Sir: I agree with most of Claire Rayner's article (Another View, 6 November) about Julia Somerville's persecution, but I see little point in increasing Boots' profits on developing and printing by getting them to process more entirely innocent pictures of naked children. Especially as there would still be a risk of some over-zealous operative going to the police.
A few years ago the manager of our local Boots wanted to refuse to print a lovely, though scarcely erotic, let alone "pornographic", photograph of a beautiful woman. After getting the print I had asked for, I have never been near Boots for processing since.
I suggest a more effective form of protest would be for your readers to go somewhere else for their photographic work, first checking that there is no fundamentalist processor at work.
6 NovemberReuse content