I READ the Review of November 18 whilst bedridden with the dreaded 'flu and the letter headed 'Incomers slur' caused a rocketing of my blood pressure. It was written by one E Pickford, male or female, location unspecified, and exemplifies the sloppy New Labour 'one size fits all' thinking, which pervades most debates of policy, either local or national these days. In taking you to task for 'patronising' over your editorial regarding the Severn Barrage, he/she would appear to know the estuary better than us locals and implies that our river is no different to many others in the country and that he has seen them all!
I too have travelled the country and have seen most of the largest of the estuaries, which are navigable. By its notoriety, the Severn is the most dangerous, and is unique in this country and you are correct in saying that this project has been drawn up by people 'who don't understand the river.' Local knowledge has not been consulted and Foresters who do know the river – I am thinking of the Cadogan family and my 'ol' mates Mike Meredith-Edwards and John Powell – who have all worked or work on the river, and know it like the back of their hands. They were not (to the best of my knowledge) consulted.
There were six optional schemes for harnessing power from the Severn, all with their respective teams of engineer supporters. The decision as to which scheme would go ahead would have been in the realm of a Government Minister who is no more an engineer than he is a brain surgeon, and being a professional politician and nothing more, would have made a politically expedient choice.
If there is anything we Foresters dislike it is an urbanite incomer – we refer to them as 'vurriners' who talk down to or patronise us. We have seen too many of this sort to whom we are 'the hicks in the sticks.' Thinking us backward, they consider that they are bringing us into the real world by urbanising the Forest because their way is the right one. Thus the editor of a local newspaper is criticised by such an incomer because his 'comments' column expresses concerns of his paper's catchment area which conflict with his own unproven knowledge.
So let me return to the final paragraph wherein he/she 'advises' us of an individual's right of residence – by giving him some. As I mention above, an editor is at liberty to publish what he likes in his paper, naturally within the boundaries of the libel acts, and to reflect the interests of his readers. Being a local man, he is even more entitled to air his views on this subject than any incomer who has merely 'travelled.' – Cy Roberts, Coalway.