ANOTHER day, another story (or two) condemning the BBC for failing to serve their viewers (BBC editors told to reveal allegiances of guests after complaint, June 25).

It’s becoming clearer with each complaint and each condescending answer that the BBC is not able to reform itself.

READ MORE: BBC editors told to reveal allegiances of guests in landmark ruling

Its role is to protect the British establishment – not to deliver unbiased news or anything else. The BBC will gladly accept all the complaints sent in and, more often than not, carry on with their mission of promoting the British establishment.

Look how easy a ride they’ve given Boris Johnson – no difficult questions for him, no raised concerns about the police being called out to his home. Imagine that was Nicola Sturgeon -– or even Jeremy Corbyn – in the same circumstances?

Not only would it be on every news report but there would be special programmes on television and radio running for hours about it.

Just last week there was a boycott the BBC day – essentially a response to them slashing the free TV licences for over-75s (pictured). And what impact has this or complaining ever had? Nothing – the BBC carries on regardless. If the BBC is not able to reform then let’s ditch it.

Let’s plan for a true Scottish Broadcasting Company – one that reflects all the voices of Scotland, one that focuses on the real issues of importance in Scotland and one that reflects Scottish society as a whole. If anyone is addicted to Eastenders or such like then such programmes can be bought in – just like every other country in the world does; but let’s not let the fate of our country’s broadcasting future rest with the BBC.

Cllr Kenny MacLaren
Paisley

MUCH as I loathe capitalism and its defenders, I frequently find myself defending Michael Fry, simply because I recognise his right to his opinion, and also recognise that there will be conservatives in our free Scotland and they will be equal citizens with the rest of us.

However, there are times when his lack of consistency irritates to the point where I often cannot believe he has dared to make statements which are so contrary to the way a great many of us are trying to go.

Today’s example (Capitalism and the digital economy is bringing all of the world together, June 25) is where he reveals to us, that, “Scotland is no more capable of stopping (the digital economy) by itself than of reversing climate change by itself”.

He goes on to say – and here, I profoundly disagree – “better to board the global bus than be left standing and watching it vanish into the distance with its payload of happy consumers”.

READ MORE: Boohoo’s fast fashion should be praised for connecting people globally

Since he makes the comparison, and included it with a comment on climate change I felt entitled to question him.

Even if those “global bus” consumers are also continuing to ignore climate change, he appears to be saying that it is OK to join that same group of “happy consumers”, because we will be left behind.

Michael put them both together, to make his point and I certainly want to separate them, as he is not comparing like with like.

The conclusion he seems to arrive at, by putting both subjects together appears to be: we don’t make a stand against climate change, because he prefers us to be “happy passengers”.

I certainly think we – even if it is only ourselves – should stand against climate change.

Does Michael really think we should get on the bus with the “happy consumers”? After all, it is “happy” consumption which has contributed so much to the present state of our earth.

Perhaps unnecessary consumption is the real cause of the problem.

I remember many many years ago, being convinced of the socialist argument that if the quality is of the best, but they all look the same, it was not necessarily a bad thing, as quality trumped looks every time.

The argument against that at the same time, by capitalism, was that no one wanted “drab uniformity”. Well it doesn’t have to be drab to be uniform, does it; especially if it is made to the highest standard?

Harry Bickerstaff
St Cyrus

HAVING just finished reading Michael Fry’s article, I can only hope he is being the devil’s advocate in what he writes. Has he no understanding of the sweat shops whose employees earn less than a dollar a day producing fashion items for Western consumers? Does he acknowledge the pollution caused by the fashion industry is second only to the oil industry?

His criticism of the Green Party shows he lacks understanding of the dangerous anthropogenic era in which we are living and his reference to Scotland as a backwater suggests he should apply to be Boris Johnson’s speech writer.

Jane Bullock
Via text