IN reply to Mr Bainbridge's letter (June 13) I would comment as follows: His letter is so full of rhetoric and lacking substance that the phrase 'smoke and mirrors' springs to mind.
Firstly, he has failed to answer my question: 'Who are these past and present servicemen advising him?' Are they going to stick their head above the parapet and justify his argument, or are they a figment of his imagination?
Secondly his statement that a large portion of the defence budget is going directly to the Duchy of Cornwall' is misleading in the extreme. Where are his facts and figures to support this? If as he says these officers and other ranks are so fed up and see the use of Dartmoor as an 'expensive waste of money' then I find it incredulous that the MoD continues with Dartmoor —they are not that incompetent, especially as the defence budget is so over-stretched.
Is it not the truth that the MoD needs the moor for all the reasons that have already been stated and that Mr Bainbridge is hiding behind his call for a public enquiry because he knows there will never be one? They are very expensive and the taxpayer would foot the bill! Would he be prepared to have all the other groups (horse riders, farmers, Joe Public) that use the moor scrutinised to assess who does the most damage?
The unpalatable truth is that the public causes far more damage than the MoD has ever done, it could well be argued that the MoD is helping protect the moor by restricting access.
It seems as though Mr Bainbridge does not have an argument that stands up to public scrutiny.
S P W Powne
Merriment House
Lydford