THE front page of the Radcliffe Times (May 23) reported that "Radcliffe's only two council-run old folks homes are to be closed or be drastically changed".

Below this an article headlined "Pensioner hurt in gas explosion" told of an 83-year-old lady who left an unlit gas ring turned on then later tried to light it.

I am not for one minute saying that this lady should be in an old folks home, and I wish her well, but surely this highlights why we shouldn't be closing council-run homes, but striving to keep them open for the old and vulnerable who want, or need, them.

Not everyone in their twilight years is independent or has a living or caring relative. Some need the comradeship and security that only an old folks home can provide. Should we deny our elderly this right after they fought through two world wars for their own survival and our existence?

Council bosses say the closures are "not about saving money but helping more people to live in their own homes for longer". For what? To be virtual prisoners in them or to have some low-life con their way in and then beat and rob them because they live alone or are unable to fight back? Just pick up any newspaper if you want examples.

The only gratifying thought for me is that most of the dinosaurs running Bury Council will need an old folks home long before I do. Then they may experience first-hand what it is like to be old, alone, vulnerable, and very frightened with nowhere to "exist" but a run-for-profit residence.

Spare me letters about how wonderful some of these private homes are, and about the legislation there to protect the residents in them.

Not all these homes are nice places and that very same legislation is not protecting residents in council homes because it is actually forcing their homes to shut.

If £6 million can be found to fund a new market and museum in Radcliffe, why can't any money be found to "do up" its two old folks homes? I am ashamed to have voted!

YOOTHA NASIER

(shoot me at retirement).