The only people who are not idiots are those laughing all the way to the bank with the money they make off the ads. Quit whining and rid the place of the neopuritan busybodies who make society so uncivilized.

Joe Yull, Healdsburg, California

jerym omits to mention the need for early education by parents (or those in loco parentis) in the basics of responsible behaviour. Schools are too often expected to fill the gaps left by inadequate parents.

pob, London,

The unintended consequence of all these Government-as-Nanny messages will be a citizenry that learns to tune out pretty much anything the government has to say—if they haven't done so already.

rob earl, new york, ny, USA

The solution to this is the same as for many of the other problems in our society. Early education in infant & primary schools in the basics of responsible behaviour in life.

jerym, caerphilly, u.k.

Scotland has a whole series of ads designed to stop people from drinking too much, smoking and eating unhealthily. They were commissioned about five years ago, and a study done about 2 years ago found that, in fact, there had been no change in Scottish eating, drinking and smoking habits. In fact, I believe that they found more people had taken up smoking.

I look forward to the day when going to the cinema does not involve 10 minutes of mind-numbingly violent ads about drunk people climbing scaffolding and children being hit by cars. That's not what I go to the movies to see.

Lisa, London,

When he says " Ads we pay for as taxpayers, the sole purpose of which is to instruct idiots not to behave like idiots", Stephen Pollard doesn't quite get it right.

He should have said "Ads we pay for as taxpayers, the sole purpose of which is to pay idiots to instruct idiots not to behave like idiots."

HJ, Reading, UK

Perhaps during the next general election Labour party flyers should be rquired to carry the message "Warning. This party are intent on denying your autonomy and mean to leglislate around any sense of individual responsiblity you may have." Why is it that governments and political parties are not required to advertise the dangers that they pose, be they military, economic, social or moral? The Labour party seem to have nothing but condescending contempt for the very public that, of their own free will, elected them to begin with.

John-Mark Glover, Mid Calder,

Please don't bother asking Ian Whittell to report on anymore football matches involving West Ham United. He is clearly unable to keep his prejudices under control.

As a West Ham fan I fully agree that both our goals at Blackburn would not have stood if replay technology had been used. But to widen the debate from two bad decisions into the financial implications for several premier league clubs is completely ridiculous.

What about the cost of other decisions that have gone against West Ham? What about other penalty decisions throughout the Premiership this season? Time and time again we see the benefits teams get from their players falling over in the penalty area. West Ham have been awarded two penalties all season. Many other teams must be close to double figures. The many decisions that have gone the way of Everton, Man U and Arsenal etc will have a far greater impact on how the Premierships profits are distributed this year than one result involving the bottom club.

Paul Mitchell, Perranporth, UK

I think the number of adverts/warnings concerning 'common-sense' issues is completely over the top. The money would be better spent on the simplification of government communications on issues more central to public administration, such as the benefits and healthcare systems. We can't and shouldn't be constantly hand-holding.

Alice Casey, Islington,

We are way ahead of you, here in the States... (we call it nanny government)... everytime a kid wanders away from home, my cable TV is interrupted for 3 minutes, warning me to be on the alert... no matter it's 500 miles from where I live! Worse yet., we have practice runs that last 3 minutes, also! No lost kid, just tuning the system up! Just in case!) Soon we will be able to sue the guy who made us fat! Oh joy! Beer and wine bottles were labeled for years "The State of California has found this to be carcinogenic.. or teratogenic..."... some such thing... the obvious conclusion: Don't drink it in California! Go across the state line and you will be safe!

Tony Francis , Wichita, KS/USA

I've sometimes disagreed with Stephen Pollard but this time I reckon he's spot-on. Is there any evidence that smokers take any notice of the warnings on packets? But worse than Ms Flint's threat is the clear hint from an "expert" last week that, just because some people can't drink responsibly, we should all pay more for our alcohol, despite the huge duty it already carries - in my case, for the pleasure of a couple of glasses of wine with my meal.

Barry, Wallington, UK

Reference the warnings on cigarette packs, a long and painful death is more likely to be caused by a New Labour government hectoring us for ever on the dangers of living

Minnie Ovens, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Oh I don't know, the sort of warnings you might get could be quite amusing like the ones on cigarette packets are. Take for example the "Smokers may die a long and painful death", this is a possibility but whats more likely is a very quick and massive coronary, however not smoking and staying fit and healthy will pretty much guarantee me a very long and painful drawn out death with dementia to boot.

You just need to see the funny side.

Rob, Birmingham, UK

It used to be called 'common sense', which appears to be a very rare commodity these days.It goes back to the first years of life. Parents should instil good values and the ability to use good old common sense into their children before they attend any formal schooling. There would then be less need for many of these asinine warning labels.

Peter, Brixham, Devon