Have your say - we share your letters

The Punch Bowl Community Inn in Battisford has recently undergone renovations.

The Punch Bowl Community Inn in Battisford has recently undergone renovations. - Credit: Su Anderson

Here we bring you four letters sent by our readers this week

Sir, - It was a rare pleasure to read the review of the excellent Battisford Punchbowl (EADT, March 12).

Rare because I think this is probably the first time I’ve read a pub review in Saturday’s paper where the fact that the pub actually sells beer has been acknowledged.

Reading nearly all of your pub reviews, it would be easy to believe that it was just another restaurant being visited.

Surely the defining feature of a pub is that it sells beer? Indeed, real ale is a pub’s unique selling point - something you can’t buy in a supermarket or corner shop, but only in the roughly 630 pubs left in Suffolk which serve it. And with over 1,700 British brewers, producing between them something like 15,000 different beers every year, the real ale scene has never been so vibrant or diverse.

You may also want to watch:

I hope the review of the Punchbowl is a sign of things to come.


Most Read


Sir, ‑ Reading your paper and hearing the reports on the referendum, I find the negativity of the campaign unhelpful. There must be some beneficial aspect on both sides, it depends which has the best ratio for one’s opinion.As this is a referendum for the people I think it is wrong for industrial bosses, council leaders and prominent people to endorse in or out. All that is needed is a reputable organisation like the Electorial Reform Society to produce a publication giving the pros and cons on both sides without the present rhetoric. The veiled job threats like that from BMW to Rolls Royce Cars is out of order.

A united Europe has kept peace in Europe for the longest time in history, but does Brussels need to interfere with the internal affairs of individual states so diverse in terrain and culture as Greece and Iceland?



Sir, - You recently showed an artist’s impression of the town council’s proposed alteration to (Ipswich’s) Cornhill, which you indicate is about to commence. You also seem to suggest that such a change might be an enticement to ‘big new retailers’ to open in Ipswich. Why?

In the design there is no sign of the market — Ipswich’s main, arguably only, daytime attraction. On Mondays and Wednesdays when there is no market, the surrounding shops are almost empty of customers and the town centre is half-dead.

Instead, the project is for a flight of five steps from outside Manning’s, stretching to the opposite side of the Cornhill, with no handrails or ramps, thus creating an extremely hazardous area for the elderly and infirm, especially for the blind — a no go area for wheelchairs also.

Is this not in contravention of Health and Safety regulations?

I have discussed the design with people from all walks of life and have yet to find anyone who is in favour of it, but rather express extreme anger at what they see as yet more squandering of their hard-earned cash on such ill-conceived schemes and the high handed manner in which the council pushes them through without proper public discussion.

We still await the correction of previous mistakes — the unsatisfactory traffic system and the two bus centres, none of which has been improved from the users’ point of view and some roads in the town still have pot-holes and surface damage needing repair.

Our Cornhill has served us well for hundreds of years and it still does. The proposed alterations would be costly and unsafe, unwanted and absolutely unnecessary.

Hands off our Cornhill please!



Sir, - I was under the impression that those who broke the law were taken to court to answer for their wrongdoings, either being fined, threatened with prison ie, suspended sentence or sent to prison.

This to be considered as a punishment for the crime committed and a deterrent to others.

I therefore find it rather difficult to understand why a chap who was caught with stolen property the day after he had received a suspended sentence for similar offences, was then given another suspended sentence. It was noted that the defendant had eight previous convictions.

Where is the deterrent? Surely he should have been sent to prison under the terms of his previous sentence.

Another form of punishment I do not understand, is when an offender is found guilty of four or five offences he’s sentenced to two years for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently.So instead of serving eight or ten years he ends up with a two-year sentence no doubt with time off for good behaviour.

Conversely if one is found guilty of eg. five offences and is fined £100 for each offence, I bet the fine would not be concurrent ie, £100, it would be £500.

I concur with Mr Bumble, the law is an ass.



Have your say - email us your letters today

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter
Comments powered by Disqus