Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments.
'The image of control', reader comments on the Peter Kyle's response to the Online Safety Act
I may not be a fan of Nigel Farage but it’s ludicrous of government minister Peter Kyle to claim the Reform UK leader is siding with sex abusers by opposing online protection for children (Metro, Wed).
The Reform leader is among hundreds of thousands signing a petition to repeal the Online Safety Act in trying to defend free speech against the totalitarian degree of checks the act entails.
And when technology secretary Kyle admits that people can get around it all with VPN tools that hide where the user is logging on from and yet refuses to do anything about them, it just shows this is not about protection but about the image of control – trying to dictate what we can see.
If Kyle and Labour continue to ignore the fallout of this decision and keep trying to pretend that only predators are pushing back on this, it’s going to end up hurting them massively in the polls – especially among the 16- and 17-year olds they want to give the vote to. Matthew, Birmingham
‘Unleashing his ‘anything goes’ Trumpian free-market nirvana’, reader comments on Farage
Forgive me if I don’t shed any of my own over Farage’s crocodile tears.
Kyle’s exact words may have been misjudged but his moral argument was right about protecting our young people online.
Farage, meanwhile, has no morality beyond stirring up division and unleashing his ‘anything goes’ Trumpian free-market nirvana on us, making him and his cronies even richer and our society ever more damaged and divided.
Throughout history there have always been sinister characters who crave attention by any means. They know spreading misinformation about tragic events stirs division and hate and brings them this attention. This is the toxic atmosphere in which they thrive but at other people’s expense.
Farage is doing exactly this in stirring up the anti-immigration protests in Essex right now. Has history taught us nothing? Guy Wilkins, Richmond
Got a question about UK politics?
Send in yours and Metro’s Senior Politics Reporter Craig Munro will answer it in an upcoming edition of our weekly politics newsletter. Email alrightgov@metro.co.uk or submit your question here.
Reader asks, why immigrants don’t stop in safe countries?
Helen Shaw (MetroTalk, Tue) asks why immigrants risk their lives to cross the Channel in small boats to come here. Why does no politician of any side answer why it is they do not stop at any of the safe countries they cross to get to this one? Leslie Dyche, Stourbridge
‘Hotel in the UK, it’s a no-brainer’, reader comments of the treatment of immigrants
Given the choice of living in a squalid campsite in France or a hotel in the UK, it’s a no-brainer. We treat immigrants better than anyone in Europe. Anthony Cooper, Bolton
Is the UK a ‘soft option’ for immigration?
Why are most of those making the crossing young, able-bodied men?
Why do they not stop in France rather than risk their lives at sea?
Why throw away passports?
The fact is the UK offers a massive black economy for economic and illegal immigrants, whether working in restaurants, factories or as delivery riders etc.
The UK is seen as a soft option for immigration compared with the Middle East and mainland Europe. While successive governments refuse to make the harsh decisions needed, it will continue unabated. Neil Greenfield, London
Aren’t luxuries ‘the point of earning £100k?’ says reader
Marc (MetroTalk, Wed) appears to have little sympathy for those earning £100,000-plus who say they are ‘trapped by their financial outgoings’.
He says if they are feeling the squeeze, they should simply ‘get rid of some of the luxuries you have come to see as essentials’.
But isn’t that the point of earning £100k? According to HMRC data, the top five per cent of earners – roughly equivalent to those earning £100k – pay 47 per cent of all income tax.
If they can’t afford nice things and decide that they can’t be bothered with the long hours and stress etc of a highly paid job, we’re going to lose huge amounts of tax income that we need to pay for our public services. CJ Hill, via email