King should follow his mother's lead and ignore Harry and Meghan

Outrageous denial of free speech

YESTERDAY (December 15), in an incident which can only be described as an embarrassment for Edinburgh University, freedom of speech was defeated by a handful of students who felt entitled to physically block and verbally abuse attendees wishing to see the screening of a documentary and take part in a subsequent discussion. Regrettably, it seems that there were no sufficient security arrangements which would have ensured that those wishing to see the film were able to access the venue unmolested and the event to go ahead.

The film in question is titled Adult Human Female. It features interviews mainly with women from diverse backgrounds in which they share their views on women's rights, boundaries based on sex and the experience of being silenced when expressing their concerns. However, the documentary has been labelled by some as "transphobic" and "hate propaganda". It is available online, free to see for everyone to make up their own mind about it. After watching it I fail to detect which parts exactly are transphobic or hateful. My personal view is that the vast majority of people would find little to disagree with.

Maybe this is actually the reason for the attempts to deny the documentary a live audience and discussion because it might lead to the discovery that the women featuring in the film either have a point or at least should be listened to. Hence the need to pressurise event organisers to cancel the screening. In Nottingham, for example, the film was cancelled due to pressure from trans activists. In a Twitter exchange the comment of one supporter of such cancellations couldn't have been any clearer: "No one has the right to screen this film, which is by definition foisting it on others."

Apparently, this is also the attitude of the protesters at Edinburgh University. Yet this means to overlook two things. Firstly, the film isn't foisted on anyone, people go there voluntarily. Secondly, event organisers have every right to screen the film and it is the civic right of attendees to see and discuss it. There is a word for describing the actions designed to suppress these rights and to forceably deny others to exercise them: totalitarian.
Regina Erich, Stonehaven

• I NOTE a brief piece by Brian Donnelly reporting that the first purpose-built sporting hotel in Scotland was "celebrating” the appointment of an all-female top management team ("‘First purpose-built sporting hotel’ appoints all-female top team", The Herald, December 13)

So much for diversity then?
Keith Swinley, Ayr

Kirk is letting down the people

I BECAME a member of the Church of Scotland 72 years ago, and have served as an elder for many years, some of them as session clerk ("Dwindling congregations leave Church of Scotland with a different mission", The Herald, December 10 and Letters, December 13 & 14). However, I worked for many years in England where I was an honorary Methodist/Congregational. I have come to the sad conclusion that the Presbyterial system is not relevant any more – indeed the whole governance of the Church is hundreds of years out of date. Congregations have no autonomy in comparison with our friends the Baptists, who can decide for themselves when to (for example) put new windows in their church if they can afford them, whereas we have to refer to Presbytery and 121 for permission.

With regard to the closure of churches in Islay, our congregation is one of the fortunate ones, although we are losing our hall which is central to and the focus of a lot of village life. It is in bad condition and we have been unable to raise funding and that is another story.

All the churches in Islay, bar the Round Church which is involved with Historic Scotland, are in good condition, owe no money and pay their dues to 121. What therefore continues to puzzle me and many others, including visiting locums, is why two of them, Telford buildings, are designated for closure.

The Kirk seems to think more of business and accountancy than groups of people who use the buildings. What was the original church but little gatherings of worshippers?
Dorothy Dennis, Port Ellen

Transport plan is a pipedream

AS espoused by Stuart Patrick ("Clyde Metro project must remain a priority", The Herald, December 14) the grandly entitled Scottish Government's Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR2) is just that. All political fervour and it certainly will not attain any progression to reach the equally mystical 2030 net zero target apart from yet more hot air expended on it.

The City of Glasgow has had transport projects ad nauseam over decades, commencing with aspirations in the immediate afterglow of the Second World War in 1945 followed by the 1949 Inglis Commission Report published in 1951; only now, 70-odd years on, making the final recommendation come to pass with the painfully-slow electrification of the East Kilbride line.

The portents for any transport developments for that given mention or indeed throughout Scotland that are otherwise detailed in this review are fraught with the economic and financial problems that will loom even larger on the political front for reasons all too obvious.
John Macnab, Falkirk

A burning issue

I SYMPATHISE with Margaret Pennycook (Letters, December 15) in her quest to buy Scottish where possible. I recently purchased a bag of logs in a desperate attempt to ward off the vagaries of the weather and the extortion of my power supplier. The logs were branded "carbon-neutral", which went some way to salving the greener parts of my conscience.

Closer inspection revealed the logs were from Latvia.

Have we run out of trees? What is the Forestry Commission for? And how do logs get from Latvia to Coatbridge and remain "carbon-neutral"?
Steve Brennan, Coatbridge

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.