Would objectors prefer power cuts?

Sir,—Thank God reason has prevailed! To say I was delighted to read about the acceptance of the plans for a wind farm on Ark Hill is an understatement. At last there is cause for hope.

The continual dumping of nuclear waste has never been a viable long-term solution to providing for our energy requirements.

To those who have objected to the scheme and who think that wind farms “spoil the scenery” I can only say that if we were to continue as we are, there would be no scenery to worry about in the future. The planet as we know it would simply cease to exist.

If they are feeling hard done by they might consider how the residents of Sellafield or Dounreay felt when planning permission was given for nuclear power stations in those areas.

I wonder if anyone has considered using the even less popular solution of actually using less electricity? What about banning the use of electricity to domestic households between the hours of, say, 9am to 5pm? Is that the sort of inconvenience the objectors would prefer?

The supply of electricity is not going to run out in our lifetime, but our descendants will still be here when it does—unless we do something about it.

Mr Reid will have a fight

Sir,—The new Home Secretary, John Reid, criticises as “over-lenient” the five-year minimum prison sentence on a paedophile who sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl after kidnapping her from her home while her mother was on the phone (June 13).

But this sentence is not nearly as “derisory” as the 14 months this offender had previously served for sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl.

If Mr Reid wants to improve child protection, he will have to fight his own party, which is encouraging judges to pass shorter sentences or to find alternatives to custody in order to reduce overcrowding in UK jails.

But Mr Reid has been in the Cabinet a long time and no doubt knows the score. We will have to wait and see if his actions speak louder than his words.

Pathetic and predictable

Sir,—How utterly predictable were the letters from those who continue to croak out their justifications for cruelty and killing. (Courier, Letters June 9).

The widespread public revulsion at the abuse of animals in 21st century society, eg tail-docking, is a sign that we humans (or, the majority of us), are evolving in our ability to recognise cruelty, and to refrain from harming any creature unless it is absolutely necessary.

Absolutely necessary is not the term one would apply to the amputation of a dog’s tail to facilitate retrieval of its masters’ kill, when the killing is rarely for any other reason than ‘sport’.

In one of the respected books on gundogs, (Gundogs, Joe Irving), the advice given when the ghastly tail-docking is about to be done is: “It helps to get the bitch (ie the mother) out of the way for a few moments”.

Well, if anyone in the equation would recognise harm being done, it would be the new-born pup’s mother. Her instinct would certainly be to protect her pups. As well as being very distressed, she would most likely bite the tail-docker. Anyone with a heart would consider her response justified.

The general condemnation by the writers, members of SGA and BASC, of Jim Crumley’s approach to the countryside and the creatures therein was frankly pathetic.

The kind of world they are trying, white-knuckled, to cling to has had its day, thank God. The only trouble with Jim Crumley is that he shines lights in dark corners! Keep at it Jim.

Needs fuller explanation

Sir,—Though the recent report on MSP allowances made some attempt to explain why Green MSPs appear to have bigger expenses than others, we feel that the public deserve a fuller explanation (Shining a light on MSPs’ expenses, June 9).

Compared to most other MSPs, Greens have a much higher proportion of shared staff rather than staff paid by individual MSPs. The figures for most other MSPs exclude the bulk of salary costs because those costs are not revealed in a bid to protect staff privacy.

Therefore, it is wrong to say that Greens are more expensive. It is accurate to say that Greens reveal all their costs to the public for scrutiny whereas most other MSPs do not, making it impossible to make direct comparisons on claims.

Further, these figures for Green MSPs include almost a full year’s salary for Greens’ shared staff and cannot, therefore, be seen as a quarterly cost.