Filthy trade should not be shoved in our faces
QUITE right Chris Cutland, ban the sex shops and cart them off over to Amsterdam for the stag-night crowd (Post, February 14).
With 50 Shades Of Grey mainstreaming sordid conversation and material, our kids are already over-exposed to explicit scenes.
Closing down this avenue would be the first step towards fighting back with purpose. Women, children and respected men should not have to suffer for a pervy few.
The outcry would be scanter than the "models" posing in the scrutinised sex shops.
Cheap Van Insurance(Commercial & Private Use) - Contact Insure365...View details
Cheap Van Insurance(Commercial & Private Use) - Contact Insure365 01782 898188, Free Legal Expenses Cover Included at £25.00!
Terms: 1 Voucher Per Customer
Contact: 01782 898188
Valid until: Monday, June 24 2013
Problems only get worse when sex-related merchandise floods the high street. Apart from anything, it brings down the shops around it, sullies the areas where kids play outside their schools and paints a smutty picture of Nottingham's vibrant streets.
To say they don't hurt anyone is short-sighted. Confine it to the bedroom. Private matters should be treated with privacy.
They hardly have a reputation for being welcoming places to rake the family. Most wouldn't step foot inside one with the most gregarious of partners.
They cater for the seedy underbelly of carnal fetish, not the everyday expressions of love that folks think about on Valentine's Day.
It's not a war on sex, it's a battle to stop flamboyant eroticism spilling into places populated by those who don't want it thrown in their faces.
Setting up stores that alienate so many just through the products they sell is not conducive to fuelling our community spirit. If anything, they actively damage equality movements.
In summary, they are about as harmless as a dominatrix with a leather-clad whip. Welcome to the job, Ms Cutland.
King Alfred Street Derby
I AM appalled at the Government's recent introduction of the so-called, "bedroom tax".
Someone who has a three-bedroom council house but whose family have grown up and moved away will still pay the rent appropriate to that house.
That is their choice and I can foresee that many will do this and remain in the family home that they have lived in for years.
Now, however, if they are also in receipt of housing benefit they are going to be penalised by having benefit cut by 14 per cent for occupying a house which has more bedrooms than they would seem to need.
It is a device to "persuade" them to leave their home for a smaller one by hitting them in the pocket.
This is not far removed from Soviet Russia soon after the revolution when people found their homes taken over and forced to accept strangers occupying the rooms they were not currently using.
Is that what we are coming to?
By the way, how does the council know that there are unused bedrooms in some of their properties – what about a family whose son or daughter who is away at university and not occupying a bedroom for most of the year?
Ukip MEP for the East Midlands
MY 52-year-old sister-in-law lost her husband less than two years ago and, just before Christmas, underwent major surgery, from which she is still recovering. Because she lives in a three-bedroom house belonging to a housing association (an old council house) she is badly affected by the bedroom tax the Government is bringing in from April.
Unless she can find an extra £25 a week, she is effectively being made homeless. She cannot pay this and is losing the home she lived in for 30 years and has been offered no alternative.
I read recently that the Prime Minister backed gay marriage because he didn't want to be seen as "the nasty party".
Nasty doesn't come into it, Mr Cameron, try immoral instead.
DOROTHY Wilson confuses cutting the deficit with cutting government spending (Letters, February 12).
Labour wants economic growth to play its part in cutting the deficit. Ed Balls has been proved right that George Osborne cut government spending and raised taxes too sharply and too quickly, stopping the growth that would have made the biggest difference to reducing government borrowing.
ROGER Saxton and Robert Crosby replied to my letter ("Premiere's demise an opportunity for others", Post, January 31) saying I was "ill-informed."
Since reading their correspondence, I have made additional inquires.
Evidently, there was at least one national operator keen to buy Premiere Travel for its routes.
Their agenda for wanting the company was to increase their corporate influence around Nottingham and be at the centre of the cosmopolitan city of diversity.
According to reports the regulatory authorities nullified the sale. There was also an affluent investor that missed the administrators' deadline.
The deregulation of buses came into force on October 26, 1986, under transport secretary Nicholas Ridley, hence some observers presume deregulation of the buses was a Margaret Thatcher initiative.
Her Government may have of been keen to make deregulation work, but the legislation does have an EU thread woven into it.
To be fair, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission became the Competition Commission on April 1, 1999, but both bodies perform similar roles. Mr Saxton claimed bus services have not been deregulated in other western counties.
He failed to add other EU countries have not adopted all the EU legislation like our "rulers". The UK normally applies every EU law and convention.
It is elementary to state, Premiere didn't come about because of EU measures, but it and other companies were set-up after deregulation to corner a market share.
Maybe there is a need to reintroduce the old-style regulation?
Mr Crosby churlishly called it "fanciful" if I thought public officials' remit allows them to spend time soliciting for competitor companies, even on routes where passengers have chosen overwhelmingly to settle on one operator.
I am not scrutinising lightly-used routes where one operator can barely break even. The scenario applies to busy routes, where passengers are restricted to one operator. That is not "fair competition".
To reiterate Lady Thatcher's words, fair competition is to offer consumers a choice.
This is not happening on some profitable routes as the fair competition rules are not being applied.
Stephen Greaves, the founder of Premiere retired from the police force and started the company with two Leyland National buses; building up to employ 200 staff, a true entrepreneur and he deserves credit for his achievement.
Mr Cameron regularly states we need entrepreneurs to eradicate unemployment and get the economy growing.
Simultaneously his Government commits £12 billion to foreign aid. Instead of spending the money overseas why can't he invest in companies that suffer a cash flow problem?
Since Premiere's demise there is a social element, villagers living around Bingham are isolated, unable to get to town for shopping or visiting the doctors, etc.
I believe charity begins at home, and other nations should fend for themselves.
NIGEL J STARBUCK
SINCE going to see a friend perform at Nottingham's Lace Market Theatre a few years ago, we've returned many times to watch some splendid plays.
Marcus Wakely's production of On Golden Pond, which we saw last Tuesday evening, was a joy to behold.
Against a backdrop of almost tangible rural Maine every member of the cast was true to life. The acting was superb.
JOHN AND JANE PETCHELL