SOME folk dislike turbines on the horizon. They spoil our countryside, kill birds, erode peatlands, and are generally noisy and just not required. Appropriate statistics are found to support the above.

As an engineer I personally find them pleasing works of design in appearance and fully acceptable in today's world. I have also visited Scotland's hills and coasts over many years, from Sutherland to the borders and all in between. Pylons and towers have not distracted my appreciation or love of our beautiful land.

Now aged 81 I recall my childhood in Bridgeton, Glasgow, walking to Hosier Street Primary in the late 1940s in yellow smog-filled streets with my handkerchief tied round my nose and mouth. On removal the white hanky had two dark brown holes for nostrils. And all done four times per day, sometimes for days on end.

The effect on Glasgow citizens' health was immense in terms of lung disease. The cause was from coal-burning in every tenement and factory chimney.

In time smoke controls were implemented but years of work then followed as the city erected scaffolding and buildings were shot-blasted to rediscover the beautiful architecture hidden beneath the soot encrusted walls.

Part of the Glasgow skyline was also peppered with huge structures called gasometers, like grotesque alien ships, for storing the city gas supplies. Great rusting hulks which rise and fall depending on the volume of gas inside. Not pretty to look at but necessary for the citizen's needs at the time.

Coal has gone. Nuclear has risks as in Fukashima and Three Rivers events. Oil is to be transitioned away from. So wind and solar has to be in the mix with possibly new hydrogen power options. We just can't have our pristine countryside and reliable power supplies without some penalties. Sorry, but it can't be done.

Bob Wolfenden, Biggar.


I READ with interest the letter from Denis Bruce (October 2).He makes a number of well thought-out and well-intentioned suggestions, several of which are unfortunately unworkable.

All the talk of “ the arrestee” and about at least two officers and no handcuffs is commendable but would change nothing and could in fact make matters worse.

Back in the day I made more than one off-duty arrest whilst alone. For example, one was in the middle of the night and it was an individual who had broken into several cars and stolen a lot of property. Another was in the middle of the afternoon. I had become suspicious and followed an individual into a very secluded wooded area. He was with a very young and very distressed child and I intervened seconds before before he raped her. He was a big man with inordinate strength. This was horrific and if Mr Bruce had his way then presumably I would have had to just stand by?

Regarding handcuffs only for violent prisoners, then this takes no account of those who subsequently become violent or who secrete drugs or weapons on their person. They need to be secured before they can dispose of the drugs or use the weapon against the arresting officer.

The events surrounding Sarah Everard are beyond evil. I truly cannot think of a more horrific set of circumstances. I am confident that every serving and retired police officer (the vast majority of whom I believe are thoroughly decent people), will be embarrassed, ashamed and mortified.

I think it is incumbent on the entire police service (particularly in England and Wales), to carry out a root and branch reform of its recruitment processes and what should be far more stringent processes applicable to those who become authorised firearms officers (AFOs). We currently have interviews, written exams, assessment processes for normal recruits and psychometric testing for AFOs but clearly this monster slipped through the net. The police service could take advice from other police agencies throughout the world and they could look at how operatives to our internal secret services within the UK are recruited. The police service clearly do not have a monopoly on all the answers.

Something is wrong and needs fixed. It needs to be done calmly, and methodically. It cannot be done as a knee-jerk reaction.

Stewart Falconer, Alyth.


HOW things have changed from my time at a single-sex girls school from 1950 to 1956. I was reminded of what it was like when I saw the photo of the young ladies of St Columba's High School sanitising their hands ("Restrictions see parents 'denied chance for talks with teachers'", The Herald, October 1.) I am afraid it wasn't the parents' problem that interested me but whether the young ladies have to wear school knickers as "Victorian" as the ones in my day. I doubt it, as those pupils would probably not agree to wear the near-bloomers with strong elastic which were de rigueur. We had bottle-green ones (school uniform colour,) with a small pocket in which to keep one's handkerchief.

The uniforms we wore were tunics which came to the knee until, joy of joys, in the sixth form we were allowed to progress to skirts which came to near the ankles. It was the time of the "new look" so we felt very fashionable. I still wear skirts at ankle-length and never trousers; though I have given up on voluminous knickers with pockets.

Thelma Edwards, Kelso.


WITH reference to the article by Karen Peattie ("No time to lie ... new 007 film will be good for our economy", The Herald, October 4) it will take more than one Bond movie to revive cinema attendance.

As a regular cinema attender prior to Covid my attendance has declined significantly since restrictions eased. Not because of health concerns but because of the lack of quality films being released.

The emergence of streaming channels during the pandemic has changed viewing habits, which could spell the longer-term demise of cinema attendance.

Bill Eadie, Giffnock.