Letters: Ads on BBC websites

Advertising on BBC websites would damage our nation abroad

Sir: The BBC Trust is to debate today whether the Corporation's website should become a commercial venture, with adverts appearing on its news stories when accessed overseas.

In the past decade, the BBC News website has grown into an institution comparable in stature to World Service radio. Managers behind the commercialisation scheme risk throwing this hard-won reputation away for just a few million pounds.

Senior foreign correspondents have warned that taking adverts will diminish the BBC's reputation overseas, and by extension, Britain's, particularly in the Arab world where suspicions of western corporate interests run high, the very region where we should be seeking to grow our reputation. BBC managers have not listened.

Imperfect technology means that hundreds of thousands of British licence fee-payers will see the adverts when they access the BBC News website, undermining arguments for continued public funding of the Corporation. BBC managers find this acceptable.

The BBC's own research indicates that between a quarter and half of international readers value freedom from adverts enough to desert the BBC site if adverts arrive. BBC managers say they are "comfortable" with this.

Forty-five Members of Parliament are sufficiently uncomfortable that we have signed an Early Day Motion calling on the BBC to scrap its commercialisation proposal. The BBC is distinctive and valued at home and overseas because it is free from commercial pressures and influence.

If adverts are accepted on the international website, how long before BBC management contemplates their appearance on World Service, on web pages accessed within Britain, on Radio Three, on CBeebies? We urge the Trust to exercise its duty to safeguard the public interest, which clearly means keeping the BBC News website commercial-free.

PETER BOTTOMLEY, MP FOR WORTHING WEST; KATY CLARK, MP FOR NORTH AYRSHIRE AND ARRAN;DEREK CONWAY, MP FOR OLD BEXLEY & SIDCUP; NEIL GERRARD, MP FOR WALTHAMSTOW; MIKE HANCOCK, MP FOR PORTSMOUTH SOUTH; KELVIN HOPKINS, MP FOR LUTON NORTH; ELFYN LLWYD, MP FOR MEIRIONYDD NANT CONWY; JOHN MCDONNELL, MP FOR HAYES AND HARLINGTON; AUSTIN MITCHELL, MP FOR GREAT GRIMSBY; DAVID TAYLOR, MP FOR NORTH-WEST LEICESTERSHIRE

Illegality of drugs causes much misery

Sir: I could not agree more with Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (report, 19 February). I am a GP and have campaigned for years for a more liberal approach, a drug policy that recognises addiction as a sickness to be treated rather than a crime in itself.

Most of our policy-makers choose to remain out of touch with the reality of the drug culture in modern Britain. We need to remind ourselves that one in three British adults has taken some form of illegal drug in their lifetime. In that context, it is welcome if a potential prime minister of the UK, David Cameron, and a potential president of the United States, Barack Obama, have personal experience to bring to the debate about drugs, including alcohol abuse.

I have witnessed numerous deaths from overdoses of heroin and I have watched scores of young lives wasted to this monster. It is illogical for drugs to be illegal on health grounds when alcohol and nicotine are not, and cause as many social problems. There is an appalling toll of human misery caused by drugs, much of it caused by their illegality, and not by the substances themselves.

If drugs were legal, their street value would plummet, making it impossible for organised crime to make huge profits and reduce the need for drug-takers to commit crimes to feed their habits.

We need to learn from the studies on heroin prescription in the Netherlands and Switzerland where significant reductions in illicit drug use has been observed among those receiving the treatment. The time is ripe to decriminalise heroin in the UK.

DR KAILASH CHAND

ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, LANCASHIRE

Sir: While there is a growing consensus on the importance of treatment, not just punishment, for drug-related offending, we need a more explicit focus on prevention, along with tackling the stigma and isolation which many problem drug users and their families experience.

Last year, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs emphasised that prevention is about more than education; it is also about tackling poverty and improving support for young people and families. Drug treatment can only be truly effective when the causes of social exclusion itself are addressed - including health inequalities, poor housing and training opportunities.

Heroin prescribing, as Ken Jones suggests, could be one way to engage those with long-term opiate dependency with a treatment programme. But until we look long and hard at the pathways to dependency, progress will be limited.

MARTIN BARNES

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DRUGSCOPE, LONDON SE1

Sir: The suggestion that prescribing heroin (original trade name for diamorphine) for addicts reduces crime seems perfectly understandable and I am obviously in favour of any measure that might improve outcomes for addicts and potential victims of crime.

My problem, as a pharmacist working in palliative care, is that since January 2005, there has been a serious shortage of medicinal diamorphine and we, our patients and their families have struggled with the resultant practical problems this has caused.

Although it is now available to a limited extent, the supply is sporadic and the price has escalated. Please can we wait until we have enough for dying patients before suggesting it is supplied to addicts.

MARGARET GIBBS

BROMLEY, KENT

Organic farming is best for environment

Sir: I am surprised at the cavalier use of data in the Manchester Business School study on the environmental impact of organic farming ("Organic farming no better for environment", 19 February).

The figures for dairy farming and milk production present just one example of the muddle this report contains. With a total disregard for the acres that conventional farmers "buy in" in the concentrate feeds they purchase for their cattle, the Manchester economists have made a direct comparison to organic, grass-fed milk production where all the acres lie on the home farm. This is a bad study, bad maths and bad conclusions.

The crucial point missed in the Manchester study is that organic agriculture is the only game in town once fossil fuels run out. Instead of computing meaningless comparisons between farming systems, let's engage some serious economic brains on how to feed a hungry world when we've "eaten" all the oil and all the gas.

RICHARD SANDERS

THE ORGANIC RESEARCH CENTRE, ELM FARM, NEWBURY

Sir: Manchester Business School is to be congratulated for its ingenious redefinition of environment to exclude biodiversity and landscape. For a long time, modern farming methods have been mired in unwarranted controversy based, it seems, entirely on misguided assumptions about what constitutes "environment".

Now, with commendable scientific objectivity, MBS have removed at a stroke the dilemmas of policymakers as they grapple needlessly with the resolution of irreconcilable objectives. Unburdened by irrelevant externalities, agribusiness can, once again, reclaim its rightful crown as the only rational alternative.

Applying this enlightened approach to other pressing environmental concerns would yield similarly valuable insights. Can we look forward to further groundbreaking studies from MBS demonstrating that rainforest depletion is "on balance" beneficial or, indeed, that even climate change is a non-issue?

NIGEL TUERSLEY

TISBURY, WILTSHIRE

Glad to live among well-armed Texans

Sir: As an Englishman living in Texas, I must point out a key misconception in the article "Gun-toting Texans aim for 'shoot thy neighbour' law" (19 February). The Bill before the Texas legislature does not permit "shooting first". Instead, it allows citizens to use deadly force to defend themselves in a narrow range of situations where serious crimes are being perpetrated.

In contrast to most of your readers, Texans can sleep at night with the knowledge they have the means and, with the passage of the Castle Doctrine, enhanced legal protection to effectively defend their family and their home against intruders.

Previous improvements to the gun laws of Texas, such as the introduction of licensing for concealed carrying of handguns, have been met with similar dire predictions of "blood in the streets" from gun-control advocates. Each time they've been wrong and this time will be no different.

I've found Texans to be warm and friendly with an ingrained politeness that puts us Brits to shame. However, they are a resolute people with no tolerance for criminals or their apologists.

MARK BEADLE

LONGVIEW, TEXAS

Crafty dodges of the greedy banks

Sir: It's not just charges for overdrafts or bounced direct debits ("Customers see red over the scandal of illegal charges", 20 February).

If I write a cheque, the money is taken out of my account within two days; but it doesn't appear as cleared funds in the payee's account for five working days (which, if a weekend intervenes, can be nearer eight days).

If you buy something in a supermarket, when the barcode is flashed, the shop's stock record is automatically adjusted, and more ordered in if it's getting low. The technology exists.

But making £8bn profit isn't enough to enable the banks to install it so that they can give instant cheque clearance. They still behave as if it was done by a little old man on a bicycle with a sack of bits of paper on his back.

TONY CROFTS

WITNEY, OXFORDSHIRE

Sir: In November 2006, I received a letter from First Direct Bank (HSBC), giving notice of a charge of £10 a month, from February, 2007, on my sole account if it did not bring in at least £1,500 per month. My two pensions and a tiny annuity amount to one third of this.

My account had never been overdrawn and I viewed this policy as a means of penalising those with low incomes.

So I set in train a move to another bank (not one of the big five), which has been achieved only just in time to avoid this iniquitous charge.

MARIAN SHAW

LONDON SW17

Supporter of Israel, but not all its policies

Sir: If proof were needed of why Independent Jewish Voices ("IJV", with which I have no present involvement) came into being, it lies with the description of them, by your correspondent Geoffrey Charin (letter, 16 February), as "anti-Israel".

I support the existence of the State of Israel, and wish to see it survive and prosper in peace and security. I just despair of various policies adopted from time to time by Israeli governments inimical to the prospects of such survival and prosperity.

That seems to me to be the position also held by IJV. To call it "anti-Israel" is a perversion of language. It fails to distinguish between State and Government; by Mr Charin's logic, it would mean all of us who disagree from with policies adopted by the UK Government are "anti-British".

I intend to continue to subject the policies of both governments to what I hope is a coherent, rational, consistent and constructive critique.

PHILIP GOLDENBERG

WOKING, SURREY

Don't panic, Mr Nevin

Sir: Fortunately, Charles Nevin is wrong when he writes that "sadly, Dad's Army is having one of its rare periods off the air" (19 February). Dad's Army can be heard on Fridays at 8am, 12pm and 7pm on BBC7 on digital radio.

GORDON WHITEHEAD

RIPON, NORTH YORKSHIRE

TNT is TNT

Sir: Joseph Hannon (letter, 16 February) states that Iranian TNT is "seven times more potent than the Iraqi equivalent". Sorry, but no. TNT (trinitrotoluene) is exactly the same, no matter whether it was produced in Iran, Iraq, Europe, the US or anywhere else. There are a few other explosives, such as PETN or hexogen, which are more powerful than TNT, but only to a limited degree (about 50 per cent at the most).

DR TOM HERBST

LONDON SW14

MPs' expenses

Sir: Standing for parliament is voluntary and candidates are well aware of the pitfalls beforehand. An MP's salary is higher than that of most of their constituents, and sometimes their incomes are bolstered by outside corporate and media interests. So if the House of Commons is as representative of the public as claimed then it is not unreasonable to expect that an MP's travel expenses should be borne out of their salaries.

NICK VINEHILL

SNETTISHAM, NORFOLK

Sir: The Member of Parliament for Lewes has shot his own party in the foot by his snooping on fellow MPs and their travel claims. Many Liberal Democrat MPs have very large and sparsely populated constituencies and find attending to the problems of their electorate extremely hard with poor public transport in those areas. One wonders how pleased the residents of Lewes are with their representative, and does he make himself available to assist with their problems?

R G BEECH

STANFORD-LE-HOPE, THURROCK

Broken promise

Sir: I'm sure many who signed the petition not to introduce road pricing (report, 13 February), would agree with some form of measure to get people out of cars, but the simple fact is that people don't trust this government. Remember the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott: "If we do not have a proper transport system in 10 years we will have failed."

PETER DAY

DONCASTER

Roasted by rhyme

Sir: While really not wanting to whine/ I feel I must surely opine/ In this Year of the Pig/ That you need a sharp dig/ As the plural of swine is just swine ("Chinese celebrate the lucky swines born in the Year of the Pig", 19 February).

EMMELINE STEVENSON

PENCAITLAND, EAST LOTHIAN