Readers say boarding house site not suitable
CHURCHILL residents say a plan to locate a halfway house for offenders close to a safe house for abused children is "heading for disaster".
Readers were asked what they thought about the proposal.
Ainsley Walker said she thought the article in the QT should have been reported "with a positive spin".
"Really disappointed in the emotive negative language used by the QT," she said.
"This article could have been written very differently with a positive spin about helping people in need and providing people with needed accommodation when they are released and don't have any other options. Disappointing to say the least in the way the QT has portrayed this. Another media voice using scare mongering to sell their story."
Peta Jai Link also believed the residents' concerns should have been written with a "positive" spin.
"I have been a residential youth work for a number of years. Supported accommodation in residential areas is not new, the wider community aren't aware of the locations; and yes they would be very surprised where they are located!
"Would love to see this article rewritten in a positive light."
Other readers failed to see any positives in locating the boarding house next to a safe house for abused children.
Linda Abbott said the situation would be nightmare.
"We had a residential youth house near us. They were a good bunch of kids however, putting an offender respite close by would have been a nightmare!
"Don't these government departments liaise with each other? Bunch of pen pushers! They need to open their eyes."
Julie Voigt: "Why would anyone think it'd be a good idea to place this anywhere near a centre for children."
Colleen Vieritz Hickson: "No way find somewhere else away from town for them."
Kellie Gibson: "That's craziness."
Hellen Schreier: "That is totally stupid. Do any of them have a brain?"
Chelsea Schneider: "Where do we go to oppose this?"
Robert Braddick: "Sounds like a typical Ipswich Council thing to do."
Ross Turner: "If they are considered to be a high risk of re-offending, why put them back in the community?