It would seem from Ian Nockolds' letter in The Bath Chronicle of September 4 that he, and perhaps his associate Cllr Chris Watt, need to do their homework better or seek more reliable legal advice.

Whether Mr Nockolds or Cllr Watt like it or not, the Bath Rec was a clearly defined and legally enshrined 'charity' from the day the land was conveyed unto the citizens of Bath in 1956 when the council entered into a pre-conveyance contract committing all successive councils to forever maintain The Rec as public open space, subject to very clear conditions and circumstances, which have since been seriously violated.

If the current trustees do not acknowledge this then it seems it is even more important that they should be removed from anything to do with the charity.

As far as Bath Rugby's envisaged loss of £1 million over the next two years is concerned, this has nothing to do with the charity. Surely Mr Brownsword's eagerness to underwrite this if it occurs is in his own self-interest as the main shareholder of Bath Rugby?

If our councillors will not respect the charity's true purpose then shouldn't we, as legal beneficiaries, be thinking about the future of the next generation of Bath citizens and doing a lot more to protect what is being misused and abused?

Do we not want better protection of our city centre than allowing the Charity Commission or the council trustees to get away with this kind of manipulation of our Rec charity's assets to facilitate a private organisation's gain, rather than the 'green lung' benefit that was forever intended to benefit us all?

KEITH MCGARRIGLE Pulteney Gardens, Bath

Ian Nockolds' response to my questions over The Rec not only avoided the most serious issues but proves he is fundamentally wrong in almost all he argues.

The Recreation Ground became a charitable trust the moment the ink was dry on the 1956 conveyance of the land to the citizens of Bath.

However, in 1993 the Charity Commission refused to acknowledge the legality of the charity's constitution. And, just as the deplorable commission has done ever since, they then tried to make it as difficult as possible to get the justice beneficiaries deserve, until the High Court's honourable judgement of 2002.

All incomes and compensation for trustees' and other inappropriate beneficial usage since 1956 must therefore be accounted for, independently audited, tax cleared and handed back to the charity.

This is why more and more people are asking for the removal of the trustees (Cllrs Chris Watt, Vic Pritchard and David Hawkins) and for the leader of the council, Cllr Francine Haeberling, to show greater respect for the proper use and conduct of our city's most vital open space as the only effective means of combating at least some of the environmental pollution, traffic dangers and other consequences the council's irresponsible actions inflict upon us all.

If not then Bath Rugby will sadly no longer be seen as a real advantage to Bath, but will increasingly be seen as 'cuckoos in the nest' that are increasingly pushing the rightful users out, dirtying the nest and destroying not only the purpose of the charity but the city centre environment to everyone's disadvantage.

This will increasingly erode the image of Bath Rugby and shame our councillors who should know better.

B&NES Council's abuse of its trusteeship of our Recreation Ground is currently turning it into a cheap, dirty and dangerous business park for a favoured few, where profit and elite group activities have all but replaced the intended environmental amenity for Bath citizens and their children.

A B HOOPER Bathonian Bath