I am sure everyone would welcome the necessary investment from both the state and federal governments in funding such facilities, but again on the basis that there is a sound business case for doing so.

I do not consider it appropriate to use ratepayers’ funds to purchase surplus real estate from the state government, allegedly to support such a proposal, when clearly it is a state/federal government responsibility which should be worked-through with the relevant providers.

The suggestion that the community should fund the purchase of the old hospital site to underwrite the establishment of an educational facility is ridiculous and totally outside the responsibility of local government, in particular where there isn't even a business case on the table.

Council put up a similar argument when it purchased the Auswide building in Merimbula, even today claiming it is running a “learning hub”, when in fact, it is running a simple serviced office facility as a subsidy for training organisations from outside the shire to come and offer their dubious training programs, while undercutting the activities of our local TAFE organisation, one of the finest institutions we have.  

If we ask the question "who benefited" from the Auswide purchase, it was the organisation's creditors, including the ANZ Bank and State Training Services ... certainly not the shire's residents and ratepayers.

It is a nice idea to promote the growth of the education sector in our shire. I think the majority of people support that.

But I don’t believe the people will join you in supporting a transparent attempt by the state government to offload an unwanted asset on the unsuspecting residents of the shire.

The Bega Valley Shire Residents and Ratepayers Association (BVSRRA) believes that the continuous illegal clearing of trees along the foreshore of Wallaga Lake (BDN, 4/10) should be condemned just as strongly as the wanton destruction of trees in Littleton Gardens.

I refer to a front page article Friday, October 7, “Rough night at pub”.

Three of the five articles on pages two and three of the edition would have been more worthy of the front page than an article based on a witness report and some hearsay about “excessive use of force” by police.  

We know who is being “bashed” here – the police!  

It is not clear that the “witness” was even privy to the “the way the situation was approached”.  

No-one having a rollicking good time, while still respecting others, property and the law, attracts the physical attention of the police.  There is invariably provocation by the drink and drug-fuelled.  

The article lacked credibility and newsworthiness.  So, I ask, whose side is the BDN on – the side of the law with a job list as long as their arm, or the side of the provokers and their supporters displaying little understanding of the frustrations experienced by police and the demands upon them?  

Remember, it is the police who are the ones sober, providing community service and in a better position to assess situations.  

The claim about loss of “relationship the community has with the local police” was extravagant, and to print it was irresponsible.