IT'S about time the "Save the Rec" campaigners revealed their true colours. At the moment they are trying to hoodwink the people of Falmouth. If you look at their campaign and forget the spin, it doesn't hold water.

The only point of agreement between the pro's and anti's is the accepted need for affordable housing. "Save the Rec" campaigners publicly say they are not against affordable housing, but they say there are better sites in Falmouth. Mr Saundby and Councillor Eva were publicly challenged in the Packet to name them. What do we get from them, complete silence! Is it because these sites don't exist, or are they so outrageous that they don't want to be publicly associated with them?

I think they have inadvertently betrayed their true colours. On their website they print the letter advocating building on Dracaena Playing fields. Unless they tell us differently, we can only assume that Mr Saunby and his fellow campaigners also agree with this site being built on. No wonder they are keeping quiet!

Then we have the timing of their campaign. I first read about building on the recreation ground in the Packet, which must be about a year ago. Why wasn't their campaign started then? If they wanted to stop any building on the site, it would have been better to start their protest then and try to nip it in the bud rather than leave it until now. Funny how this campaign was delayed to start just before the local elections in May. I get the distinct feeling the whole thing is being run to get some people elected - the same people who would jump on any bandwagon if they thought they could get a vote from it.

Finally, they say that the "Rec" should be restored to its previous glory. Be honest - how much is this going to cost? At a conservative estimate it must be a least a million pounds. That equals at least £50 for every man, woman and child in Falmouth, over £100 per household! Then, when the "Rec" is sitting there in all its glory, what access will there be for the general public? Only what the Rugby Club, as leaseholders, will allow. If we are expected to cough up that sort of money I think we could all think of better and more important things to spend it on rather than the "Rec."

T Hawke, Kimberley Park Road, Falmouth