WHY anyone, other than paedophiles, liberalising do-gooders, and maybe a few homosexuals, should feel "incensed" by B Stuart's letter on the decline of moral standards, is beyond me.

Mrs Stuart explains her case clearly. Through liberalising do-gooders, she tells us, our moral standards have been, and are being, eroded.

Paedophiles can legally lay their hands on 16-year-olds, now that the age of consent has been lowered. And if some people get their way, the age will be lowered even further.

Mrs Stuart's letter should be food for thought for all decent people.

Why then should S Elster react in such a way as to call Mrs Stuart a self-righteous, religious, homophobic bigot? Why should he/she feel so incensed?

S Elster says: "We live in a democracy and legislation, in general, reflects the wishes of the majority."

Would I be right in thinking that by this he/she is referring to the age of consent?

Does the fact that Mrs Stuart can see the dangers in which this legislation places young, vulnerable people, when dealing with older men and women incense S Elster?

Maybe S Elster sees no wrong either, in todays obsession with homosexuality, or pornographic books, films and TV programmes. Maybe the lowering of family values means nothing to him/her.

Maybe S Elster could explain why he/she should feel so incensed by a letter that rings so true.

Brian Derbyshire

Ribchester Grove

Bolton