Today’s letters to The Courier.
Sir – Regarding the article of March 1, relating to Tayside Police Chief Constable Justine Curran’s plans to ban all visible tattoos, surely, in this day and age, she should have more important things to worry about than tattoos?
I was a police officer for 33 years and worked with many excellent colleagues who had tattoos. Many acquired them whilst serving in the armed forces and others for a variety of other reasons.
Never, during all my years in the service, did I come across an officer who could not carry out his or her duties due to them having a tattoo. Nor did I ever hear a member of the public complain about any officer having a tattoo.
In fact I am quite sure that the vast majority of the general public would have no interest in an officer’s tattoos if that officer was carrying out their duties in a competent and efficient manner.
I can fully appreciate there would be a point if the tattoo was offensive or had religious or political content.
So, come on Ms Curran, if this is a personal view, you can change it, and if you are being pressured, then it’s time to stand up for all the tattooed officers under your command.
And may I add, just for the record, that I do not have any tattoos.
George Reid.3 Bruce Road,Kinnesswood.
Letter writer should check his facts first
Sir, – I must respond to Clark Cross’s letter about Donald Trump’s stance against wind turbines (March 1), in which he makes some seriously misinformed claims.
Firstly, Friends of the Earth Scotland is not a “multi-million-pound business”. It is a small, independent Scottish charity with a turnover of roughly £420,000 in 2011.
Secondly, Friends of the Earth Scotland has never “received 12 million euros from the EU for climate matters”. That is completely untrue, although I wish it was the case!
Should anyone doubt this, our annual accounts are independently audited and are available for public scrutiny.
Mr Cross is, of course, free to think what he likes, however, he might wish to refrain from peddling misinformation, or at least check his facts before putting pen to paper.
Stan Blackley.Chief Executive,Friends of the Earth Scotland.
Draining our assets
Sir, – The case “for” wind turbines fails to mention whence the money comes, i.e. from us bill-payers, as detailed by Clark Cross. Unlike Donald Trump’s inward investments, these “white elephants” drain our assets.
Likewise, today’s renewables contribute, typically, well under 5% at best and, in cold, anticyclonic weather, less than 1% of our electricity, from over 3,000 UK windmills.
Their manufacture increases CO2 output, perhaps contributing to climate change. It’s logical, indeed necessary now, to curtail installations of all renewables until better equipment can be developed to contribute usefully to our needs.
Also, though fossil fuels are running out, they, including our coal and shale gas, are good for several hundred years, during which time we will, hopefully, see better means of generation from “crash” R&D programmes, as in wartime.
(Dr) Charles Wardrop.111 Viewlands Road West,Perth.
Tourists or turbines?
Sir, – I should like to add an additional thought to Clark Cross’s excellent letter.
Today we are faced with two options as regards wind power. We must ask ourselves whether we wish to continue with a tourist industry which we know works and which creates considerable employment and which makes money. Or we can have turbines which do not work, create next to no employment in this country and which costs you, the reader, a lot of money every time that you pay your electricity bill. We cannot have both.
Any person who loves turbines hates the tourist industry, just about the last industry in this country.
W. Alex McIntosh.Nethermuir,Upper Granco Street,Dunning.
There is an alternative
Sir, – I agree with David J Gardner’s letter, “Would be more distressed” (February 27).
I am also very concerned about the payday loan companies and doorstep companies who are lending to some of the most vulnerable people at extortionate rates of interest.
I’m glad to see that the Office of Fair Trading has started a review of some of these companies and their practices whereby they basically don’t tell their ‘clients’ how much they’ll have to repay. This review of course could take some time.
There is an alternative, however, in the shape of credit unions. Instead of 1737% APR, they charge 12.68% APR which never changes. Some difference!
All you have to do is save a little for a short time, then very reasonable loans are available.
In Angus, there is the Angus Credit Union and in Dundee there is the Discovery Credit Union. Surely they are worth contacting?
Lynne Devine.Forfar.
Surplus sand was sold!
Sir, – Recent editorial pieces and correspondence about the disposal of surplus sand at Elie and the comment they provoked were the subject of a strange coincidence when one of our volunteers at Cupar Heritage Centre was sorting through some old press cuttings last week.
On turning over a report of local interest, she found a report from the local press of February 1957. It revealed that the local burgh surveyor of the day had an entrepreneurial approach to the problem by selling the surplus at one shilling and sixpence a ton!
It does not report who the customers were but the provost expressed confidence that demand would allow all the sand to be cleared in this way.
Ian Copland,8 Kilmaron Crescent,Cupar.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL. Letters should be accompanied by an address and a daytime telephone number.