Long hard winter for The George
SINCE The George Hotel in Rye re-opened after refurbishment, all of my family have patronised the bar and restaurant for coffee, drinks, lunch and evening meals and we often see many local and familiar faces there.
Now the management thinks they can pick and choose when to accept our custom (Rye Observer, May 27).
They must be deluded if they think that we, and many others like us, will continue to buy drinks there during the week, when we are barred from doing so on Fridays and Saturdays - the most common nights for doing so.
To assume that we will still want to eat and drink in their establishment shows an extraordinary arrogance.
When I am visiting another town I will often call into a bar/restaurant for a drink and to peruse the menu before deciding where to eat.
I am sure visitors to our town must do the same - presumably they will be barred from doing so.
Will we recommend the George to our family and friends? Will local guest house and hotel proprietors send their guests to the George? I think not!
I fully understand the need to regulate loud and unruly behaviour but surely this is part of the job of a skilled bartender or manager.
How embarrassing for staff at the George to have to ask customers what their spending intentions are before agreeing to serve them.
That is a bit like the local shop refusing to sell you a pint of milk unless you are going to buy your tea bags and sugar at the same time.
I feel that anyone taking on a local established business should respect the traditions and custom of that establishment, which in the case of The George, has been to run a public bar within the wider business of a hotel.
The price to pay for not doing so will be dwindling custom and a long, hard winter which as many traders in Rye will know can be long and hard indeed. Good luck to The George this winter.
Simon Parsons
New Winchelsea Road, Rye

Day's schedule was published in advance
IN RESPONSE to Lynne Moore's letter 'Private Show' (May 23), we are equally disappointed and somewhat confused as to her response to what was the start of a very successful weekend for Bexhill.
Our Saturday openings are always open to the general public and free of charge.
We do reserve the right to have a private function during the afternoon for funders and stakeholders, the artist and his or her guests as a thank you for their contribution to the exhibition.
Again, as with all our Saturday openings, we conducted the speeches in the public domain in the foyer, and the schedule of the day was published on our website and on the invitations which were available for anyone to pick up from our information desk, in advance and on the day.
There was a great atmosphere all day, with fully-booked exhibition tours, restaurant and a concert from The Fall.
Although difficult to pinpoint local people (do they look different to anyone else?) we recognised many local friends and supporters in the building who enjoyed the work of artists Grayson Perry and Kate Adams, both of whom live and work in the region.
Over the opening weekend, their exhibitions attracted more than 2,500 people into the Pavilion and Bexhill and, at the time of writing, 10,000 people have visited.
We look forward to welcoming Observer readers into the Pavilion during the coming weeks.
Sally Ann Lycett
Head of Communications
De La Warr Pavilion, Bexhill

Battle parking plea
WHEN are they going to completely ban parking in Battle High Street? What a welcome relief that would be. Instead, why don't they make more free parking in Glengorse?
They could extend the free parking onto the old school grounds there. Or perhaps they have earmarked this land for more housing.
Perhaps another good idea would be to build a multi-storey car park on the Battlefield. Let's see when it happens.
Johnnie Elliott
Starrs Mead, Battle

Take heed of the history lessons
AS Rosalind Collier tells us in her letter devolving some of Rother District Council's duties and responsibilities to Rye and other Town and Parish Councils is not a simple process. History might have some lessons for us.
In the 1970s, when Battle Town Council took over responsibility for its recreation grounds, cemetery and churchyard, bus shelters and street furniture, allotments, footpaths and the War Memorial, Rother agreed they would meet 50% of the costs incurred by the Town Council.
But in 1993 Rother unilaterally ended this agreement leaving Battle residents to foot the bill.
This year Battle's precept is £170,200, an increase of 6.4% over the previous year.
Perhaps the thinking behind Rother's current proposal that Town and Parish Councils take on further responsibilities is that precepts are not capped by Government as are the rates.
So the more Rother can unload on to towns and parishes so it frees up money for other schemes in Rother's programme.
Cynic that I am I cannot believe that Rother has any intention of reducing its rates demand because it has devolved these responsibilities, nor that Rother will hand over a money spinner like off-street parking - although they will gladly hand over responsibility for the toilets.
We need too to think of the extra burdens more responsibilities would place on our hard working Town Councillors.
Battle Councillors do not claim expenses or allowances despite the hours they put in on our behalf.
Mrs J E Goldsworthy
Glengorse
Battle

Cycle tracks are best way forward
THE promotion of the benefits of cycling for Battle and Langton School pupils is to be commended.
Unfortunately, our county council has not built any cycle tracks and lags behind other councils in this respect.
There are two obvious possibilities for tracks on the roads radiating from Battle, ie. the wide pavement on the A2100 to Hastings and the overgrown footpath from the Squirrel Inn on the A271 as far as the Bexhill turning.
Tracks would be on pavements in front of properties.
These tracks would benefit other cyclists, including motorists unwilling to cycle because of the lack of this facility.
They would take to their bicycles, leaving their cars at home, thus contributing to relieving our congested local roads.
Obesity in children, of which we hear so much nowadays, would become a condition of the past.
Finally, the modern bicycle with its many gears makes light of our hills.
John Griffin
Saxonwood Road
Battle

Hall plans have been on display
I WRITE in response to the letter from a Mrs E Baker in last week's issue concerning the refurbishment of Icklesham Memorial Hall.
All the residents of Icklesham had the opportunity to view the plans and put forward any objections when they were first proposed.
They have also had the chance to discuss the scheme and ask any questions at the Trust's open meetings during the past three years.
A report on what has been and is happening was printed in this paper and is on public view in the temporary doctor's surgery and also at the gate to the recreation ground.
Like you – and many others - I have also contributed considerably to fund-raising events in aid of the hall.
As Chairman of the Icklesham Memorial Hall Trust, I would be only too pleased to answer all your questions.
However, as neither I nor anyone else seems to know who you are or where you live, this will only be possible if you telephone me on 814246 or personally call on me at Bobegon, Main Road, Icklesham.
DERRICK BAKER
Chairman
Icklesham Memorial Hall Trust

Driving towards a cleaner planet
I AM writing about a problem that I think effects everyone in the Battle area. During our daily lives we are constantly reminded of the importance of being environmentally friendly. Certainly even our local supermarket, Jempsons, is soon to stop plastic bags from being used.
One thing I find hard to believe is how even though we live little more than 50 miles away from London where there is a bus service every two or three minutes, our public transport is limited, unreliable and useless.
I am 16 years old and I rely on buses and trains to take me where I want to go.
I was never happy with the bus service before, let alone now where the buses only stop at my stop once every two hours.
They are usually 20 minutes late, the bus stops themselves are left derelict and the single-decker bus is always full. Yet still the price increases.
I am paying £2 to travel in an overcrowded, dirty, unpunctual and unprofessional environment.
I do not choose to do this every weekend but I am conscious of climate change and I am trying to help save the planet in what little way I can.
I think the changes that Livingstone made for London were outstanding and not only changed the way people lived their lives but gave people more freedom for better prices and higher comfort.
I can't understand why our local bus companiess haven't at least considered more regular services.
Perhaps it is the fault of our local council. I am sure they could possibly try something to help the environment.
So as Battle is slowly switching from plastic bags to natural fabric bags and the population is ever increasing, we still only get one bus service an hour.
To call it regular would be wrong and as for the older generation who get a free bus service, most of them tell me it really isn't worth it.
However, I do see the complexities of the situation. Public transport is costly and not always profitable.
I believe that with more public transport we could make a bigger difference to combat climate change and our community would certainly become more of a community.
Certainly the only bus service that serves Battle comes from Hawkhurst or Tunbridge Wells, and the drivers are unfriendly and unsympathetic.
I am sure our local council is 'doing all it can' but from my eyes, as a very young person whose voice is rarely heard, this situation is one that has been ignored and has worsened as time has gone on.
I only hope something happens soon before it drives more citizens further away from public transport and further towards vehicles that pollute our fragile atmosphere.
Harriet Peachey
Battle

Speed discussions
HOW disingenuous of Councillor Richard Commotto to make the comments he does in his letter (May 30).
As someone who has very recently stood down from Icklesham Parish Council, due to work commitments, I clearly remember discussions about the Winchelsea Speed Watch Scheme.
The large majority of councillors felt that hand-held devices should be used by the police, not by local residents, and that public money would be more wisely spent on a VAS system which is so successful in Rye.
Kay Carter
Workhouse Lane, Icklesham

Hardly the majority
PEOPLE who were happy with the new Dog Control Order would not object.
This was not a consultation that reflects the majority of people's views, as only dog owners would take the trouble to write to object, as they have a vested interest in continuing with a situation that others find unacceptable. Why do they think that the order was dreamed up in the first place?
There were lots of complaints about bad dog ownership and the problems it creates, so the majority of people have not expressed an opinion, as they believed that the actions proposed by Rother were extremely sensible.
I am sad that now, when I go for walks, I will still be run at, barked at, growled at, sniffed at and have to keep a sharp look out where I step. "Avoid the deadly yellow (sand and) snow, down where the huskies go!"
Mrs JOAN EVANS
New Lydd Road, Camber

Team already on the case
WITH reference to Councillor Mike Terry's letter (May 30) am I correct in thinking this article was written on behalf of Icklesham Parish Council as stated at the bottom?
My understanding was the original article 'Winchelsea Report' (Observer, May 9), was written by the Winchelsea councillors, Richard Comotto, Mike Terry and Ben Chishick.
Cllr. Terry apologises for the Winchelsea councillors having given any impression of trying to rename the Rye Harbour Lifeboat.
As I see it, there was no impression of trying to rename the Rye Harbour Lifeboat in the article 'Winchelsea Report'; the councillors blatantly stated "Although associated with Rye Harbour and located in Winchelsea Beach, Mary Stanford was the Winchelsea Lifeboat".
The said councillors fail to take responsibility for an inaccurate and misleading claim: feeling the need to blame a former and long-serving councillor for Rye Harbour, Michael Alford.
From what is written in Cllr. Terry's letter (May 30), no blame can be levied at Michael Alford for correctly stating Rye Harbour Lifeboat had once been named Winchelsea Lifeboat.
I agree with Cllr. Terry about focusing on the real issue: our Old Lifeboat House - but what can the Parish Council actually do! The building is owned by and sited on Environment Agency land, situated within the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest)
The arrogance of the Winchelsea councillors seems to have no limit. Cllr. Terry wrote "…Winchelsea councillors took the initiative …simply because others refused". Who refused?
As chairman of Rye Harbour RNLI Lifeboat management group, I, along with Richard Tollett – RNLI Lifeboat Operations Manager have been working closely with Councillor Jacqueline Stanford (Rye Harbour Ward, Icklesham Parish Council); RNLI Heritage Trust; Dr. Barry Yates (Rye Harbour Nature Reserve); the Environment Agency and the Friends and Supporters of the Mary Stanford Lifeboat House
A dedicated team is working hard to secure the future of, what we at Rye Harbour have always considered to be, a building of great historical significance.
For the last four years, there have been talks with the Environment Agency to raise money for restoration. With Cllr Jacqueline Stanford on board, excellent progress is being made.
A report has already been submitted to English Heritage for the building to be recognised as having significant merit, but as we all know: these things take time and have to be done in a measured way.
It is evident, the Winchelsea councillors see Rye Harbour as a 'hard-pressed pocket of deprivation' (see www.winchelsea.net/community/campaign.htm) and possibly, that we at Rye Harbour are unable to deal with big issues locally.
I would like to assure Winchelsea councillors we are extremely capable of dealing with, our local issues.
I would like to thank the Winchelsea councillors for their support, and look forward to seeing the results from the consultation document distributed by Icklesham Parish Council.
May I suggest, rather than communicating through the media, the Winchelsea councillors liaise directly with the Parish Councillor for Rye Harbour Cllr. Mrs Jacqueline Stanford as she is one of the driving forces behind this project.
I would like to correct, another inaccurate and misleading statement made by Cllr. Terry. A relative of the Mary Stanford crewmen did read the Winchelsea Report, if Cllr. Terry recalls that was the title of their article in the Observer May 9.
Also Cllr Terry stated 'however there was another Mr Tollett'.
There was no other Mr Tollett who was shown anything drafted by Winchelsea councillors.
The clerk to Icklesham Parish Council telephoned Richard Tollett. He was not shown or asked to approve the text. He was just asked whether he thought the survey was a good idea and what his personal opinion was. I am sure Michael Alford will make his own reply in due course.
So, please, let this be the end of inaccurate and misleading information, if only relating to things at Rye Harbour - we are working hard to save the Old Lifeboat House, and our time is better spent on that project rather than wasting time having to reply to inaccurate and misleading correspondence from Winchelsea councillors.
Steve Tollett
Rye Harbour

Please ensure accuracy
IN reply to Councillor Terry's letter in the Observer (Mailbag, May 30), it appears that I am being blamed by the Winchelsea councillors for their spurious claim that the Mary Stanford Lifeboat was the Winchelsea Lifeboat.
I did say at a meeting of Icklesham Parish Council, that Rye Harbour Lifeboat had once been named Winchelsea Lifeboat but, at no point, have I ever said that the Mary Stanford Lifeboat was a Winchelsea Lifeboat.
I am sure I would remember, as I had relatives who perished in the Mary Stanford Lifeboat disaster.
I would like to reiterate what Richard Tollett wrote in his letter (Mailbag, May 23).
Neither Richard Tollett nor I have seen, let alone read and approved, anything written or drafted by the Winchelsea councillors Richard Comotto, Mike Terry or Ben Chishick.
I would call upon the Winchelsea councillors to ensure the accuracy of their publications as it reflects badly on Icklesham Parish Council and also on the residents of Winchelsea who they represent.
MICHAEL ALFORD
Tram Road
Rye Harbour