Neil Parish’s support of animal cruelty is worse than watching porn at work

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Neil Parish has voted consistently in favour of the horrific badger cull (SWNS)

I was astounded to see Neil Parish described thus in your report: “A champion of animal welfare causes…” (“How much influence does Parish have in parliament” 30 April).

Neil Parish has voted consistently in favour of the horrific badger cull. Not only that, he is a vociferous supporter of hunting, and wants to see the ban repealed. He regularly attends the Boxing Day meet of the Tiverton Foxhounds in the town square and shamelessly speaks in favour of the brutal activity. Watching pornography (allegedly) in the House of Commons, where you are paid to do your job, is grubby and disgusting, but in my book supporting and encouraging cruelty to animals is infinitely worse.

Penny Little

Oxfordshire

Neil Parish is right – we all make mistakes

Neil Parish is wrong in so many ways, but he is correct in that we all make mistakes. For instance, although I never voted for them, I did believe that all Conservative MPs and ministers were honest, honourable and put the interests of their constituents above all else. How wrong I was.

Nevertheless, I do have sympathy for those Tory MPs who I’m sure do have probity, and I wonder just how much longer they will allow the bad eggs to drag them through the mire. They really do need to stand up and take action now.

Tim Sidaway

Hertfordshire

Why do MPs have a bar at work?

You reported that it was alleged by MP Richard Holden that Mary Foy’s behaviour on the House of Commons terrace bar on Tuesday evening “may have been affected by drink”.

It struck me that providing a bar actually situated in such an important workplace, and one which is in effect like any other, provides Members of Parliament (albeit justifiably to relieve the stress of their work) with the opportunity to be “affected” by drink. This is not really in the interests of the public whom they represent. I cannot imagine many companies (who also have stressed employees) having such in-house facilities available during or even after working hours these days. Surely this place of work in particular should set a good example?

Michael du Pré

Marlow

It is not the opposition’s role to do the government’s job for them

Recent weeks have provided plenty of evidence, in case we needed it, of the shallows this government is paddling in when it comes to new thinking.

We have heard about Jacob Rees-Mogg actively soliciting ideas from the public about how to make Brexit work. Priti Patel stood at the dispatch box to present her despicable plans to ship migrants to Rwanda and in response to objections from the opposition was reduced to repeating ad nauseam, “Well, what ideas do you have?” At the risk of stating the obvious, it is not the opposition’s role to do the government’s job for them.

And now we hear of the prime minister, in desperation, asking cabinet to come up with ideas to help with the cost of living crisis, as long as they don’t cost the Treasury any money. Ignoring the truly innovative ideas that are out there being discussed (such as providing a basic minimum of energy free and then increasing the cost progressively for high energy users) we hear that one option floated was to reduce the frequency of MOTs from every year to every other year. Really? Is this all they have got? Aside from the safety concerns, what about the people whose livelihoods depend on carrying out MOT tests?

We don’t need this government-flying-by-the-seat-of-pants any longer and I hope that we send a clear message to that effect this week.

Anne Wolff

Maidenhead

Schools do not suspend or exclude pupils on a whim

Geethika Jayatilaka is absolutely correct to say that exclusion from school is not the answer to bad behaviour. I suspect most adults working in schools would agree with her. Schools do not suspend or exclude pupils on a whim. They usually only do so when they have not failed, but exhausted every possible resource, strategy, ounce of energy and patience that they have available to them. Teachers will endure numerous incidents of classroom disruption, detrimental to the education and development of other pupils before even considering exclusion. And, a permanent exclusion will only be imposed at the end of a long period of consuming huge time and energy resources of many members of staff, and even then with great reluctance.

Schools certainly need support and resources to address the behaviour issues but it is simply not there in the system. Many children and young people facing exclusion have been waiting months, sometimes years, after referral, for counselling and mentoring. But organisations such as CAMHS do not have the professionals available to cope with the numbers. Schools will only exclude as a last resort, and when it is for the safety and wellbeing of the pupils and staff.

D Corey Redcar

Address supplied

Putin has no option other than to fight to the death, or to surrender

If you do not allow a cornered wild animal, or snake for that matter, a way of escape (not that I would want to call Putin either), it has no option other than to fight to the death, or to surrender. It is evident that the conventional Russian military has not been anywhere nearly as successful as they had expected, most likely falling for the self-belief and myth they have created of themselves.

There now is also evidence of serious design flaws with their tanks where shells are stored in the turrets. Russian conscripts appear to be ill-trained. Logistics are not what they need to be to support a conventional army. The Ukrainians did not welcome them with flowers. The west is pouring weapons into Ukraine to the tune of billions. The stated aim is to defeat Russia.

So what options does Putin have? Switch to heavier, long-range artillery to pound the Donbas region, longer range missiles to pound Ukraine as a whole and, ultimately, though only a small step away, to go nuclear. Nuclear battlefield weapons would quickly escalate to a total nuclear showdown with the west.

The UK prides itself in already having its few (three?) nuclear submarines in place. America will also have its submarines on station in the Arctic, ready to fire its nuclear missiles at a moment’s notice. Putin does not have it in his character to give up, to surrender, so it should be expected that he will fight to the death.

A leopard does not change its spots. The west has indicted no route of escape other than total surrender. Our military and politicians would do well to thumb through history books, or check out the internet, to review photos of Hiroshima after “Fat Boy” was dropped on an unsuspecting population. We, in the west, walk into this with our eyes wide open, yet unable to fully see the consequences of our actions. Lighting candles and praying will be of no help.

Gunter Straub

London