I SUPPOSE we needs to be grateful to Neil Mackay for his honesty in making clear his need for folks who smack their kids to be prosecuted like criminals (“These opposing smacking ban are beneath contempt”, the Herald, October 15).
In fact, readers will sympathise along with his account of his personal childhood. However it’s grossly unfair to assist the criminalisation of fine mother and father in the present day as some sort of “pay again” for his experiences rising up.
He repeatedly claims the ban prevents the “beating” of youngsters. However everybody is aware of beating kids is already in opposition to the legislation. The brand new legislation – the one he helps – takes probably the most minor faucet on the underside and forces police and prosecutors to deal with it as if it have been a beating. All nuance is misplaced. So mums who patiently clarify themselves to their tots earlier than tapping them on the hand after which giving them a cuddle, will likely be liable to prosecution as youngster abusers. Their youngsters could also be taken from them and put in care.
Ban advocates could congratulate themselves and deal with those that disagree with the identical type contempt as Mr Mackay does. However in two years’ time, when childhoods have been wrecked by the blind injustice of the brand new legislation, a few of them will suppose higher of it.
Simon Calvert, Spokesperson, Be Affordable Marketing campaign, Glasgow G4.
Nothing fallacious with some nation prejudices
DAVID Stubley (Letters, October 15) is true to level out that the views of many opponents of grouse and different organised taking pictures actions are based mostly on prejudice. They’re, and the bias (within the sense of a perception already fashioned) of their case is that killing issues for enjoyable quite than for meals is morally unacceptable.
Mr Stubley is sort of fallacious, although, to aim to dilute this “prejudice”, little question sincerely and strongly held by many individuals, with any supposed financial and environmental advantages. Different countryside actions, resembling on-the-spot hangings for these caught littering, would have financial and environmental advantages however would additionally fail the ethical acceptability take a look at.
Brian Chrystal, Edinburgh EH14.
WHEN I learn David Stubley’s criticism (Letters, October 15) of Rose Harvie’s wonderful letter of October 13 , the place he tries to justify the odious observe of blasting birds to items for his amusement, it’s obvious he’s no David Attenborough.
Nowhere does Ms Harvie point out pink grouse, however I assume refers back to the generic grouse household of birds resembling partridge and pheasant which might be launched and shot right here in Scotland of their thousands and thousands. Hand-reared and with no concern of man they’re each blood-sport fanatic’s dream.
Whereas Mr Stubley proclaims his ill-informed nonsense that “pink grouse are a really wild species which have by no means been reared in captivity” I and likely many others, needed to giggle. Like most sport birds they’ll simply be reared in captivity, after which transported and launched to areas resembling Shetland, the place they’re then shot. Different declining populations of pink grouse on the Orkney Islands and among the Hebrides are usually “topped up” with captive-reared pink grouse.
I’m not surprised by Mr Stubley’s apparent ignorance of wildlife, one thing he has continuously dedicated to print in these columns, solely by his vanity in making an attempt to criticise others with a far higher data than he.
Bernard Zonfrillo, Glasgow G21.