Letters - October 29. 2019

Hats off to Channel 4 for the Prince and the Paedophile programme shown this week. In case you missed it this detailed, in some depth, the relationship between Prince Andrew and the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Many questions remain unanswered. Prince Andrew has claimed through Buckingham Palace statements that he knew nothing about Epstein’s activities. And yet he continued to spend time with Epstein after he had ‘served’ a prison sentence for paedophilia in 2008 so he clearly knew precisely what this guy had been up to.

At the very least, Prince Andrew should have been questioned by police long since to ascertain exactly what he knew. If this was you or I we would have been ‘invited’ to attend the local nick long since.

However, the UK police have said they will not be pursuing any lines of enquiry so have effectively kicked this into the long grass.

In the meantime Buckingham Palace have tried to deflect attention from this with the Harry/Megan phone hacking/letter story which doesn’t appear to have had the desired effect.

How much longer are we supposed to tolerate a situation where the rich/famous/connected appear to be exempt from the laws of the land ?

To see an example of how the ‘Establishment’ protects their own you only have to look at the Savile case.

Savile clearly enjoyed the highest level of protection - for decades he was able to go about his appalling business without interference even though many police forces throughout the UK investigated claims against him which were deliberately scuppered by higher authorities whenever rich and powerful toes were in danger of being trodden on.

Savile was also a member of the Royal Family inner circle from the mid sixties onwards having been introduced by Lord Mountbatten - himself accused of paedophilia in recently disclosed FBI files. Bosom buddies with Thatcher. Worth mentioning that several members of her cabinet, including Leon Brittan, were accused of being paedophiles without ever facing trial.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Tim Kennedy

Address supplied

ENVIRONMENT

Renewable

energy issues

Only solar, wind and water power are kinds of renewable energy and there are issues with all of them.

Solar energy is renewable because the sun’s rays will never run out, but its energy has to be converted into mechanical power, which is only 10 per cent efficient.

You would need a whole field of solar panels to run a small car a very short distance.

Wind-power is nothing more than a small contribution to our needs.

Hydro-electric power from rivers or reservoirs requires large rivers, holding up their flow or large reservoirs and a lot of

rain.

Tidal-barrage power is reliable but cyclical, and also at some environmental cost.

Wave power demands waves like wind power.

They don’t arrive to timetables and are not always of the right power.

Meanwhile, the internal combustion engine is twice as efficient as any electric car.

So in order to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide and nitric oxide in the atmosphere, we must stop producing so many vehicles.

Nearly every family in the western world has two or three very large cars.

Things would improve if we only one small car per family, with each car to have a small high powered petrol engine.

Improve public transport so that all people can get to and from their place of work easily.

This can be done if the car manufacturers can be persuaded to produce much smaller family cars with either small electric or small highly efficient petrol engines.

We must also develop many small nuclear power stations throughout the UK because once they are running, they do not produce any carbon dioxide to cause climate change, as they do in France.

Paul Muller

Address supplied

FINANCES

Perks of pensioners

Re: Television licences for the over-75s, winter fuel payments and free prescriptions. I think that the Blair-Brown Government was wrong to introduce such a system of perks.

If they wanted to help pensioners, they should have simply increased the state pension.

As it is taxed, it would mean that the better-off retiree wouldn’t gain so much. As things stand, the situation is a mish-mash.

A poorer pensioner under 75 pays for their TV licence, a richer pensioner over that age doesn’t.

Some people who qualify for free bus passes have got a poor daytime service, with no buses at night or on Sundays. Yet affluent roads may have a 30-minute bus service, even on Sundays!

Really, we’ve got to have a degree of consistency, while moving away from the condescending attitude of many that a typical pensioner is poor and needing of extra state help.

Tim Mickleburgh

Address supplied