My husband heard the alarm and called the police.

We looked out, but couldn’t see much as the park was bathed in darkness.

There are two floodlights on the glass building, which are turned off.

I again can only wonder, if these lights were on, would this attack have taken place? Perhaps the extra lights would have drawn the attacker away from the pavilion.

I was sent a note that stated the glass building lights would only be turned on if more vandalism occurred.

At the time I thought this was a very dangerous policy.

However, now that the Baxter Park Pavilion has been yet again attacked and windows smashed, lights should be turned on. Surely the cost of repairing the damage from this attack alone would cover the miniscule running costs of these two security lights for the entire year. Thank God it was just a building that was attacked.

Is it not time to just admit the park needs more lighting and the residents of Stobswell deserve more security in Baxter Park? — Lisa Campbell, Secretary, Stobswell Forum.

It’s been obvious for months that the lack of clear pedestrian/vehicle demarcation (apart from the yellow lines painted on the paving stones) at the Chapel Street end of the area would lead to confusion.

For example, a short distance away, bollards were required outside the Post Office to keep cars off the pavement.

North towards Bell Street, and bollards were soon required to ensure enforcement of a new traffic restriction.

In Commercial Street, there has been widespread abuse of the vehicle prohibition for years, despite efforts from the council.

And Councillor Will Dawson surely doesn’t expect to be taken seriously if he thinks police once again giving the area “more attention” will sort things out?

Until the next time round, perhaps. — Stuart Winton, Dundee.

I refer to the volunteers who have been compelled to leave the Sue Ryder charity shop in Broughty Ferry rather than have to work alongside prisoners from Castle Huntly.

They could perhaps show some charity themselves to our fellow citizens and welcome those who wish to serve our community. — Dave Good, West Ferry.

As a Menzieshill resident, my understanding is that the cost of the Menzieshill permits was set low due to the exceptional circumstances surrounding their introduction.

This was mainly because the problem was felt to be the fault of the authorities at Ninewells Hospital, whose deal to allow a private company to charge staff, workers and patients to park at their local NHS hospital had driven hundreds of motorists onto the surrounding streets.

If you live in the city centre you appreciate that parking is limited, but there were no serious parking problems in Menzieshill until the hospital charges were introduced. Residents only agreed to introduction of a parking permit scheme after assurances from the council at several public meetings that the cost would be nominal and would remain so.

Once we are rid of the legacy of hospital parking charges, we can scrap the parking permit scheme in Menzieshill altogether. — Joe 90.

Brian will recall that the response from the council officials at that time as to why the City Centre charge is higher than the charge for Menzieshill residents was that, in their view, in the City Centre, parking provision from residents was available in the CCTV controlled secure parking facility in Gellatly Street, whereas only on-street facilities were available in Menzieshill.

The proposed new residents’ parking schemes for four other areas of the city would provide schemes with on-street facilities only and the issue of fair and equitable charging across the city for similar parking schemes is important and must form part of the consultation exercise with residents in the areas where parking schemes are proposed. — Cllr Fraser Macpherson, Councillor for the West End, Dundee City Council.

In my last year at primary, in the mid to late seventies, I had 33 in my class and there was no such fuss about big classes then. — Reader, Dundee.