Letters: Defenceless British troops

Defenceless British troops sent out to face roadside bombs in Iraq

Sir: We were absolutely horrified to learn of the death of another soldier and the wounding of four others in Basra last Sunday whilst travelling in a two-vehicle convoy. By all accounts the bomb and its triggering mechanism (passive infra-red) was the same that killed our son in similar circumstances exactly 10 weeks before. The published death toll of British soldiers (eight that we know about) caused by this evil, cruel and devastating bomb gives no indication of the number of soldiers who have also been wounded in at least 20 incidents using the same trigger and bomb since April this year.

Related articles

• Senior MPs back Iraq investigation
• Catherine Green: Why Tony Blair must be forced to face a public inquiry into the Iraq war

Sending soldiers out in lightly armoured "snatch" vehicle convoys guarantees that if a bomb has been laid on the route of that convoy the first vehicle will be hit. There is no known counter-measure to this type of bomb. Therefore it seems quite extraordinary that vehicles of this type are still being used in this theatre of operations.

The death of all the soldiers, and the wounding of their comrades is a blot on the reputation of the senior army commanders who do not seem to care that they are allowing their troops to be sent into a hostile environment against which they have absolutely no protection. Days, weeks, months pass and you just wait to hear about the next bomb because it is inevitable; because that is all the insurgents or terrorists (call them what you will) are doing: waiting for another one of our defenceless patrols to come along so that they can be killed.

In addition, the devastation caused to their families is incalculable. And it is avoidable. It is a particularly cruel and evil way to die, as the families and loved ones of those who have suffered this fate know only too well. It has got to stop; it must stop. After all, as we are constantly being told, we are not at war with Iraq, we are at peace!

MR AND MRS ROGER BACON

LONDON EC2

Liberal Democrats plan to be visible

Sir: Steve Richards is simply wrong in suggesting the Liberal Democrats are struggling with some imaginary ideological divide; and misleading when he asserts we are invisible (Opinion, 22 November).

This week the Liberal Democrats unveiled radical new pension plans, including a non means-tested Citizen's Pension for all pensioners worth £109 per week: a substantial and well thought-out contribution to the current pensions debate.

At the weekend, I set out a clear new direction for the party. Having fought three elections supporting an increase in public expenditure, the Liberal Democrats are now adopting a "revenue neutral" policy. We are no longer arguing to raise more in taxes than Labour, though we will be seeking £15bn of expenditure which we would spend differently - for example to abolish student tuition fees and introduce the Citizen's Pension.

At Prime Minister's Questions last Wednesday, I extracted an admission from Tony Blair that the Child Support Agency isn't working and may need to be scrapped. That created wide-spread interest. We have also been leading the civil liberties argument on terrorism legislation.

It takes time for a new parliament to settle down. We were integral to the Iraq debate in the last parliament and Steve can rest assured we are already positioning ourselves to be forceful in this one.

CHARLES KENNEDY MP

LEADER OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HOUSE OF COMMONS

Sir: In an otherwise perceptive article about the Liberal Democrats, Steve Richards writes: "Most of the party's members are social democrats. They would be at ease working with the modern Labour Party if it were not for tribal affiliations."

As a Liberal and Liberal Democrat of some forty years standing, I believe this remark has never been farther from the truth. In 1997 some of us may have been prepared to give Blair and his cronies a fair wind because at that time anything seemed better than another dose of Thatcherite Conservatism. Alas, the intervening years have proved to be more Thatcherite and authoritarian than anyone could have predicted. The Bush/Blair axis and the "war on terror", accompanied by a creeping police state, botched privatisation of the Tube, incompetence and "permanent revolution" in health and education, failure to plan for benign future energy supplies when the oil runs out, chaos at the Child Support Agency, incompetence in administering tax credits ... the list is almost endless. Tribal affiliations? Balderdash.

Fortunately the rise of liberalism over the last four decades has not depended on perceptive, well-informed journalists, or inspired parliamentary leadership (though we have had some of the latter, some of the time). Increasing success has been achieved by following the late David Penhaligon's mantra: "If you have something to say, write it on a piece of paper and stick it through a letterbox." In other words, cut out the middle-man.

NIGEL SCOTT

LONDON N22

Sir: Steve Richards is spot on: the Lib Dem party is squandering an opportunity to create an impression with the electorate. The answer is of course a combination of policy and people. During the Iraq war, Menzies Campbell got a lot of airtime, partly because his party's policy was different, being anti-war, and partly because his presentation was authoritative and succinct.

Since then there has been a dearth of Lib Dem soundbites to interest TV or press editors. Maybe the party have innovative policies on health, education, transport and defence, but they are not getting airtime. Lib Dem policies need to be demonstrably different from the other parties and yet still target the middle ground. A sound business plan for the health service would be good place to start, especially if it is funded by substantial defence cuts.

GARRY HONEY

WINCHESTER

Abortion and the duty of care

Sir: In asserting the right of a parent to know whether their underage daughter will be having an abortion (letter, 18 November) E Bell inadvertently points out one of the principal reasons for the law being as it is. While a happy family is undoubtedly held together by trust, honesty and mutual support, regrettably not all families have the privilege of corresponding to this ideal.

In defence of healthcare professionals, I should like to highlight two facts. First, in such circumstances adherence to the Fraser guidelines requires that the adolescent be encouraged to inform their parent/guardian and, second, professionalism requires such legally available options to be facilitated. Doctors who are personally opposed to abortion are professionally obliged to refer the patient.

The professional's duty of care lies with the patient and not their family. If the patient is capable of informed consent despite being under 16 and the Fraser guidelines have been implemented then I believe that the best interests of the child have been served.

The potential unintended consequences of such proposed changes, such as illegal abortions, with their associated high morbidity and mortality rates, or violence against the patient, are not a legacy that our generation should wish to leave.

DR KEVIN BRINKHURST

LONDON SE3

Cruel, perhaps, but is it funny?

Sir: According to Johann Hari (Opinion, 22 November), Little Britain is a sadistic, unfunny, misogynistic piece of spite; a bile-fest of catchphrase comedy for people without a sense of humour, which mocks the vulnerable and is as entertaining as a burning orphanage. But, did he laugh?

And, he says, Victoria Wood is a great comedian. I've never even cracked a smile at Victoria Wood but I laugh till I'm breathless at Little Britain. Do we know why we laugh at things? I reject the epithets Mr Hari has thrown at Little Britain and of course it's senseless to claim it's unfunny, as Mr Hari does, when lots of us laugh at it.

What does Victoria Wood's performance say about people who laugh at it? My immediate response is "dull and conventional", but that would be completely unfair and subjective.

As for Little Britain providing ammunition for bigots, well, bigots might use just about anything. They're desperate people.

HOWARD METTLER

TOLLESHUNT KNIGHTS, ESSEX

Coming next, faith hospitals

Sir: Trevor Pateman (letters, 17 November) calls (with tongue in cheek) for "faith hospitals" on a par with "faith schools". Don't worry, Mr Pateman, they are on their way.

The Government's determination to hand over much of our welfare provision to "faith groups" will mean that very soon we'll have a situation like that in America, where Catholic hospitals won't supply abortions or birth control or even morning-after pills.

Such is the moral superiority of religion in welfare, that soon our homeless will find it necessary to pray for the soup so kindly doled out by "faith groups" and Bible classes will be required before access to services is granted - even though they will be paid for by public money. We've taken our secular, open-to-all welfare system for granted, and now we're about to see it return to the Victorian model of charity, distributed by those with an evangelical frame of mind.

TERRY SANDERSON

VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY, LONDON WC1

Wind turbines will hit rural economy

Sir: Despite your article and editorial (14 November), wind turbines are not the panacea you imagine. The windiest places tend to be far away from population centres. The electricity is taken across the countryside by pylons - like the 137-mile new line proposed for Scotland, which slices through the Cairngorms National Park.

North Northumberland too, is paying the price for the stampede to wind. Giant turbines, 415 feet high, threaten the area of outstanding natural beauty. They would dominate the countryside and coast for miles, including Holy Island and Bamburgh Castle - 415 feet is the height of a 36-storey building; the nearest 36-storey building to here is in London.

There are alternatives, such as growing fuel crops, which would produce jobs in the countryside.

It is not an airy matter of aesthetics; visitors come here and spend money because it is beautiful. Farming has been decimated and now tourism is the backbone of the economy in many rural parts of Britain. Many of our rural businesses including shops and pubs could not survive without it.

Don't worry if you are put off taking a holiday in Britain by the pylons and turbines strung all over the countryside. You can always take a cheap CO₂-emitting flight somewhere else.

ROBERT HANDYSIDE

SWARLAND, NORTHUMBERLAND

Sir: You report "Turbine distracts drivers" (16 November). To familiarise motorists with wind turbines and their environmental benefits, I would suggest positioning a turbine at each motorway intersection. That would bring the issue of green energy to millions and perhaps allow them to reflect on the environmental impact of their journeys.

JOHN PEACOCK

DARLINGTON, CO DURHAM

Human rights in Saudi Arabia

Sir: Jonathan Mirsky's description of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not one that I recognise (Opinion, 9 November). We do not and have not "harboured" terrorists. Saudi Arabia was the first country to recognise the dangers of al-Qa'ida.

In our fight against terrorism in recent years, we have detained more than 800 suspects and killed or captured some 140 terrorists. Ninety members of our security forces have also been killed. These terrorists are as much against us as they are against the West.

Mirsky's suggestion that we are a lawless state is insulting. We apply sharia law and we are signatories to international human-rights legislation.

AMBASSADOR FEREJ ALOWEDI

CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES, ROYAL EMBASSY OF SAUDI ARABIA LONDON W1

Threat of Blair's shirt

Sir: The picture of Tony Blair addressing the Commons Liaison Committee in his shirtsleeves (23 November) fills me with despair. Not because of his fashion style but because he tells us that climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions is the greatest threat to mankind and yet works in an obviously overheated workplace. Come on, Mr Blair, turn the heating down and put on a jacket or sweater.

DR ROBERT RALPH

ABERDEEN

Harsh on the police

Sir: I felt Richard Cain was perhaps being a little harsh (letter, 21 November) in taking the police to task for "turning it on big" after the tragic death in Bradford. What sticks in my craw is that, according to the TV pictures, it apparently took seven police vans, five police cars and a helicopter to transfer five suspects from London to Bradford; just think what effort might have been directed to other crime prevention or detection if a sensible manpower approach to the transfer had been adopted.

D A BRIDGER

CHELTENHAM, GLOUCESTERSHIRE

Heroic stand

Sir: I applaud Richard Griffiths' decision to eject an audience member whose mobile phone repeatedly disrupted his performance. I've lost count of the productions that I've seen that have been ruined by ringtones, the rustle of sweet wrappers and whispered conversations. If you can't bear to turn off your mobile for two hours of your life - and if you ignore the announcement before curtain-up at most theatres - you don't deserve to be there. It's apt that Richard Griffiths is appearing in Heroes; by making a stand about inconsiderate audiences, that's exactly what he's become.

ANDREW BUCKINGHAM

LONDON E8

Journey of discovery

Sir: Congratulations to The Independent for introducing the cycling column to the Motoring section - but how about going a little further and renaming it the Transport section? Everyone needs transport, but a third of households don't have a car while most car owners sometimes go by bike, train or bus.

DONALD SMITH

HADDINGTON, EAST LOTHIAN

Unseasonal weather

Sir: Outside my window I can see my car covered in a thick layer of sparkly white frost. But I prefer your weather page for today (23 November). "It will be hot and humid. Max temp 30C (76F). Tonight, min temp 16C (61F)." And I see it is 90F in Paris, too. Glad to see you are pursuing your firm stand on global warming.

A R JOHNSTON

LONDON W14