BBC reporters ought to be impartial and not indulge in comments that "verge" on impudence and presumption.

I admire Prince Charles for his courage and convictions. He is passionate about conservation and has a deep knowledge and understanding of the natural world.

Prince Charles practices what he preaches: on his own estates, and through his active support for small, organic and free-range farms throughout the country. And all the profits from his Duchy Originals products go into the Prince's charitable trust, which does so much to help disadvantaged young people. His advocacy for natural food brings him into conflict with powerful pressure groups – particularly in the agro-chemicals industry.

He is a braveheart to take on the political business and scientific establishments; all of which are keen to promote GM crops.

The GM food lobby suggests that it is motivated by an altruistic desire to alleviate suffering and starvation in the Third World. This is fallacious. The Third World is bedevilled by internecine conflicts: civil wars and tribalism. These are continents in which despotism and tyranny, greed and corruption are rife.

Zimbabwe provides a classic case history. Before Robert Mugabe came to power, Zimbabwe (or Rhodesia, as it was then known) had a thriving agricultural industry. It was called the "bread basket of Africa." But Mugabe's despotism drove out the white farmers and impoverished the nation. Only when such countries are truly democratic and free, will agriculture prosper.

But the most powerful argument against GM food is that it is a Pandora's box: who knows what horrors it might unleash on the natural world?

The natural world has evolved over millions of years. It is not for scientists, however clever they assume themselves to be, to interfere with the genesis of nature. Everything in nature is interwoven, interrelated and interconnected; if you stick your fingers in that intricate web and break up the pattern, it may be destroyed for ever – and with potentially disastrous consequences.

Prince Charles is wise to warn us that we meddle with the very essence of nature at our peril.


Clegg's turbine policy is nothing but hot air


From: Jack Scott, Labour Party Parliamentary Candidate, Sheffield Hallam, Fitzhubert Road, Manor, Sheffield.

MY friends and I, who support the development of renewable energy, fell about laughing at the gall of Nick Clegg in proposing "a massive expansion of wind energy"(Yorkshire Post, August 22).

In Sheffield and throughout the country, Lib Dem councillors have inevitably opposed every application for a wind-farm. Even single wind turbines have been opposed by short-sighted Lib Dems on the grounds of visual intrusion, noise, size, access and even their colour. People might be able to find an exception to this somewhere, but it will be the exception that proves the rule.

The Lib Dem record is clear and they cannot run away from it now.

So, perhaps Nick Clegg can tell us precisely where he intends wind-farms and individual turbines to be located and confirm that Lib Dem councillors will now eat their words and support these developments locally.

In the absence of this, Mr Clegg doesn't have a wind-power policy, just a hot-air policy!

From: Ken Cooke, Wheatley Road, Ilkley.

I WAS travelling along the A59 west of Harrogate and couldn't avoid noticing the eight new wind turbines at Felliscliffe. It was an average sort of day: not too windy, not too still, with showers threatening. I just wondered why not all the turbines were turning.

In fact, three were stationary, blotting the landscape yet producing nothing. When we need all the energy we can produce, why was 37.5 per cent of this facility idle?

I have noticed a similar situation at Chelker reservoir, Draughton near Skipton, where four turbines were installed some 10 years ago. Very rarely are all blades turning. In fact, it would surprise me if any two were active for 12 months of the year. The owners claim these turbines are outdated and need to be replaced with much bigger ones. Saints preserve us!


Political interference has left justice in chaos


From: RC Curry, Adel Grange Close, Leeds.

THE pronouncement by Chris Huhne (Yorkshire Post, August 7) that young people should "not be criminalised" comes poorly from a politician.

For at least the last three decades, especially the last one and in the name of reducing crime, politicians of most persuasions have interfered with the course of justice, which has brought us to the present state of affairs.

Before Huhne says the
Lib Dems have not been in power, he should recall that his colleagues would have voted on the various Acts, so they have contributed to the chaos.

Huhne's idea of "panels of local people" has been there for centuries. They are called magistrates and they come from all parts of every city,
town and country area so
they are well aware of public feeling.

In addition, the local police, of distant memory, had the power to decide of their own volition what was a matter to be reprimanded or taken to court.

Such has been the interference by politicians, their inept advisors and the bureaucrats, together with a vast array of unnecessary
laws, directives and now guidelines, that such simple operations are beyond the scope of the system. Even CPS Direct has been invented to try to do what used to be done as a matter of course.

The only policy required in respect of law and order is a vow from any aspiring government to do nothing other than dispense with the majority of these interferences and let the police, CPS, courts, probation, prisons and social services get on with their tasks.

Furthermore, don't just target the young who learn by example; one police officer standing on any traffic light corner would be able to write down the numbers of cars whose adult drivers are using a mobile phone.

They could be before the court the next day in former years. Why not now? Even a "ticket penalty" would be better than letting them get away
with it.

Re-inventing the wheel is not necessary.