always had the same work load, but truly dedicated people used to do it virtually free of charge.

What really touched me was his reference to the poor councillors who, because of their increased allowances, now find themselves in a higher tax bracket. Perhaps the answer is to only allow retired people to stand for public office. They have time on their hands and would be really grateful for £84 per week to supplement their state pension.

As usual, the recent star performer has been Councillor Mike Connolly, who has at last been forced to agree that the council has no intention of building new, very sheltered housing in Prestwich. We must be content with the up-dating of existing sheltered housing.

I am led to believe that the land on which the now defunct Claremont home stood was purchased by the old Prestwich Council for the specific use of the elderly. Now it is to be sold and the money thrown into Bury Council's famous "black hole".

But the quote of the week must have been: "The decision on whether or not to close Whittaker House or Warthfield has been deferred for three months, but this is not a political manoeuvre".

The original decision to close these old folks homes was not made until after last year's local government elections as they knew it would incense voters. Therefore it is obvious that the decision to defer closure until after this year's elections on May 1 is for similar reasons.

However, some of us will endeavour to ensure that voters do not forget this, nor the fact that this council lost £6.5 million by investing in the "wrong" bank some years ago, something which still causes apoplexy among councillors when reminded. Sixty per cent has been recovered but, once again, it seems to have disappeared into the famous "black hole" of Bury Council's coffers.

I am not suggesting any impropriety but it would be nice to know how this money has been spent.

BERNARD SLINGSBY