Who gave councils this sort of power, anyway? Take my bins away, clean the streets, provide schools, etc. Otherwise leave us alone.

The trouble is that councils have a split function; one is to serve us, the bins and the like, and the other is to rule us, parking restrictions etc, and the institutional psychology needs looking at. Where they serve us, they are open to our anger, and have to do humiliating stuff like apologise. They don't like this: they prefer to rule us. Then we have to grovel to them. It's part of the reason political correctness has gone so far: because it's an area of power councils can exercise. This is why they want the power to reject our bins for being too full etc: we won't then be complaining, we'll just be grateful we passed the test to get it emptied this week.

Stop giving councils power. They enjoy it too much. It fundamentally changes our relationship with them.

Andrew Forbes, Thames Ditton, Surrey

Furthermore, how are councils policing this? Are they now employing their own film censors? Apart from all the other useless sinecures that soak up our council taxes, do we have councils employing their own film censorship departments, that duplicate work done by the central film censorship office (also at our expense).

Will they all stop wasting all our money.

Andrew Forbes, Thames Ditton, Surrey

I think they're all absolutely right - I have no children myself, but when I do I'll make sure that they see no one ever enjoying a cigarette. Its a good job that the smoking ban has stopped people smoking in private clubs or adult-only pubs, therefore pushing them onto the street. Now all we have to worry about is children walking down the street seeing all those smokers in the flesh.

Maybe the government can introduce a "seeing" ban on children - or is that too radical? Maybe just issue NHS blindfolds, so that children can't see their filthy habit. Thank God they are going to ban some Disney images. As a child, I tried my best to emulate Cruella De Vil - I know thats how I started smoking.

Next we have to tackle films where people drink alochol (to cut binge drinking), eat junk food (to combat unhealthy eating) and sit down (to fight the obesity epidemic). Maybe all 5 terrestrial channels can just play a continuous loop of Rosemary Conley videos.

Nanny state much?

Keith, London, England

Political correctness is eroding our ability to think independently, ironic given the smug pride with which many journos, critics, artists and politicians regard their own 'open mindedness' and 'liberal worldviews'. Moviemakers like Tarantino and Eli Roth make millions out of endlessly sickening torturefests and few with a platform to complain do so, unless the violence is portrayed as being motivated by hatred for a minority or 'oppressed group' (indiscriminate sadism is just fine). But scenes of tobacco-induced relaxation and pleasure are considered fit to ban for fear that the young may be 'corrupted'.

These are the same people who refuse to admit that single parent homes are less beneficial environments for the young in order not to upset feminist groups, even though fatherlessness seems to be a clear corruptive influence, given the greater number of fatherless young men in our prisons. And as for protecting teenagers? Frankly I'm more concerned about being protected from them.

Uncle Mort, Leeds, England

If the people of Liverpool are to be treated like children and now have to be over the age of 18 to watch films like Disney’s 101 Dalmatians (because a character smokes) then they only have themselves to blame. After all, did they not vote for this council of puritanical, patronising paternalists in the first place?

Liverpool’s elected leaders have turned the so-called “European city of culture” into a laughing stock. It's a good thing that scousers have a sense of humour - I can now see why.

Jason Mead, Bristol, England

If the ban was anything to do with encouraging health why would the Government have orgiinally backed a plan to exclude private members' clubs and pubs that do not serve food?

The ban is nothing but a distraction from more pressing agendas and a sop to satisfy a seemingly insatiable desire to suppress certain behaviour patterns of which the government and its related pressure groups do not approve.

How about banning bans?

Edwin, Bucharest,