I HAVE not made any public comment on civic affairs in Worcester since I resigned from the council chamber many, many years ago. I now live outside the city boundary and so I am not directly affected.

However, I was appalled to read the Worcester News that the taxpayers of Worcester were to be denied access to their own Guildhall by the front door. That this decision was taken behind the Mayor's back makes it even more deplorable. Had this been a council decision, I'm sure the Mayor would have known about it.

This leads one to suppose that this action was perpetrated by a council employee who should now be named and shamed for the public humiliation of the citizens of Worcester who pay his or her wages.

It is more than an affront - it is an insult to the citizens who have been told that they must use the side door in future and, in the interests of equality, share the 'stigma' that goes with it!

It is said that on occasions, the main entrance will still be opened for dignitaries, but who decides whether a person has sufficient dignity to justify opening those doors? It appears that the City's First Citizen, the Major, cannot even us the front door. Doe he lack the necessary dignity?

I just do not see the logic of moving the reception desk to a position where it increased the security risks. Then to use it as an excuse for closing the front door is just daft. The whole situation is bizarre, so ridiculous that it is laughable.

Just imagine the Mayor's secretary sending out a letter "The Mayor of Worcester will be pleased to welcome the visiting Chinese Delegation in his Parlour in this historic Guildhall, but please ask them to use the side door on arrival." Or maybe, "Oh! This one is an American from Taiwan, shall we let him in?"

Surely the citizens of Worcester will demand a return to the welcoming open door policy which has been their right for centuries.

RAY CARTWRIGHT,

Hallow, Worcester.