IN the UK, you can join the Army aged 16; in Scotland at the same age, you can get married and can vote in elections; by age 17, you can be well on your way towards gender reassignment, or passing a driving test. In short, the governments of the UK and Scotland recognise that, on average, from the age of 16 onwards, people are mature, rational human beings, capable of making a range of decisions, many life-altering, without interference from the state.

It appears, though, that there are exceptions: When it comes to the age of criminal responsibility, subject matter experts, both within and outwith politics, would have us believe that people do not mature properly until their mid-twenties, and therefore they should not, having been found guilty of committing a crime, be treated as fully mature adults when it comes to sentencing ("Courts ‘should treat adults under 25 more leniently’ say new guidelines", The Herald, February 28).

For someone who is just an ordinary member of the public, all of this is confusing. Either 16-year-olds are adults, or they are not: you can’t have it both ways. If someone is deemed old enough at 16 to choose to serve their country, or at 17, to start altering their gender, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that people in that age group are mature enough to understand the consequences of having committed a crime.

The way things are going, in Scotland at any rate, I fully anticipate that the age of criminal responsibility will be rationalised with the state retirement age. That will reduce recorded crime to almost zero, and ensure Scotland becomes a crime-free place to live, work, and avoid responsibility for anything that one does.

Stuart Brennan, Glasgow G44.

IF I am too immature to be sent to prison when I am 25, should I be allowed to vote when I am 16?

Arthur Robinson, Lockerbie.

Block the drains

I AM afraid that Clark Cross (Letters, February 27) has it completely wrong ("Blocked drains" Letters, February 27). Blocked drains do not cause flooding of the major magnitude that we have seen.

Near us there is a drain that blocks regularly, causing an enormous puddle in the road. That is a bit of a nuisance for drivers, but what has to be realised is that that water is not going into the river system. Indeed, there would be a good case to be made for an Environment Agency policy of going round with suitably designed covers and deliberately blocking many drains (properly selected such that local homes will not be affected) when there is a forecast of extreme rainfall such as we have seen recently. What is the inconvenience of big puddles in the road, which we can mostly cope with quite easily, compared to the absolute misery caused by the flooding of homes? Of course, it not merely rain that falls on the roads that would be held up. Water from fields and the like commonly discharges onto the roads.

James McKelvie, Carmunnock.

Football crazy

CAN I ask all your readers to petition the Scottish Parliament with regard to the introduction of a bill that will make it illegal for radio stations to play the sound of goals getting scored, along with the associated overexcited drivel of the football commentator, before 9am each morning?

I expect this to be law by this time next week.

Thank you.

Edward Burns, Glasgow G11