PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to info@conservativewoman.co.uk and mark them ‘for possible publication’. We need your name and if possible, a county address, eg Yorkshire or London. We will include biographical details if you volunteer them. Letters may be shortened.
***
Warning: Trump is speaking
Dear Editor
I have just spotted how the baddies in the media have openly and stupidly shot themselves in the foot for whenever a free speech trial takes place in the future (hopefully when normal service is resumed).
A speech delivered by Donald Trump in the Midwest a few days ago was streamed and recorded by CNN News. At the bottom of the screen you will see this message: ‘Disclaimer: This Video May Contain Potential Allegations That Might Contradict Or Are Not Confirmed By CNN News’.
Has such a disclaimer ever appeared when Joe Biden has given a speech, or any other Democrat for that matter? I don’t think so. Which raises the question: don’t the main news networks in the US at least have to comply with the letter of the regulatory requirements for broadcasting, even if they ignore the spirit? Can they be seen to be openly a mouthpiece for political propaganda? Or are there no such rules for the main networks?
If there are, all similar political video content should run this disclaimer, otherwise surely they will come to be held clearly accountable for discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and God knows how many other amendments too.
Robert Drury
Hampshire
***
Where’s the interest in men competing against women?
Dear Editor
Sharron Davies is probably the most outspoken critic, at great personal cost, of biological males being allowed to compete in female sport. I greatly admire her brave stance and agree with everything she’s said. However there’s one issue that I don’t think she’s mentioned.
In the past couple of decades the media attention and airtime given
to women’s sport has massively increased, although it still isn’t
equal to the attention given to men’s sport.
In individual, rather than team, sports such as athletics and swimming any half-decent biological male will easily beat the best women. If biological men who claim to be women are allowed to compete in women’s sports at an elite level and it’s obvious from the outset who’s going to win there’ll be no excitement. Without the excitement of possibly seeing the lead change several times and not knowing who’s going to win there doesn’t seem to be much point in watching.
If allowing biological men to compete against women means the public lose interest in watching women’s sport, this is going to hold back women’s sport gaining equal coverage and airtime with men’s sport, which I’m sure most people think it deserves.
Matt Dalby
Inverness
***
They’re having a laugh
Dear Editor
Holyrood’s cross-party Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has said that the existing National Grid is not capable of accommodating the level of renewable electricity that will be needed to power electric vehicles and electric home heating. Whose fault is that? Eight out of ten homes use gas for heating and cooking, businesses use gas, so why destroy the gas grid and put pressure on the National Grid?
The committee is also moaning that wind and solar developers are charged higher connection fees the further away from urban centres they are located. Do bus and train operators allow you to buy a ticket for a short journey and then travel to the terminus?
The committee stressed the necessity for ‘more agile’ planning decisions on the electricity infrastructure and solar and wind turbine planning applications are made more quickly ‘without removing the rights of individuals and communities to influence the process’. That really is a laugh. There are 4,000 wind turbines in Scotland, the majority of which communities vigorously fought against but could not ‘influence the process’. Numerous wind and solar planning applications have been rejected by the local authorities but the Scottish government overruled them and approved the planning applications. Democracy?
Clark Cross
Linlithgow
***
Why is Sunak giving another $2billion of our money to the climate change scam?
This is a Freedom of Information request sent by a reader to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Dear Ms Coutinho
I believe that the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, ‘donated’ $2billion of UK taxpayers’ money to the UN climate change fund during his visit to the G20 summit in India recently. Please justify and explain why he did this when he had no authority to do so from the UK public and UK taxpayers, and:
1 We have hundreds of schools plus an unknown number of hospitals, museums, libraries etc, which are unsafe due to crumbling concrete construction.
2 Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that there was no money to repair the schools, so all school repairs would have to be paid out of the existing education budget.
3 You, and the Conservative Party, have completely ignored the data provided by Professor Happer which proves that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has an imperceptible effect on global warming.
4 Where did the £1.6billion taxpayers’ money come from and why was it thrown away on a completely spurious and unnecessary fund when our schools, hospitals etc have to be repaired at great cost to the UK taxpayers?
5 AGW climate change is a total scam, has never been agreed to by the UK public and taxpayers, nor has any liability for global warming, as such been fully justified by the government and accepted by the general public as it is a completely spurious and untrue concept.
6 Why a policy of Net Zero is being actively pursued by the Conservative government (despite our leaving the EU which imposed it), which is crippling us now and will cripple the UK and all its population for years to come, when the UK’s contribution to global CO2 production will take over 1,500 years to add 1ppm to the global total, taking into account the fact that even doubling the current CO2 level to over 800ppm has an imperceptible effect on global warming according to Professor Happer?
J G Wraith
