Sir, I am writing in response to an article on blocking online pornography by Ms Laurie Matthew in Friday’s opinions section. The whole thing is a question of Big Brother and who knows best.
Claire Perry MP has claimed that 60% of families have put no family filter on any device. Ms Matthew herself said that not all parents are “willing” to do this.
So we have to make them do it? If 60% of parents are not using a filter then it is safe to assume that quite a few of these parents are choosing not to put one on. But, for Ms Matthew, these parents are not “caring” ones. So we should force them?
Her argument that paedophiles are laughing at us when we “do nothing” to protect children is misleading as we (as a society) do more now than ever before to protect children. Though it did distract from the obvious statement that this legislation will have no effect on paedophiles online.
Her argument about blocking STD sites takes the biscuit. Oh, the kids can just tell their parents, teachers or other public sector workers. Maybe the fact they are looking for STD information online says something? What about the child who can access none of these easily and is just looking to get some information without judgment?
Also, when it comes to the anti-censorship argument, STD sites are not the only thing that will be banned. A while back the BNP website was classed in the “adult” section on some family filters, meaning the possible effects of this automatic family filter include political censorship.
Those who will turn their family filter off will be kept on a database, already dubbed the “perverts” list online. Most likely this list will never be leaked or spied upon by our or other governments (sarcasm).
If parents buy their child an internet-abled device, or allow them access to one, then it is responsibility of those parents to monitor the child’s activities.
Andrew Young. 1A Cambridge Street, Alyth.
Council attitude is puzzling
Sir, Having recently watched in amazement as a passing seagull removed a sandwich from the hand of a pedestrian in Kirkcaldy High Street, I am somewhat puzzled by both the strange attitude taken by Fife Council to marauding gulls and to the two diametrically-opposed results of seagull shooting as mentioned in Friday’s Courier.
While one man was severely fined for shooting a seagull in Cellardyke, the justifiably enraged inhabitants of Rosyth seemed able to hire the services of a markswoman to do exactly the same thing seven times over and all without penalty!
Can anyone tell me why Fife Council seems so impotent over the humane control of seagulls and why the killing of those birds by one person seems to result in no penalty while another marksman is fined £350?
Archibald A Lawrie. Church Wynd, Kingskettle.
Where does all the money go?
Sir, Charity workers in war-torn countries, saints in hell, well-meaning and courageous, deserve all the help they can get.
Meanwhile, the poorest and most vulnerable in our country, suffering under an imposed sacrifice to save the taxpayer £11 billion, may receive some solace, quantum or otherwise, to know that this is the precise sum spent upon foreign aid, which helps others, suffering more than they, to have their burden slightly assuaged.
However, some MPs are concerned that no proper account of the final destination of this £11 billion is at hand and that officials of aid agencies may benefit at great cost to those who should receive. Surely, our embassies in the countries, where aid is given, could oversee its dissemination?
Shame on a government, so lax, that it would let the fruits of the sacrifices made by those, whom it is meant to represent, slip so glibly from its purse! Do we not deserve to know, where this money is going?
Leslie Milligan. 18B Myrtlehall Gardens, Dundee.
No input on golfing rules
Sir, David Verden-Anderson misses the point when he says that women-only golf clubs exclude men, so why shouldn’t men-only clubs exclude women?
This reasoning may hold for other golf clubs, but for the R & A the case is different. It makes the rules by which both men and women golfers have to abide, yet (despite the fact that the R & A may consult with womens’ clubs) there is no direct mechanism for women to have any input into these rules. This disenfranchises them to the same extent as suffragettes were disenfranchised from general political life before 1918.
Margaret Squires. 30 East Scores, St Andrews.
Not right time for privatisation
Sir, Royal Mail is one of our most valued institutions and I fully support the campaign to keep the postal service in the public sector.
Royal Mail’s recent financial results which showed the company’s annual operating profits have doubled in the last financial year show that now is not the right time for privatisation. I hope the Government will recognise this, but following their recent announcements I fear they are likely to seek to privatise
Royal Mail by the end of this (2013/14) financial year.
This would not be in the interests of the taxpayer, the company or Royal Mail staff and I believe the significant uncertainties around the Government’s plans and the immeasurable impact privatisation would have on the universal service obligation makes the case for maintaining the status quo the most compelling option.
Jim McGovern MP. Dundee West.