Now, the professionals who failed Sara Sharif must answer for their inactions

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

Sara Sharif was murdered by her father and stepmother (PA)

An important part of getting justice for Sara Sharif has now been done, with the sentencing of those who tortured and killed her (“Sara Sharif’s father and stepmother jailed for life for ‘torture’ and murder”, Tuesday 17 December). But there is still much to do.

While the judge declined to comment on the performance of Surrey County Council in the matter, the rest of us need not be so hesitant. It is as plain as a pikestaff that all of the authorities involved in Sara’s short and tragic life have questions to answer with regard to how they acted – or failed to act – in relation to her case.

In that respect, it is most disturbing that a gagging order has been issued preventing the naming of professionals involved in relevant family court proceedings. This does not augur well for the thoroughness and transparency that we would expect in the enquiry now apparently underway.

It is also somewhat surprising how quickly Surrey has set up its case review. While no one should be dragging their feet in terms of learning lessons from this tragic affair, there could be a problem of “more haste, less speed”.

There has been much covering-up and sloughing-off of responsibility with regard to Sara – and, indeed, other child-protection cases – in recent years. We now need, at every level, to make a fresh start in this vital endeavour.

Andrew McLuskey

Ashford, Middlesex

Labour has bottled it (again)

Why should we, well, bail out Thames Water? (“Thames Water takes first step in restructuring in bid to avoid administration”, Wednesday 18 December).

Rather than invest our cash, it has gone instead to the company’s board and its shareholders. I’d expect the Tories to throw money at them… but Labour? Weren’t they supposed to be different?

Let Thames Water go bust. Then, the government can buy back the assets from the liquidator at a fire-sale price. Simple – no renationalisation necessary.

The only losers would be the shareholders. What’s not to like?

And yet Labour has announced that public ownership is off the table. It’s bottled it.

James Mason

Address supplied

Season’s bleatings

Merry Christmas to all… or, as I am now told I must say, “Happy holidays” (“Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s ‘happy holidays’ card features rare pictures of Archie and Lilibet”, Tuesday 17 December).

Several well-meaning people have told me that the traditional season’s greeting might be offensive. But when I have raised this with people from various non-Christian faiths, they have been quite happy with it and see it only as a positive.

The woke world emphasises blandness and not causing any offence, but they take the pleasures out of life.

It would be best to accept the differences that exist between us and support them, rather than try to silence the well-meaning.

Dennis Fitzgerald

Melbourne, Australia

Big Brother is watching you

After the riots this summer, the Labour government announced that it hoped to expand the use of facial recognition surveillance. Now, the former prime minister Tony Blair has recommended that we are each given digital IDs (“Tony Blair calls for roll out of digital ID to tackle immigration and spiralling NHS costs”, Thursday 12 December).

After the next election, Reform may well be in power. Think what a Reform government could do with such Stasi-like controls…

Naïve Labour means well, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Barry Tighe

Woodford Green, Essex

Money Musk

Given the concern around the suspected Chinese spy (“Who is the alleged Chinese spy with close ties to Britain’s Prince Andrew?”, Monday 16 December), should we not be equally worried about foreign interference from Elon Musk and his increased involvement in our politics?

Ian Godfrey

Cockfosters, Barnet

A Waspi-sh proposal

The pension campaigners’ acronym “Waspi” might also be applied to how the general public views the prime minister’s standing: “When answering, Starmer prevaricates indecisively” (“Labour’s betrayal of Waspi women is a sign its problems now go far beyond pensioners”, Wednesday 18 December).

His Waspi betrayal is not what we expect from someone supposedly set on improving the lives of working men (and women).

Mr C Jones

Kingsley, Cheshire