Your front page story on May 24 regarding the home of Mrs Beryl Watts of Lydney has left me rather confused and concerned. In the article one of our elected councillors made a highly derogatory quote, describing Two Rivers as "a morally bankrupt cash driven organisation". I have no direct link to Two Rivers, but I do know that it is a not-for-profit organisation, overseen by a board of unpaid trustees and externally regulated.

Such housing associations came into existence to provide affordable homes for as many people as possible. Any cash-driven incentives are directed at providing as many homes as possible at the lowest rents possible. This is not my definition of morally bankrupt! It was politicians who brought about the demise of council housing, so where would the Forest community be without such housing associations?

As an outside observer, I fail to see the logic of keeping a tenant in a semi-detached property if the house next door is lying unoccupied and unsafe.  Surely this is depriving an additional family of a home? If Mrs Watts had been the owner of the property and not a tenant, she would now be in a nightmare situation. As it stands, she has the fortuitous option of moving to a new home and Two Rivers can get on with its job of improving the housing stock. While Mrs. Watts has my sympathy, if her home is unsafe, surely this is a win-win situation?

– Trevor Roach, Ruardean Hill.