Dear Editor,

Thank you first for a good read of your paper.

My daughter has just returned from a visit to the Westcountry in her camper van.

She stayed in Minehead, where I was born in 1931 in 16 Woodcombe, which I know about, with lots of memories.

So, to encourage more people to visit Minehead area they should know more about it.

North Hill, for instance, should be better known about.

As children, it was our playground, we built hideaways in the woods.

Park up in Woodcombe and walk up into the valley kids, and older people would love it.

Tell them about the smugglers who used to come down from Quicksey Caves and make people say indoors until they were gone, and every year there used to be big fights between Woodcombe and Higher Town gangs until the police stopped it years ago.

My grandmother used to tell us about this.

North Hill has so much to offer, drive up to the end of the rad and look down on Porlock, or walk down to Selworthy’s thatch village, ad on the way backstop and look down at the Bristol Channel and see the two humps, one Devil’s Hump, the other on the left Quicksey Hump.

Walk down and find Quicksey Caves and old farm houses, we found a large earthenware jar once in a cave.

We lit a fire on the beach once, a Spitfire flew over us, we waved, and he dipped his wings.

Kid would love the walk down there, and walk over and see Woodcombe as you come back along the road.

I wrote a book once of my life called ‘Growing Up’, it was not published.

Oh, well, but fun to do.

So, to Minehead and the beach, why oh why cannot the council replace the pool on the beach?

It used to be packed with kids as the tide goes out too far to take the kids.

But, I expect they will have to think about it while on holiday.

Jim Bowden

Vines Place, Weymouth

Dear Editor,

I have been away visiting family for a couple of weeks, so missed the letter from Anthony Jones to Nigel Padfield (Fri, April 10), but have got the gist of the original message. Furthermore, I agree with every word Nigel wrote.

I personally began my employment a few weeks after my fifteenth birthday and retired on my sixty-fifth. Never out of work, I'll take this as near to 50 years as one can get.

What pension detractors do not seem to realise, is a simple fact! This is if my lifespan was to reach 90 years - which is by no means a certainty, as a fair few of my contemporaries are no longer with us - I will have been in receipt of my pension for just 25 years (90 to 65). Therefore, I will have paid taxes for 25 years for no benefit to me or mine (50 to 25). This situation also applies to millions of other retirees.

It actually peeves me when my pension is categorised as a benefit. We were informed that our national insurance and taxes were meant to pay for our pensions. It is no fault of ours that this money was not ringfenced by our extravagant political class who dished out overseas aid purely to enhance their own personal international standing - and to countries that hate Britain.

Moreover, for those who believe our pensions are too high - take a look online at the OECD table. Of 50 developed countries - UK is second-bottom; only South Africans are worse.

Jim Sokol by email

Dear Editor,

Once again, the issue of non-stun slaughter (such as halal and kosher) has hit the headlines – and again we’re missing the bigger picture.

The question is not whether animals should be stunned before they are killed, it’s why we’re killing them at all. The outcome is always the same: killing an individual who does not want to die. That is true regardless of the method or reason, whether it’s for food, entertainment, or animals used in laboratories.

There is also a double standard at play. While religious slaughter is singled out, routine cruelty escapes the same scrutiny. Is testing pharmaceuticals on animals not just as horrific as slaughter? What about the horses who die at the Grand National? Farms are also places of constant confinement, where mutilations, cannibalism and psychological suffering are rife – and that’s before reaching the slaughterhouse.

The debate about non-stun slaughter is merely distraction dressed up as a moral concern. If we’re truly a nation of animal lovers, we must question the whole system of owning, exploiting, and killing animals.

Readers can learn more about animal freedom at www.animalaid.org.uk/animalrights

Elizabeth Davenport

Senior campaign manager, Animal Aid

Have you noticed that the authors of articles against net zero offer opinions but rarely solid evidence to back up their claims? But where do they get their ideas?

These opinions are then cynically amplified by Reform and other political parties (financially supported by oil and gas interests) who voice negative views about net zero, despite the scientific consensus that reducing harmful fossil fuel emissions is crucial to minimise climate change.

We must not be overwhelmed by this tsunami of false information driven by the oligarchs profiting from business as usual and the “drill baby drill” mantra; nor should we be taken in by false political prophets; or the misguided opinions echoed in newspaper letters. Let’s not forget there is still strong public support for both net zero and the individual climate policies behind it. Please stand firm for what you know and what science and research state to be true and please carefully consider the evidence rather than be manipulated by propaganda.

Ms J Shaw, via email