Clegg's parting shot was of little value
I watched the BBC news on Wednesday evening and saw some snippets from the debate between Nigel Farage, of Ukip, and the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg.
The last words from Mr Clegg were that he wanted to be part of Great Britain, not "Little England". I resent that.
For Mr Clegg's information, I want to be part of a great and independent England; a wish that neither he, nor Mr Farage shares.
Weston-super-Mare English Democrats
Send in your news to boost bowls coverage
I agree with your reader Peter Marshman about the lack of bowls news (Western Daily Press, March 26).
I do look forward to the David Rhys Jones column on Wednesdays, he does a first class job, but I would like to read more on other days.
In defence of the Clarrie Dunbar Club, of which I am a member, the reason we get a lot of coverage is that Brian Hawkins, the owner, supplies several newspapers with information and they all include his reports with photos that Brian takes.
The club has had a lot of success this year, it is the best year since the club opened in September 1985.
In defence of David R Jones I would say to other clubs, send in your news and I am sure it will get published.
When in Rome is my response to law call
In response to the letter by Clive Lavelle about Sharia law (Daily Press March 26), if the Muslims want this law why do they choose to live in Britain. As the old saying goes "When in Rome do as the Romans do".
Royal letters dispute – a broader agenda
I read with great interest Chris Moncrieff's article "Let today's leaders learn from the best of the left" (Western Daily Press, March 18), in particular the part in which he mentioned the case of Prince Charles' correspondence. As he rightly points out, if these letters are released, despite the Government's attempts to censor them, and are embarrassing for the Prince then that is "hard luck".
The Attorney General Dominic Grieve has disingenuously made these letters sound like a casual conversation between chums who were sharing political banter.
However, the existence of the arcane and outrageously unjust Queen and Prince's Consent procedure hints at a broader agenda. This procedure which takes place upon the drafting of a Bill before it reaches the House of Commons, allows the offices of the two monarchs to be consulted on matters that are said to affect their private revenues, the duchies and the Crown Estates.
Amendments to the Freedom of Information laws in 2010 mean the monarchy has extra protection from having to reveal its communications relevant to the consent laws. So what we have here is a perfect set-up for conflict of interest on a massive scale. Royalists will argue for reform, but why would those that benefit from this law give up this power?
I applaud A Stoat's letter ridiculing Prince William's position. Not content with leaving his Armed Forces job, he has gone back to life as an expensive mannequin on display. We need a Republic now!
A brave new world without psychiatry
In his 1932 novel, Brave New World Aldous Huxley depicted a controlled civilisation, using the "technique of suggestion, through infant conditioning and, later, with the aid of drugs."
The "brave new world" it would seem has arrived. Today, children and parents are being conditioned to think that certain behaviours are so-called mental "disorders", a prime example being Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. As there's no scientific evidence to support the existence of ADHD or a "chemical imbalance of the brain", there is a strong reliance on opinion and belief as the determining factors. It was therefore no surprise to learn of a recent poll that questioned whether ADHD existed or not. That a poll was even undertaken in the first place is bizarre.
Nobody asks whether malaria or typhoid exist. That's because there is objective evidence and physical tests to prove they are diseases.
To prevent children from growing up in a chemical haze, it's time to create a new world without psychiatry, its suggestions, its unscientific opinions and its drugs.
Citizens Commission on Human Rights (United Kingdom)