Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I am delighted that England will be inscribed on the Cricket World Cup.
It is right that the home of cricket is finally named on this trophy.
But the language used by the British press to describe the result of that thrilling match at Lords is quite bizarre.
I was not “gutted” by the result. In common with most New Zealanders, I was surprised that New Zealand was in the final.
So I only hoped that the Black Caps would acquit themselves well in the match, when England won, as was predicted. And I was thrilled with how they did that.
But England did not “triumph” as they “shattered” New Zealand. In fact, England did not defeat New Zealand. It was a tie. Twice!
England only “won” the game due to an arcane rule. A technicality. Not by a convincing win which it was supposed to be.
They got the cup by the skin of their teeth. So some realism from journalists please.
In my view, the best outcome would have been for both countries to be named on the trophy.
Now that would have been cricket. Fair play for a fair result.
But what other game can produce such drama and excitement? It hits football for a six on that score.
Russell Armitage
Hamilton, New Zealand
Why does anyone have to win in sports?
The results of two high-profile sporting events this weekend were whisker-close. The men’s singles final at Wimbledon went to a tie-breaker in the fifth set after more than five hours. The Cricket World Cup final was decided by super-overs and a count of boundaries.
How sad that someone had to lose. Could both contests not have been declared a draw?
No, of course not. Foolish thought. There always has to be a winner, doesn’t there.
But is that really the case? When there are such minute differences in performance, and the outcome is truly a matter of sheer luck, does it not demean both sides to insist on rankings?
Why should the onlookers even care who wins – can they not simply be uplifted by admiring the skill, athleticism and determination of the contenders?
Enjoy the spectacle by all means, but does it make sense to invest so much money and emotion in the outcome of a ball game because one side happens to come from the same bit of the Earth’s crust as you?
Such partisanship merely demonstrates the pointless competitiveness and tribalism which are endemic in modern society and are, regrettably, made manifest in other spheres of life, notably in the personality cult of racism, classism and sexism of present-day politics.
Susan Alexander
South Gloucestershire
Twitter syndrome
I may have identified a reason for the bizarre behaviour of some of the world leaders. It seems that the process of artificial intelligence has allowed information technology to become infected with human ailments; if Twitter Tourette syndrome has been accidentally developed it would certainly explain some strange utterances from across the Atlantic.
The answer to Boris Johnson’s vacuous outpourings would be much simpler; someone tried to overload his system with educational files, not being aware that they are incompatible with low-intellect software.
The deletion of selected memory files, however, is more sinister.
Matt Minshall
Norfolk
Respecting the will of the people
Whenever a second referendum is brought up, the various politicians pushing Brexit trot about preserving democracy and the will of the people.
My age group was recorded as being most in favour of Brexit. Not me, I must state. That was two to three years ago. Since then, the age group who will be most affected by Brexit has grown due to the number of newly eligible young voters.
As we are getting very close to the leaving date, wouldn’t a second, up-to-date referendum including these new voters yield a true statement on the will of the people? Have any of the Brexiteers the courage to go with the current democratic will of the people?
Yes, they might have to revoke Article 50. But looking after the whole of the UK would look better for their political legacies than looking after their political party.
B Ellwood
Cumbria
A moving read
I would like to congratulate Clemence Michallon for her honesty of speaking from the heart and sharing feelings with the readers (If we focus on whether Michelle Carter’s text messages drove her boyfriend to kill himself, we miss the bigger picture). It was the highlight of my daily read.
Many thanks for being so courageous.
B Marenbach
London NW11
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments