Letters: Unjust 'terrorism' affair

Unjust threat to deport students in 'terrorism' affair

Last week 11 men were arrested. Students were thrown to the ground, handcuffed and humiliated in an operation involving hundreds of officers, many of them armed ("Nine held after terror raids face deportation" 22 April).

Gordon Brown himself abused proper legal process by prejudging their guilt and announcing a "very big terrorist plot". Now we are told that, for nine of them, although there is no evidence of any kind to present in a court of law, they are still to be treated as guilty and deported.

Doubtless, the Home Office hoped that these grossly unjust actions would be ignored in the hullabaloo over the Budget. We must not let them get away with it. Anyone who believes in the importance in a democracy of presuming innocence, of requiring the authorities to produce evidence before they punish anyone, and of fair and open legal process, should not only protest as loudly as they can against what has already happened to these students, but should challenge the unfair threat to deport them. It is no more than a cynical attempt to smear these people so as to cover up Home Office incompetence.

Charge them, or free them today to continue their studies.

Dr Stephen Bax

Canterbury

How convenient: deport the Pakistani students on the grounds of "national security"; then there is no need for the troublesome task of producing evidence of their alleged crimes, and there will be no scrutiny as to whether the warnings by the Government and police of a dangerous terrorist plot were justified.

However, if they are deported, and it is correct that they are a danger to national security, they can continue their dangerous activities in Pakistan. How much better if they were to be tried in this country and imprisoned, if guilty, rather than allowed to do so.

Ian Pye

Ludgvan, Cornwall

Nurse barred for backing patients

In respect of the Margaret Haywood case, it seems to me that the UK Nursing and Midwifery Council is more concerned with using its powers to terrorise nurses who have genuine concern for their patients into not speaking out and damaging the name of the "profession" rather than protecting the public from harm.

In 2007 a nurse took a series of what I consider to be negligent or incompetent actions that could have caused my wife, who was a patient in a NHS hospital, serious harm. Fortunately, as a qualified nurse, I was able to identify that what they were doing was potentially harmful and prevent it.

Later that month I made a complaint to the NMC. After a struggle to get past its gate-keepers and to get someone in authority to acknowledge that we had the right to make a complaint, including having to write to the Secretary of State for Health, the NMC finally said they would do something.

Some 20 months have passed, and I am still waiting for a reply. I believe I now know the reason it has taken so long: the NMC has been more concerned with punishing a truly professional nurse, a whistle-blower who was doing her duty to protect her patients.

Michael Pye

London E6

Roger Fisher's letter (21 April) makes me nervous. To crucify Margaret Haywood for "breaking her trust" illustrates the destructive power of that dreariest and most negative of principles, the letter of the law.

Rarely have I felt so incensed at such injustice. Instead of castigating her, the Nursing and Midwifery Council should have supported her brave initiative towards ensuring that patients receive proper treatment. The Council deserves to be heavily censured for getting its priorities so dismally wrong, and Margaret Haywood should be reinstated with appropriate apologies. But perhaps the Council lives in fear of the NHS, which brooks no internal criticism?

If this is the official professional attitude to nursing, it makes me very anxious indeed about the treatment I myself may expect when old age has rendered me helpless and inarticulate.

Helen Widgery

London SW4

In the event of my ever being subjected to poor and inadequate care in hospital, I wish to loudly and publicly waive my right to confidentiality and privacy, and ask that any caring, enlightened and humane member of the nursing staff who sees this shall use whatever means – including bringing in Steven Spielberg and an entire Hollywood film crew if necessary – to ensure that I receive proper treatment.

Richard Charnley

Leamington Spa, Warwickshire

Prince speaks up for the majority

That a group of prominent architects thought it necessary to write a letter to The Sunday Times to complain about the Prince of Wales, and his recent attack on Richard Rogers's design for the Chelsea Barracks site, is a measure of the influence the Prince has come to have on a wide range of environmental and built-environment issues that have been welcomed by the public, and some sections of the media, in the past ("Why is Prince Charles angry about a development at Chelsea Barracks?" 21 April).

If we want a modern monarchy we must expect and encourage the Prince to express his views like any other citizen. So, it is right that the Prince is able to speak up for the majority who – despite the planning process – have very little influence over those who are in thrall to Rogers and his friends and who take decisions, now, that future generations will have to live with.

If, as some commentators believe, it is an outrage that elected officials are being second-guessed by a hidden monarchical hand, it also an outrage that a tiny cohort from the architectural establishment have so much sway over the future look of our town- and city-scapes. This spat between Rogers & Co and the Prince is not just about the rights and wrongs of Rogers's designs, but the inability of the planning process to be seen to be independent enough of powerful vested interests that also ignore wider public opinion.

Nick Reeves

Executive Director, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

London WC1

Dire prospect of a Tory government

Chris Gale (letter, 22 April) warns that the alternative to a Labour government is the "truly horrible prospect" of a Tory government.

Yes, imagine. A Tory government would attack the welfare state and the most vulnerable in society; side with the police against demonstrators and curb civil liberties in the name of national security; denigrate workers in the public sector in the name of "choice" and "accountability"; worship the City and big business while sneering at the trade unions for being "selfish vested interests"; insist that working people must tighten their belts to save the country from the mess which bankers have plunged it into; and slavishly follow US economic, social and military policies.

Exactly what we've had for the last 12 years, in fact. What a choice for us voters!

Pete Dorey

Reader in British Politics

Cardiff University

I was dismayed to read that Alice Mahon feels she can no longer remain in the Labour Party. She was a hardworking, effective MP for Halifax for years, unafraid to speak her mind and keen to stand up for the principle of a more equal and just society. If she feels after a lifetime of working for the Labour Party that Labour has departed too far from its ideals and has become bullying and undemocratic then where do all we old socialists go now?

Jill Osman

Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire

Plenty to celebrate about England

Derek Marshall's comments about St George not being English (letter, 22 April)share the negativity of the Celtic nationalists. They too prefer to claim that it's all the fault of someone else, generally the English.

The English however, have a huge amount to celebrate that does not need to be perpetually listed lest we forget – and these things can be enjoyed without a day off and an enormous booze-up whilst belting out stirring songs. I fear negativity might be the unifying British characteristic that transcends our cultural differences, and the single item that defines "Britishness".

Anyway, Happy St George's Day, and look on the bright side – the British Lions are packed with Celts.

Vaughan Thomas

Usk, Gwent

Our MPs still don't get it

I asked my employer if I could claim an attendance allowance for just turning up at work. After he stopped laughing he told me that I was already being paid an attendance allowance, and that his term for it was "salary".

It seems that our MPs just don't get it at all. They appear to think that a different system, marginally less generous than the current free-for-all, will restore public confidence in them. They are wrong.

Mark Redhead

Oxford

Janet Street-Porter's article "MPs don't deserve their summer hols" (22 April) was utter rot. I work for an extremely hard-working MP. When Parliament is not sitting he does not swan off on holiday (as Ms Street-Porter suggests) but works in the constituency office serving his constituents. During this difficult economic period the caseload is relentless.

Don't tar all MPs with the same brush - this cheap cynicism is corrosive and unhealthy.

M Palmer

Bristol

With MPs' housing allowances under close scrutiny why stop there? Surely in the modern day a castle in Windsor and a mansion on the Mall (not too far apart) funded by the public are difficult to justify.

Len Jones

Congleton, Cheshire

Sikhs driven out by the Taliban

Your report "Couple trying to elope are executed by the Taliban" (15 April) rightly highlights the violation of human rights by the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, the Taliban are committing similar violations against non-Muslims in the Tribal Area of Pakistan, where President Zardari has recently sanctioned the imposition of Sharia law.

No sooner was the agreement to impose Sharia law in the region signed than the Taliban informed the Sikh residents of Ferozekhel area in Lower Orakzai Agency that they, as non-Muslims, were liable to pay jizia (poll) tax of 50m rupees. As a result of this demand, 15 Sikh families have already left their homes, while the remaining 10 are preparing to leave.

Sikhs have lived in the area since the early 18th century, and there has been no problem with the locals. It is a pity that President Zardari failed to make any provisions for the protection of the rights of the Sikhs and other non-Muslim minorities before subjecting the region to Sharia law.

Randhir Singh Bains

Singh Sabha Sikh Temple

Ilford, Essex

Briefly...

Success for torture

Dick Cheney's claim that torture has been successful in producing useful intelligence is a bit like claiming that bank robbery is a successful way of improving personal wealth.

Paul Dormer

Guildford, Surrey

Blair was no liar

J Samuel (letter, 22 April) cannot see the difference between saying something that you believe but which turns out not to be so, and lying. Before the Iraq war, Blair was repeating what every world authority believed to be true. And if indeed he "knew" there were no weapons of mass destruction, he would have been both a liar and a fool to support an invasion which he knew would reveal his lies and leave his reputation in tatters. Whatever else he was, the former Prime Minister was no fool.

Stuart Russell

Poulton, Gloucestershire

Not proven

The headline on Steve Connor's piece on human cloning (22 April) reads "This procedure can't be ethical until it is proven safe". Nul points. The writer needs to do more work before passing science GCSE. We simply cannot prove that anything is safe. We can sometimes just show that something is unsafe.

Roger Evans

London E1

Safe energy

Sixteen people are killed in a helicopter in the North Sea; Piper Alpha killed 167 people, and thousands are killed each year in Chinese coal mines. If one person were to die in a nuclear power plant it would be headline news, yet nuclear energy has proved far safer than mining for oil, gas and coal. No form of energy supply will ever be 100 per cent safe, but I would far rather work in a nuclear power station than on a North Sea oil rig.

Robert MacLachlan

Malmesbury, Wiltshire

Queen of the Nile

Which other newspaper would have Cleopatra as a Page 3 girl (20 April)? Carry On, Indy.

Michael J J Day

Settle, North Yorkshire