Letters: Britain's politicians, not its people, chose to invade Iraq

Sir: In the interview with Muqtada al-Sadr (20 August), he states: "They [the British] have made enemies among all Muslims and they now face attacks at home because of their war. That was their mistake."

It is to be hoped that not all Muslims feel that the British people are their enemies. The million-strong anti-war march in London, before the invasion, indicated that it wasn't the British people who were determined to invade Iraq. It was ex-Prime Minister Blair, and the MPs, both Labour and Conservative, who supported him by voting for the attack in the House of Commons.

A large number of those politicians, with supposed superior judgment to the rest of us, still insist that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do, including the present Prime Minister.

DIANE ASTROP

LONDON N8

Sir: Neither your cogent leading article on Afghanistan nor the letter by Lord Malloch Brown (14 August) offers an alternative source of income to the opium poppy. What is the Afghan farmer going to grow remotely as profitable? Even if we manage to stamp it out there, another country will start up, which will be even harder to coerce.

The responsibility for eradicating the trade in opium is at its point of consumption, not at its source. It is time we shouldered the responsibility ourselves, instead of trying to pass it elsewhere.

As to Afghanistan, Robert Fisk warned before we went into that country of the dangers. The powers-that-be would not listen. Not only are we wrecking that country but our army as well, with these futile wars.

W R HAINES

SHREWSBURY

A planet hurtling towards disaster

Sir: Camping at the Camp for Climate Action over the past six days has been a surreal but exhilarating experience. Lying in a tent at sunset, next to my daughter, and watching the planes - so beautiful, and yet so destructive - land and take off has been especially disturbing.

We know from the latest science (Hansen et al, "Climate Change and Trace Gases", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 18 May) that "recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control".

If we continue along our current path we risk triggering a situation "out of humanity's control, such that devastating sea-level rise will inevitably occur". Indeed, the impact would "probably exceed" that which occurred 3.5 million years ago, when temperatures increased by no more than 3 degrees above today's levels, but sea levels rose by some 25 metres. Control of greenhouse gases must therefore "play a critical role in preserving a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed".

By permitting a third runway at Heathrow - and the dramatic rise in carbon dioxide emissions that will inevitably accompany it - the Government is effectively committing itself to the destruction of the world as we know it.

As we hurtle towards the cliff-edge, a social movement - of which the Camp is just the most recent manifestation - is emerging to resist, and avert disaster. All those who care about the future of their children and grandchildren should lend it their support and participation.

GABRIEL CARLYLE

CAMP FOR CLIMATE ACTION, NEAR HEATHROW

Sir: Johann Hari's piece "We should all be at Heathrow protesting" (13 August) is another in a long line of alarmist and sweeping statements about aviation and climate change that make good headlines but fail to put the issue in perspective.

Climate change is an issue of international significance and great concern for people the world over. The aviation industry, which has a good record of reducing its emissions (in fact, a 70 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions per passenger in the last 40 years), is heavily invested in continuing to reduce its emissions.

But the focus on our sector alone is worrying and also misleading. The world's most authoritative international body of scientists on climate change say that aviation contributes to around 2 per cent of world CO2 emissions now and that this will increase to about 3 per cent by 2050. Currently road transport accounts for 18 per cent of worldwide carbon emissions and electricity generation is at around 35 per cent. Even shipping produces twice as much CO2 as aviation.

A correction also needs to be made to Mr Hari's assertion that the aviation industry is subject to some sort of subsidy from the government. In fact, aviation is the one form of public transport that almost entirely pays for its own infrastructure and is not covered by subsidies from governments, as opposed to rail and bus services.

There is a need for debate on this important issue, but to focus on one industry alone - and one that is not the major cause - is too narrow. Emotional finger-pointing should be replaced with fair and constructive ideas towards finding solutions acceptable to all.

JUSTIN DUBON

AIRBUS, BRISTOL

Sir: Peter Slessenger's letter (14 August) pointing out the economy of reduced-speed motorway driving confirms my own experience. My car returns 45mpg at 56mph compared to 39mpg at 70mph. If we are really serious about reducing carbon emissions then how about a 55mph speed limit on all motorways to reduce the UK's oil demand and emissions overnight?

DR MARTIN DESVAUX

BOOKHAM, SURREY

Sir: On 18 August you report that the police are using anti-terror laws against the mostly peaceful protestors at the Heathrow climate change camp. This is compared with the softly softly approach adopted against truckers protesting against fuel price rises a few years ago. The answer is obvious. Future climate-change protests should use large numbers of (preferably large) vehicles to block the roads.

ALISTAIR GREY

WORKINGTON, CUMBRIA

Cut the red tape that binds UK businesses

Sir: The proposals from the Conservatives' economic competitiveness group on cutting red tape ("Tories aim to cut £14bn of 'waste' as poll deficit grows", 13 August) are a welcome indication that politicians are listening to the concerns of UK businesses. It is to be hoped that these are engaged with and not simply dismissed as a "lurch to the right".

In research earlier this year, commissioned by the Industry and Parliament Trust, while businesses rated regulation as their greatest single concern, only one in three MPs thought that it would be an important issue for companies in the UK. This discord is worrying. In terms of regulation, if only a fraction of the estimated £14bn that is lost to it can be saved, it would be a key boost for the aspirations of both UK businesses and politicians.

SALLY MUGGERIDGE

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, INDUSTRY AND PARLIAMENT TRUST, LONDON SW1

Sir: Before we consider getting rid of inheritance tax, as suggested by Conservatives, surely it would be right to first abolish the requirement for a pensioner needing nursing care in a home to have to sell their home to pay for the cost of the care?

How can it be fair that a person who is unfortunate enough to suffer illness should also have to endure the loss of their home? This is surely a far worse situation than a person who doesn't suffer illness having to pay a fraction of their estate in tax. It is clear which is the genuine iniquity.

J W PEACOCK

DARLINGTON, CO DURHAM

Not all prostitutes are drug addicts

Sir: The majority of prostitutes are not drug addicts; this only applies to those who work on the streets (Janet Street-Porter, "Let's call a whore a whore", 16 August). At least two-thirds of sex workers, women and men, work in off-street locations including brothels, flats, massage parlours and saunas.

They call themselves "sex workers" in order to claim a little dignity and protect themselves from stigmatisation and labelling.

If, as Janet Street-Porter states, prostitution is a "choice", then the women (and men) who work in the sex industry are not victims. For those who are drug addicts help should be available, but the government has slashed the national Drug Intervention Programme (DIP) from £172m in 2006-7 to £149m for 2007-8.

If drug addiction among street workers is a serious problem, then the Government must put its money where its mouth is. This should not be done in a coercive way, with threats of imprisonment, since this only leads to reoffending and suicide.

DR HELEN J SELF

MAIDSTONE, KENT

Abortion and the Catholic Church

Sir: Professor Francome (letter, 14 August) alleges that "The Catholic Encyclopedia published in 1907 recognised that Church doctrine used to allow early abortions". The article in question says no such thing. Abortion was always considered a sin.

Similarly Jon O'Brien (letter 16 August) claims that "St Augustine opposed abortion as evidence of a sexual sin, but certainly not homicide". In fact Augustine refers to aborted child as "slain before it was born" (On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.17). The Church has never allowed the intentional killing of an unwanted child at any stage of development, before or after birth.

PROFESSOR DAVID ALBERT JONES

ST MARY'S UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, TWICKENHAM, MIDDLESEX

Do we really need all these graduates?

Sir: Your leading article of 14 August reports shortages of science undergraduates and of science teachers. One question to be answered is: what proportion of adult jobs need, and what proportion would benefit from, being filled by a holder of a science degree ?

In The Big Question of 26 June you gave the proportion of the employed population who were "professionals" as 20 per cent, and another 20 per cent as "petty bourgeoisie". The other 60 per cent were skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled and farm. It seemed to show that only 40 per cent of jobs could make good use of (but did not necessarily need) graduates; yet we are planning to have about 50 per cent of school-leavers take those qualifications, mostly at taxpayers' expense yet leaving many of those graduates heavily in debt.

Is it not time, then, that the nation determined the overall requirement of the working population for the various types of graduates, for apprentice-trained tradesmen and for the products of technical college specialisations?

Should we not also resolve that 99.99 per cent of school-leavers should be fit, at the very least, to be labourers, messengers and tea-boys and girls? It might reduce considerably our prison population.

SIR REGINALD E W HARLAND

BURY ST EDMUNDS, SUFFOLK

The truth about Wikipedia

Sir: While Wikipedia does represent a democratic innovation, as with all democratic innovation, it is open to abuse (18 August). WikiScanner has thus done a great service in exposing those doing the abuse.

However, far from academics trusting Wikipedia, it has become the bane of our lives as students continually use it to get information rather than consulting books or articles. This in part is down to students seeing essay writing as simply a problem of information retrieval rather than research, deliberation and argument.

This is brought about by another problem: the "sanctity of facts". Students use Wikipedia unaware of just how open "facts" are to interpretation and presentation. Indeed there is a mindset that assumes the world is simply given and can somehow be recorded in a database. The world is not simply there, it is historical, and history is a matter of selection and interpretation. The truth represented by Wikipedia is thus the ongoing writing and re-writing, interpretation and counter-interpretation that takes place within in its pages. This truth is more important to learn than any of the "facts" it supposedly contains.

NEAL CURTIS

NOTTINGHAM

Briefly... Name calling

Sir: "Bleeding heart" is a much-loved epithet of the right, used in an attempt to insult those who are not quite so red in tooth and claw as themselves. I believe it is a replacement for "compassionate". If you substitute where appropriate in Mr O'Sullivan's letter (17 August), he does not sound quite so unhinged.

JOHN WOOD

ST AUSTELL, CORNWALL

Inherited wealth

Sir: As someone who inherited absolutely nothing but who hopes to leave her property to her children, minus tax which I accept is fair, could Jemima Lewis (Opinion, 18 August) explain to me the essential difference between inheriting money to give a boost to a more comfortable life and accepting money from a generous living friend to pay for private schools for herself and her sister, which surely could be considered one of the most helpful of starts in life, contributing to her present successful career?

JUNE A FOSTER

EDENBRIDGE, KENT

LIfe and death fears

Sir: I think there would be many who would stand shoulder to shoulder with Donald Young and his wife in his wish for a swift and peaceful end and at the time of our choosing (letter, 17 August). Sadly I fear, there are now many, many frightened senior citizens who would rather end their own lives than be "cared for" by people who "don't care" and this is a tragic reflection and indictment of our present society. A wise doctor once said: "It is the indignity of old age that frightens the elderly more than death."

D BIRKBY

ALTON, HAMPSHIRE

The origins of 'D'oh!'

Sir: "D'oh!" has always appeared in Simpsons' scripts as "annoyed grunt", and is used in the title of several episodes ("E-I-E-I Annoyed Grunt", "G.I Annoyed Grunt"). When Dan Castellaneta, the voice of Homer Simpson, first came across this he decided to use an elongated "doooh", which he says was inspired by the Scottish actor Jimmy Finlayson from the Laurel and Hardy films. Matt Groening suggested it be shortened, and so Castellaneta came up with "d'oh!"

ROSS GRAINGER

MINCHINHAMPTON, GLOUCESTERSHIRE

Missing person

Sir: In your answers to Get The Picture on 18 August, you completely ignored Paris Hilton. This is as it should be. Well done.

ALASTAIR CASSELS

LONDON SW13

Interesting? Click here to explore further