I NOTICED that neither Paul Bailey nor the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester has deigned to respond to my letter (Jan 12) in which I asked three questions about the Greater Manchester Black and Asian Police Association. They were not frivolous questions.

I can hardly imagine that Paul Bailey, having introduced the subject in one issue of the Bury Times failed to peruse the Letters page of the next issue. How, otherwise, could he become acquainted with public reaction and, if he did so, is it likely that he failed to draw the contents to the notice of his Chief Constable? So, why no response?

I cannot see the difference, racially, between a "Black and Asian" organisation and a "White and European" one. If there is a difference under the Act, one is tempted to ask, is the Race Relations Act fair and just, or, if it is, is it being fairly and justly administered?

If the answer to either of these questions is "no" then anger and resentment from that section of society which feels aggrieved must be expected. An unfair or unjust Act will do more harm to race relations, than will the absence of any law on the subject whatsoever. Perhaps the matter as a whole would benefit from a careful and impartial re-examination.

A patent and far from good side effect of the Race Relations Act is its contribution to the evasion of freedom of speech. In support of this contention, I cite a letter printed in the Bury Times on Jan 26 signed simply, "John". The letter was headed: "You don't know the half of it".

I do not know "John", but the fact that he has partly identified himself instead of using a pseudonym is evidence that he is not being cowardly but merely protecting himself from possible repercussions from his employer(s).

Incidentally, I notice that the correspondents who attacked the letters of those who disagreed with Paul Bailey also steered clear of providing answers to my questions. Are they unanswerable?

JOHN CROPPER,

Waterloo Court, Bury.