Here’s why Notting Hill Carnival must be moved

Can you please tell me why exactly the Notting Hill Carnival cannot be moved?

Year on year, the carnival’s popularity has grown, but the neighbourhood remains the same size. We are talking about stadium numbers of people gathering in a small area.

In the last three years, there have been many stabbings – one fatal – as well as countless assaults on emergency workers. We’ve seen sexual assaults, drug offences, knife arrests, gun arrests and other crimes. This year, a mother was stabbed in front of her young daughter and is now fighting for her life.

How can you justify saying the carnival can’t be moved when you read these crime statistics?

Surely a conversation has to be had about the carnival’s future – and whether it can continue in Notting Hill. Organisers and the police can no longer afford to bury their heads in the sand.

Why can’t it be moved to an area such as Hyde Park, where there are better facilities and more space?

I know what the organisers will say about tradition and history. But I say that any responsible and decent person should bear in mind the crime and danger faced by attendees today. The carnival is better suited outside of Notting Hill.

What is wrong with that? A major accident could easily happen if there is no change to the way that the carnival is organised and run.

Peter Stone

Address Supplied

I agree with The Independent’s recent letters page: there are absolutely no rules or regulations for cyclists. It seems like they can do whatever they want to endanger everyone.

My two-year-old French bulldog was run over by a cyclist on Clapham Common – he was going very fast and our dog died instantly. The cyclist didn’t even stop.

As a driver, I’ve seen many cyclists drive through red lights, ride up on pavements – and rarely do they have any lights on their bicycles. Moreover, in the event of an accident, they have no insurance!

When Boris Johnson encouraged the people of London to cycle more, I doubt he gave any thought to the consequences.

It’s about time we took this overdue problem on board.

Simon Rogers

Address Supplied

I found myself in complete agreement with Will Gore’s comment piece on cycling and speed limits. I have the greatest sympathy with cyclists and their complaints about motorists’ lack of recognition that they are also legitimate road users.

However, cyclists should accept that they also need to obey the rules of the road. I have experienced numerous occasions of nearly being run into by cyclists using the pavement, jumping red lights or ignoring pedestrian crossings. I am also in complete agreement with 20mph limits in residential areas!

David Felton

Crewe

Recent letters to The Independent regarding cyclists show just how much criticism we cyclists have to endure.

It’s as if motorists don’t do the things that cyclists are accused of!

In my 65 years of riding on our roads – and being a pedestrian for even longer – I’ve witnessed traffic carrying out all of the manoeuvres cyclists are often accused of. Including running red lights!

Doug Flack

Derby

I write as an 80-year-old registered voter, albeit one who is resident within the EU, to disagree vehemently with Tristan Clark Lam’s recent article in The Independent.

The tenor of his article is presumptive. I voted to remain, along with many of my aged compatriots. Any voter registered, irrespective of age, deserves the right to vote according to their conscience.

To exclude any age group of adult voters is to skew any resulting outcome.

It may also be news to Mr Lam that many more voters of his chosen age profile voted for Brexit than just the over-80s. Voters of any age are vulnerable to misinformation, lies and politicking. Obviously, many were taken in by the Brexit campaign promises, which ended in the hard Brexit achieved by Boris Johnson.

I hope that in the future, better relationships are forged with the EU by more liberal governments. I am unlikely to see any in person, but I can and do expect such for my younger compatriots.

Our prime minister’s proposal to limit the age of service in the House of Lords is not because they are old and incompetent, but rather to reduce the size of our second house. The House of Lords has a well-recognised and enviable role in monitoring and suggesting amendments to legislation.

Shame on you Mr Lam for your presumptive and unwelcome recommendation!

Jennifer Rorrison

Portugal

Tristan Clark Lam’s piece opens up all sorts of questions about who is “fit” to vote.

Universal suffrage means once you reach the age where your society deems you mature enough to vote, you can take part in our democratic processes. I understand Mr Lam’s frustration, but what happens if his age group reaches the age at which he wants to bar voting – and he thinks they are still “reasonable” enough to vote?

Brexit was lost because those who led the campaign to remain in Europe failed to convince enough waverers that our membership of the EU was worth fighting for. My mother died earlier this year at the age of 85. She was a committed Europhile all her life. She was born in London so was evacuated at a young age and the fear of another war in Europe was a deciding factor in her views. She loathed Nigel Farage and all the other Brexiteers and was astonished at how easily those voting to leave could toss away all the advantages of being part of the EU. She agreed it wasn’t perfect, but felt it was up to us as a nation to lead the argument for reform, not flounce off.

I know many other people in her age group who felt the same way. Limiting voting rights for a certain group because you believe they all think the same way sounds like a Farage plan and should be dismissed immediately.

Kerry Larbalestier

Shetland