When cuts are made there are always ways to justify them, particularly in the case of school crossing patrols, there is even a 'pollster' that measured where they should be axed (mad).

It's a clinical approach that will provoke anger in the long run. There should not be a single cut to both lollipop women (and men) as they help parents, and particularly children, to cross the road safely.

Most of the time the children are alone. The roads are busy, particularly when they (the lollipop person) are carrying out their duties, when the school run becomes like Piccadilly Circus.

They are the eyes (and ears) of the community. Particularly if a sudden change in family circumstances (ie a parent's hours suddenly change at work, or they get a job).

I can remember when I was at high school a lollipop vacancy that remained vacant for a year and a half (just about) as no one applied for this particular vacancy, which the school and local council(s) kept having to advertise over and over again.

In fact the deputy head (Mrs Sparks) was so concerned on behalf of the students' well-being, she went out on patrol for a whole term. (Her glasses got covered in mud from the puddles.)

As recent statistics suggest in Norfolk up to 38 lollipop men and women could lose their jobs. This is all down to some 'pollster' who understands this is necessary (due to falling local government income). This should never be in the firing line.

Perhaps the government should look at things closer to home instead (ie various trips to and from Westminster several times a week) which leads to more costs.

It could only take one accident where a patrol has been axed (due to recent figures). When it comes to children it must be safety first.

• Marcus Moore, Sprowston