THE view that Aaron Campbell’s sentence should not have been cut on appeal by three years probably reflects that of most of the public ("Alesha’s uncle blasts justice system as her killer’s sentence cut by three years", The Herald, September 11).
But what seems illogical about the decision, sends the wrong message to teenagers and possibly sets a grave legal precedent, is the court’s “justification” that the abductor, rapist and murderer was aged “only” 16 at the time.
At 16, Scottish teenagers are deemed fit, inter alia, to indulge in sexual activity lawfully, to get married irrespective of parental disapproval, and to vote in all legislative elections. After years of debate, the age of criminal responsibility was recently increased from eight to 12, not to 17 or more.
Why therefore should Campbell, who knew exactly what he was doing, be treated more leniently, by implication, than a similar criminal aged say 17-19?
Or are the noble lords signalling that the age of responsibility and entitlement to marry and to vote should all be standardised at somewhere above 16?
John Birkett, St Andrews.
Taxing sums
ALAN Fitzpatrick (Letters, September 12) has failed to understand the problem faced by doctors and others with a defined benefit pension scheme. There is an annual contribution limit of £40,000. Few people will exceed this. However, HMRC insists that "any annual increase in the defined benefit scheme must also be less than £40,000". The lifetime allowance for such a scheme is calculated as 25 times the anticipated annual pension. So an annual pension contribution of £10,000 which might give a pension raise of £2,000 will equate to a notional gain of £50,000, thus breaching the £40,000 limit. it is this interpretation of a notional future gain that is causing the problem.
Sam Craig, Glasgow G11.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here