THE Ludlow Advertiser has recently featured three letters, one signed by several people, attacking Tony Mahalski, a resident of Mill Street, for his questioning the size of the May Fair, and in particular the potential for preventing access to emergency services (Letters, April 30).
Nowhere does he suggest ending the fair, but quite soberly points out the actual and possible consequences, yet he is attacked on false grounds while his attackers insist on ignoring the downside of the fair.
Firstly, for some residents of Mill Street, Market Square and Dinham, the five days mean a constant and high level of noise until late at night and some houses are completely overshadowed by huge machines. It is all too glib for those who do not experience the fair at first hand to condemn those who are closely affected. Over the years I have noticed that those who most loudly defend the fair in its present form usually live furthest from it.
Secondly, the argument that the fair is 'traditional, therefore sacred' is nonsense; in fact "The May Fair, granted in the 1461 charter, had been discontinued by 1552 and was not revived until the 1820s" (from Lloyd and Klein, Ludlow, an Historical Anthology). But the fair, as it exists today, has no relationship with the traditional fair; difficult to imagine huge generators pumping out large quantities of pollution in the 19th century.
Thirdly, the economics of the fair are dubious; this year the town centre was handed over to the fair organiser for five days and six nights in return for £7800; some shops close, some shopkeepers see a substantial drop in takings, the market is cancelled, the car park is out of use; the economics do not make sense.
Do let us have a May Fair, but not in the town centre and not on this scale.
DANIEL McDOWELL
Mill Street, Ludlow