Nuisance calls

Wind row

at the top who crave power and ignore this responsibility. I can only see the signs pointing one way with all these distractions. KEN CURRIE Liberton Drive

Edinburgh LIKE many, we have been plagued for some time by prerecorded nuisance phone calls, however I thought there might be light at the end of the tunnel with regards to the one about “boiler replacement… all homes must be done by 2016”. The cheerful female asked us to “press 2 for more information, or press 9 to be removed from our database”.

I duly pressed 9 – as, I suspect, did most people who received this call.

But it doesn’t actually work. Day after day we received the SAME recorded call. We pressed 9, but back she came.

Now there has been a change. She still suggests we “press 2 for more information” but then, after a pause, chirps “press 2 NOW!” The database removal option has gone from the menu.

I can only assume that the vast majority of numbers dialled took the time to press 9 for removal and the company at the back of this marketing ploy quickly realised they had next to no takers. So that option has now gone.

Whoever gains power after 7 May, can you please tighten the regulations on nuisance calls?

I let the majority go to the answer phone, but they are still a pest. I cannot imagine how awful they must be for elderly people who live alone and who make an attempt to answer every time they get a call. A DUTHIE

Perth IS AEDÁN Smith from the RSPB serious when he writes that the primary purpose of wind farms is to provide “carbon benefits” (Letters, 1 May)? What would they be then?

I can only assume he means saving emissions and, therefore, helping to combat climate change.

If that is their primary purpose then the time has come to stop building them as to continue for that reason is surely futile and most certainly challengeable.

There are no savings at proven all, just emissions wild claims based on calculations that do not include many of the relevant factors including miles of grid connection, workers from overseas, foreign components, their manufacture, mining and processing, decommissioning etc etc.

This industry has for too long got away with its “clean, free and green” propaganda.

Clean? Impossible if you consider the toxic wastelands where the tonnes of required rare earth minerals come from.

Free? Most certainly not as billions are paid out by the consumer for constraint payments, grid upgrades and subsidies.

Green? Well, that word has several meanings including naive and ignorant. To have unshakeable confidence in the “benefits” of wind power could certainly apply to the former.

To not bother to research the true facts yet appear to talk with authority about perceived benefits definitely applies to the latter. LYNDSEY WARD

Beauly

WHEN reading Aedán Smith’s letter from the RSPB objecting to wind farms in the Flow Country the phrase “chickens coming home to roost” sprang to mind.

In 2006 the RSPB, together with Historic Scotland, SEPA and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), objected to the Auchencorth wind farm proposal near Penicuik.

Objections were removed one by one with only SNH standing firm.

Thankfully, after five years two Government Reporters rejected the application at public inquiry.

After another wind farm rejection there is a third proposal only three miles away going to inquiry this month.

Five years on RSPB has declined to object. Penicuik Environment Protection Association is still fighting to preserve this beautiful area and the migration route of pink-footed geese close to Gladhouse reservoir.

I take some comfort that RSPB now knows what it is like to fight these multinationals backed by government.

RSPB already had to part with its green energy partner, SSE, in 2011 on difference of views but are now with Ecotricity and get £60 for every customer who switches gas and electricity.

I see this as a conflict of interest and feel badly let own by this organisation. CELIA HOBBS Peebles Road

Penicuik

Not satisfied with destroying St Andrew Square, now the council wants to ruin Charlotte Square. I wonder if the government will back it given that Bute House is a neighbour.

- Toby West

This seems like a good idea. What’s the point of it being closed off most of the year?

- Onwards

I trust more consideration for disabled and less able people will be incorporated into any layout. Entering the St Andrew Square gardens from the George Street end, wheelchair users are faced with two high steps and no ramp. A strange “oversight” for a recent project.

- Evkiedoo

I agree that opening up Charlotte Square is a good thing in terms of public access but I would much rather envisage it as a tranquil green oasis at the heart of the New Town than making big interventions to create an event-focused space (and I have to add that I think the book Festival looks utterly hideous). I think it should be based around creating some new paths and enhancing the planting.

- DW67

These are private gardens and if I was privileged enough to be one of the owners I certainly wouldn’t want this.

- El Capitano

If it ruins Charlotte Square why not have the book festival somewhere else? Meadowbank? The Meadows? Leith Links?

- Thatsasmaybebut

What a stupid idea to ruin another square. It will end up just like St Andrew Square – a mess. There is enough open space as it is.

- Dog

Let those who rent it be held responsible for returning it to its pristine glory after use. There’s no point trashing such a fine space permanently. The idea of a concrete implant makes one shudder.

- Agammemnon