I'm fed up with people saying that over-65s shouldn't have the right to vote

Geoffrey Downs (Letters, 2 August) proposes that over-65s should not be permitted to vote. To select any group within society and withdraw a fundamental right – which has been hard fought for over many centuries – on the basis that you think they haven’t got as big a stake as others, is profoundly discriminatory.

If Downs had suggested that any other section of our diverse society be denied a vote on the basis that he didn’t like their position in society, he would be rightly condemned. To deny older people a vote is no different.

This attitude, which has gained much support over the past two years, is undiluted bigotry and no different from racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. It is deeply chilling how it is so often casually stated in current debate. The tide of universal suffrage is under threat from many sides, and such letters add to the threat.

One person, one vote: always.

Peter Cunningham, 63-year-old Remain voter
Bath

Does Geoffrey Downs from Bradford seriously think that pensioners only vote with a view to what will be of benefit to us? Get real! Most of us consider ourselves to be an extremely blessed generation, but we are very aware of how hard it is for those coming after us.

I have two daughters and two sons-in-law, plus one grandson. When I voted it was particularly with my grandson in mind, not myself!

Susan Taylor
​Pitchcombe

Like Geoffrey Downs I am over 65, voted Remain and want to give the vote to people aged 16. But not at the expense of votes for older people.

I treasure my vote and have used it wisely. If Geoffrey wants to diminish the influence of older people, let him abstain at election times – but it’s unfair to take the vote away from the rest of us.

Francis Beswick
​Stretford

Your leader on “recreational drug use” makes sense that many would agree with, but politicians seem unable to take bold measures. While happy to drink alcohol, I have not used drugs – but obviously know many who have. My clear view is that we are wasting money and resources by criminalising an activity that many want to pursue.

It’s time to grow up and decriminalise drug use, so that drugs can be sold that are checked, safe and taxed. It works on smoking, which kills far more than drugs, at 79,000 in 2014. Long term, a similar approach could be used to that of smoking, which is now down to just 15 per cent of the population. Increase taxes and save lives – a policy that politicians would love!

Dennis Allen
Woodstock

The news of the continued rise of drug-related deaths is shocking – more so because the Government’s very recently published drugs strategy has no plan to combat this. It also simply does not go far enough in prioritising harm-reduction initiatives, such as needle and syringe programmes, Opioid Substitution Therapy and drug consumption rooms that help people take drugs more safely to prevent serious harm or death. Over half of deaths from drug poisonings are as a result of heroin or morphine – so wider provision of harm reduction is vitally needed, particularly for people who inject drugs.

Harm reduction initiatives can help people not only take drugs more safely but can act as a vehicle by which to move people into care. A lack of focus on these initiatives is especially troubling when you consider that over half of drug-related deaths happen to people not currently accessing treatment. This rise in deaths is a clear statement that the Government’s current approach on tackling drug misuse is simply not working.

This is happening in the context of further cuts to local authorities’ public health budgets, which is having a dramatic impact upon the quality and accessibility of drug treatment services – the very services needed to keep people alive. Local authorities are not even required by law to provide drug services, and soon these services will become even more vulnerable to cuts.

People who inject drugs are a marginalised group, and the Government has a moral obligation to support them.

Deborah Gold, Chief Executive of the National AIDS Trust

Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s comments on Tuesday that “real people” don’t care if apps like WhatsApp keep their messages private, show she has not taken the time to learn even the basics of encryption since she began her tirade against tech companies. Having lived and worked in both the UK and Silicon Valley, I know these important issues matter not just to a few, but in fact to many “real people”!

What Rudd fails to understand is that encryption is fundamental to the success of the UK economy, from banking to trading, to e-commerce, and encrypted messaging apps are just the tip of the iceberg. Moreover, when the messages the public send securely contain banking details, or medical information, I have no doubt “real people” definitely do care about this disregard for their right to privacy.

Rudd has highlighted her own shortcomings in understanding the basic workings of encryption. The “reality” of end-to-end encryption means tech companies are unable to give access – it is not simply “theory” but the laws of mathematics that make breaking encryption impossible without a backdoor, which would leave systems accessible to cybercriminals as well as law enforcement. Rudd is proposing to make the public safer from terrorists – with no proof removing encryption will have an impact – while leaving them at the mercy of cybercriminals.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new in the UK. For well over a decade, Labour and Conservative governments have propagated misunderstandings about the technology and law enforcement that in fact makes the UK economy so successful. From RIPA to the Snooper’s Charter, governments have in fact been weakening competitiveness of UK business. In the age of Brexit, this must change! The UK will not be given a pass for long in the global economy.

Kevin Bocek, VP security strategy and threat intelligence, Venafi

As an American-Jordanian woman and a physician-scientist who advocates for women’s health and wellbeing, I am relieved they are repealing the marry-your-rapist law in Jordan. This law is repugnant; it reflects the iniquity of male dominance and the misplaced burdens of honour and property inflicted upon women.

I choose not to call it a law; as laws in a constitution exist to honour citizens, including raped women, and protect their liberties. It is not a law – it is a constitutional misstep and a humanitarian gaffe. It is time to not only repeal but also replace this misstep: rapists must be held back and convicted for this crime with the appropriate punishment, and women must be supported emotionally, psychologically and physically to survive this trauma.

Balkees Abderrahman
Texas, USA

The report showing that schools need 50 years to close the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and richer pupils is saddening, but not shocking. While the attainment gap is slowly closing, deaf children on free school meals face a long struggle as they are doubly disadvantaged by the combination of disability and poverty.

Government data shows just a third of children on free school meals get five GCSEs at grade A*-C – and less than a quarter of deaf children on free school meals achieve this. We also know from the new Progress 8 measure that deaf children not only start school at a disadvantage, but fall even further behind throughout their education.

Clearly the current education system is failing some of the most vulnerable, and further research is crucial if we are to better understand how to effectively support these children and close the attainment gap sooner.

Ian Noon, Head of Policy and Research, National Deaf Children’s Society

Having read Rob Merricks’ report that most older Leave voters say economic damage is a “price worth paying” for Brexit, I couldn’t help wondering if any thought had been given to the ramifications of “significant damage to the economy” and the impact on pensions and state welfare?

As a first step will we, state pensioners, give up the “triple lock” or will we be content to see increased taxation on a reduced work force? Will the better off amongst us be prepared to pay more tax on our pensions?

Surely, “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” and I have yet to be convinced that “the grass is greener on the other side”.

Brian Phillips
Ilkley