ONCE again your correspondent intervenes with a tendentious, vicarious quote of other persons’ (probably equally tendentious) opinions of fracking.

Where is the substantive evidence-based proof to validate any of the aforementioned opinions?

It is like an officious roadsafety zealot, earnestly entreating all and sundry, with the advice ‘Never cross a road on foot, for you surely will be in collision with a motor vehicle’.

Like those people who mistakenly (or otherwise) impute anthropogenic input as the cause of global ‘warming’, those who are anti-fracking never seem to be prepared to accept that the realities do not align with their opinions.

If one is going to declaim against fracking it must be in a way which is backed by science and fact and not by the means that left wing environmentalism has for so long been permitted to apply in hijacking the debate on anthropogenic (so called) global warming – it requires a lot more than incessant, biased, unbalanced innuendo and wild stories.

Paddy Keenan, Ward Close, Andover.