Brexit has made a dog’s breakfast of our holidays

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

After leaving the EU, taking a dog abroad now requires a £150 visit to the vets (PA Wire)

I appreciate Simon Calder’s article on the benefits of Brexit on our travel arrangements (“Brussels is delivering exactly what we demanded with fingerprinting and facial biometrics”, Saturday 5 October) – but he missed one.

Before Brexit, we dog-owning Brits used pet passports to travel to and fro with ease. Now, we need to cross the palms of a vet to a tune of approximately £150 every time we cross the Channel.

Isn’t that wonderful?

I’m sure UK vets are very happy with this benefit. The rest of us, less so.

The form to be completed by the vet is long, and not always completed accurately. Recently, our form proclaimed that our Border Terrier’s date of birth was 12 Oct 2024. (She will, in fact, be 10 on that date.) Luckily, we were allowed to travel.

The reintroduction of pet passports would go some way to reimburse us pensioners who have lost our winter fuel payment.

Lindsay Mayor

Huddersfield

A great disservice

Karen Pollock describes how the Hamas attack on Israel one year ago was fuelled by antisemitism (“The 7 October attacks were another awful chapter in the history of antisemitism”, Sunday 6 October). I doubt anyone would want to dispute that.

But the Israeli army has killed over 40,000 people in Gaza, most of them innocent civilians, and injured many more. Most of the survivors have no homes, no health care and little food.

Benjamin Netanyahu is playing into the hands of antisemites. If he really wanted to free the hostages, he would negotiate, as many of Israel’s allies are now suggesting.

But, like many powerful men, he is clearly obsessed with his own image. In the long term, he is doing not only the hostages but also his fellow Israelis a great disservice.

Susan Alexander

South Gloucestershire

Easing the pain is not euthanasia

I can understand the desire for people who are in great pain, who have difficulty breathing, who are unable to swallow or unable to communicate, to want to end their lives prematurely. (“Letters: There are no easy answers in the assisted dying debate”, Sunday 6 October). It would both end their suffering, and that of their loved ones agonising over their suffering.

However, I oppose the measure.

In my opinion, euthanasia would limit, if not diminish, research into care of the dying. The modern hospice movement, started by Cicely Saunders, has revolutionised care of those terminally ill. It is a tragedy how underfunded it is.

Secondly, I believe it is possible to alleviate most suffering with adequate care. Syringe drivers, benzodiazepines, steroids and more have transformed palliative care, though much more research is needed.

Sometimes, such medications are withheld because of fear of side effects. But I believe doctors need to take patients and relatives into their decision-making and not worry too much about long-term harm.

Giving patients with terminal illnesses sufficient medication to relieve the pain, even if it may shorten their lives, is not the same as euthanasia.

Robert Alliott

Cambridge

What ‘real men’ do

The recent spotlight on the case of the Menendez brothers, provided by the Netflix crime drama Monsters, raises an important issue (“LA district attorney considers resentencing, possible release, for Menendez brothers”, Friday 4 October).

The brothers’ claims of prolonged sexual abuse by their parents weren’t believed by many. The jury that convicted them of murdering their parents in 1996 weren’t even allowed to hear such claims.

Not surprisingly, male victims of sexual harassment, abuse and/or assault remain hesitant or unlikely to report their offenders. They refuse to open up and/or ask for help, for fear of being perceived as weak, or “non-masculine”, by their peers and others. For this reason, many men still choose to abstain from “complaining”, as that is what “real men” do.

Frank Sterle Jr

White Rock, Canada

Anti-social media

After Charlotte Cripps’s recent feature about trying to photograph her daughter (“The photo backlash every parent dreads has happened to me – and I’m heartbroken”, Saturday 5 October), I am curious about why people feel the need to splash their lives and the lives of others on Facebook, Instagram and other social media?

It feels odd to me to parade your life online. What could be so exciting about showing friends you may never have even met in real life what your children are up to? Why not cherish this gift from your child (or a friend) with someone close, who knows the person?

One should know that the information you share on Google, Meta, TikTok, and so on, could one day be used against you. Moreover, it can be used to manipulate you – and your children.

If I was Ms Cripps, I would be proud of my child, who, at an early age, appears to understand this. Her daughter is right to want to protect herself from social media.

Roel Lameris

Lincoln