I believe pornography is fuelling the rise in attacks on women

The rise in attacks on women and girls is, in my opinion, being fuelled by internet pornography. Sexual violence has always existed, but the level of extreme content available at the touch of a finger seems to me the driving reason behind this crisis.

It’s difficult in a free society to censure, but some things simply cannot be tolerated (child pornography, for example). So can we not block certain content with the cooperation of the providers?

Young boys are being introduced to sex online with a potentially worrying level of depravity. These children are tomorrow’s adults. Do we want to see this worrying trend of violence, harassment and debasement increasing generation upon generation?

I’ve always accepted that you have to live with the bad things on the internet in order to glory in its amazing advantages, but must this include every vile thing humans are capable of?

Lynn Brymer

Woodchurch, Kent

The cabinet is desperately looking around for ideas to address the cost of living crisis, without spending further government (or should I say taxpayers’) money.

I have a suggestion: recover the estimated £17bn of taxpayers’ money lost to fraudulent Covid payments, and recover the furlough cash given to companies that made huge profits or (like P&O) sacked their employees anyway, proving they were not using the money to retain staff.

This money was paid by us, working people who do not use tax avoidance schemes (be they legal), in the expectation that our government would use the money in a principled, sensible, cost-effective way to ensure that people in this country have the basics required for a reasonable standard of living – health, education, transport, housing, fuel, food...

Our money is wasted, and then ministers come up with ideas to remove regulations that help protect our safety.

Katherine Powell

Cheshire

Ed Dorrell highlights the climate emergency as the dominant concern for teenagers.

With young people feeling there is little or nothing being done to arrest impending climate disaster, it is imperative they gain knowledge of both the challenge and the actions needed to address it.

Clearly, schools play a vital role in teaching young people about this issue and it is no coincidence that more young people are now studying Geography, which includes climate change in its curriculum. There were 285,000 candidates for last year’s GCSEs – compared to 180,000 a decade ago.

A greater understanding of green careers can also show young people how to take positive action to help address their climate concerns. However, research undertaken by the Royal Geographical Society shows that such careers don’t currently feature prominently among young people when considering their futures. Seeking a career where “I can address environmental/social concerns” polled at 14 per cent – compared to earning a good salary, finding the right job or a job in general (51 per cent, 44 per cent, and 37 per cent, respectively).

Jobs in the green economy will include working on the infrastructure needed for net zero and reducing the carbon impact of supply chains. They will include roles in green finance and as environmental lawyers. And they will include the mapping, management and protection of our biodiversity, among many other things.

This breadth of green careers will help us move to a net zero economy. But achieving this requires greater attention to how we might better engage the next generation with greener career choices, choices that will be personally rewarding for them and achieve the sustainability needed for us all.

Steve Brace

London

It seems impossible to escape the endless rhetoric, threats, counter-threats and horrors regarding the war in Ukraine. And yet I hear no voices calling for de-escalation and dialogue.

It strikes me that Nato’s only aim is to goad Russia into a nuclear war by adding fuel to the fire that is already out of control. For our foreign secretary to be openly saying that the war may well last some 10 years is simply shameless and unforgivable.

Gunter Straub

London

Jacob Rees-Mogg says that imposing the checks on imports, which was part of “getting Brexit done”, would be an act of self-harm. Well, who could have predicted that?

This from the minister in charge of Brexit opportunities, who has had to ask the public if they have any ideas that might help. Looks like “project fear” may have been right all along.

Geoff Forward

Stirling

There is a scalable, reversible and less self-damaging replacement for outright bans on Russian goods and services, including oil and gas: tariffs.

This eliminates government excuses that pricing or payments are commercial decisions and a get-out to avoid pain from bans. Meanwhile, it would still send a clear signal to Putin and to commercial ventures dealing with Russia.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

It also is a step towards giving a signal, as unpalatable as it may be, that we may offer a “golden bridge” to Putin if he wishes to de-escalate.

But in the long term, governments really must address the problem of unreliability. Do we really wish to put our energy security in the hands of a man who commits blackmail and such graven acts of war to further his ends? And isn’t it about time that Russia loses its permanent seat and veto on the UN Security Council, now that it resorts to nuclear threats at the drop of a hat and bombards a city while the UN chief is visiting? A seat it usurped from the Soviet Union.

Ian Henderson

Norfolk