PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to info@conservativewoman.co.uk and mark them ‘Letter to the Editor’. We need your name and a county address, e.g. Yorkshire or London. Letters may be shortened. There is no guarantee of publication.
Letter of the week: Why I am glad to be near the end of my life
***
Dear Editor
Why do we talk about ‘people-smugglers’? Smuggling implies concealment of goods (or people) in order to avoid the law.
These illegal immigrants are being transported quite openly, and indeed are assisted by Border Force officials apparently employed by the government to defend our borders. They are not being ‘smuggled’.
Incidentally, why are the mainly Muslim migrants not going to nearby rich Muslim Middle East countries instead of distant, still mainly non-Muslim Europe?
At 82 years, I am so glad to be near the end of my life. I am not a racist – just a patriot.
Christopher Darwin
Devon
***
Police should be colour blind
Dear Editor
I consider myself to be anti-racist, but I also think the Police Anti-Racism Commitment is nonsense. The Commitment pledges equality of policing outcomes in different ethnic groups, and the general population. But what happens if an ethnic group has a higher crime rate than that of the general population? As far as I can see, there are only two ways that this can happen. Either some crimes in the ethnic group have a blind eye turned by the police, or false charges are made to some of the general population to even up the outcomes. Both of these alternatives are morally repugnant, and are far removed from any understanding of the meaning of justice. Contrary to the Police Commitment, I believe police should be colour blind, and deal with criminal behaviour in the same way whoever the perpetrators are. I fully realise that different people may well have different needs, problems or disadvantages, but it is the role of courts and the whole judicial system to take these issues into consideration, and temper justice with mercy.
Brian Shersby
***
Universities should teach how to think, not what to think
Dear Editor,
We are frequently assailed by the claim of the left that the better-educated support their viewpoint. This is often intended to imply that those on the right are the ignorant and unintelligent. Three important facts are conveniently ignored.
The first is that the majority of students are from other countries, brought in by the universities to increase income. Naturally, they will support those who have allowed them this privilege.
Secondly, since the introduction of ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees by Tony Blair and the accompanying explosion of ‘universities’, the intelligence of many students is far lower than that of previous generations and, perhaps, of a good number of those who have never attended university.
Most importantly, since Blair’s emphasis on ‘education, education, education’ our schools and colleges have been used not to teach people how to think but to teach them what to think. They have become propaganda machines for left-wing assumptions and ideas. It is not surprising that those who have come through the system – students, teachers, and further generations of students – have accepted the prejudices of their teachers.
It would be very interesting to see the results of a poll of graduates which indicated their subjects and ages. I suspect that the older the degree-holder, the less he would conform to left-wing indoctrination. So too, those with degrees in more-academic subjects are likely to have more balanced views.
Revd Christopher Huggett BA, MPhil, PGCE
***
The folly of allowing unvetted men into Britain
Dear Editor
The Attorney General Lord Hermer claimed in an interview with the BBC that Conservatives and Reform parties would ‘let migrants drown’. The Sudanese man accused of the Belfast attack didn’t even get his feet wet. He simply hopped on a bus in Dublin which took him to Belfast where he claimed and was fast-tracked as an asylum seeker. He jumped in front of all those who legally seek to enter Britain.
Would Lord Hermer be all right with someone taking his job who had no legal qualifications? Would he fly on a plane where the pilot was someone who simply shoved his way on? Would he let his teeth be looked at by some stranger who simply barged in?
If the answer is certainly not, why is it all right to allow unvetted, possibly criminal men into Britain with their fairly obvious spurious claims of persecution?
Kathleen Carr
Sheffield
***
What is the point of our armed forces?
Dear Editor
I have posed this question before but I remain baffled: nobody seems able to supply an answer.
Why do we in Britain have an Army, or Navy, or indeed any armed forces which cost taxpayers about £60billion annually?
Are they maintained at public expense for purely ceremonial purposes or is there some other reason for their existence?
Graham Wood
***
Miliband needs a lesson in sums
Dear Editor
The Daily Telegraph reports that the UK is to be carpeted with 5-minute battery chargers.
At 4kWh per mile, a 100kWh battery would have a range of 400 miles and a 100 kW charger would take 1 hour to charge the battery. To charge it in 5 minutes (1/12th of an hour) would require a 1.2MW charger.
We know that the government plans to install 350,000 roadside chargers by the early 30s. Just 25 per cent of them in use would add >100GW to prospective grid maximum demand, which is currently
But the government plans to reduce nuclear and gas generation capacity to around 20GW by the early 30s, when most aging nuclear and gas capacity will have retired. 20GW of EU interconnector capacity will be nowhere near enough to make up the difference.
So can we ask Mr Miliband how he expects the 5-minute chargers to be powered along with the other new electrical loads?
It seems that Ed still has to complete his sums.
Roger J Arthur
