Boris Johnson’s criticism of the BBC is rich considering his government’s own devious conduct

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Would Diana, Princess of Wales, or the 23 million people who watched the interview, have been in a better place if it had not been aired? (PA)

Of course, it’s no surprise that the prime minister and his cabinet should ironically be taking the high moral ground over the BBC and the Bashir/Princess Diana story. This is a wonderful opportunity to throw another “dead cat” on the political table while Covid infection rates begin to rise; the “freedom” date of 21 June is cast into doubt, and multiple enquiries into sleazy behaviour continue.

All this happened a long time ago. Now is the time to focus on the behaviour of Boris Johnson, his cabinet and their many misdoings.

The BBC could evidently do with reform, and a politically independent board of directors needs to be appointed to remove the current concerns about government interference with their impartiality, and to ensure confidence can be rebuilt.

Richard Lloyd

Dunfermline

Misdirected

I make no excuses for the BBC, but I do find that the current criticism regarding “that interview” is misdirected.

This is one instance of appalling behaviour by a journalist at the BBC and I have not seen allegations against any other person. We should not let this hide from view the wider implications.

The debate should be about journalistic standards and practices everywhere in the media, not just at the BBC.

Matt Hancock, in his previous job, pulled the plug on Leveson part II and Priti Patel has delayed the report into an infamous murder that involved press and police corruption. Was this the result of pressure from the printed media?

The BBC is not perfect and cannot please everyone but it is a national asset.

John Doylend

Bungay, Suffolk

Indian variant of coincidence

The Indian variant of Covid-19 is causing great concern as it is rapidly spreading and I believe Boris Johnson is responsible.

Were it not for the fact that Gummidge was planning to visit India and hold trade talks with Narendra Modi, the country, like Pakistan and Bangladesh which both had a lower incidents of the virus, would have been red-listed at the beginning of April, but it wasn’t because our Prime Muppet didn’t want to cancel his trip.

In fact, India was red-listed on 19 April – the very day that Boris did cancel his trip. Surely this cannot possibly be coincidental? The age old question – which comes first, the chicken or the egg? – comes to mind.

Johnson and trade secretary Liz Truss are desperate to validate Brexit by signing as many deals as they possibly can, whether these deals are good for this country or not. This spells disaster for homegrown businesses, particularly for the farming industry in Britain.

Johnson has already happily thrown our fishing community under the bus and with Truss at the helm, things can only go from bad to worse.

Linda Evans

Address supplied

No expert

Boris Johnson is quoted as saying: “I am still seeing nothing in the data that leads me to think that we’re going to have to deviate from the roadmap.”

Just when was it that he became such an expert on statistical analysis? If his estimation of how much the NHS would receive weekly when we came out of Europe is anything to go by, we should be worried.

Geoff Forward

Stirling

More good than harm?

We have been examining the ethics by which the interview with Princess Diana was obtained and have determined that Martin Bashir used deceptive means to encourage her to participate in the interview. The question must be, as when determining the circumstances of ends justifying the means, is consideration of harm done against potential good.

One could argue that from Diana’s viewpoint the interview might have been considered very cathartic; for the first time she was able to voice her concerns of her husband’s other relationship and her own mental health issues. Would she or us – the 23 million people who watched the interview – have been in a better place if it had not been aired?

I am not, by this argument, condoning the extent of Bashir’s subterfuge but must defend the right of investigative journalists to deploy, at times, duplicitous means to uncover the truth. I also question the hypocrisy and shock horror now being expressed in much of the print media.

My only strongly felt caveat is for the princess’s sons who have every right and justification to feel aggrieved by seeing their mother exploited in this way. That said, it is shameful of Boris Johnson to use the one-off incident of over 25 years ago to suggest imposing extra controls on the BBC, to appease a Tory long-felt belief of a left-wing bias. It is, in fact, usually just the thinking man’s opinions.

Peter Smith-Cullen

Dunston, Norfolk

Protesters are wrong

The recent riot in Mayhill, Swansea, demonstrates just how wrong the “Kill the bill” protesters are in opposing increased police powers, at least when it comes to policing violent disorder.

“Policing by consent” doesn’t mean abandoning communities to violent criminals and antisocial disorder. The police have my consent, and I suspect that of the majority of the population, to use whatever means are necessary to protect the law-abiding majority from the criminal minority. If the choice is between devastated, frightened communities and hospitalised rioters, then I know where my vote would go.

A Brown

Derby