Letters: Haj disaster

Disorderly pilgrims, not the Saudis, are to blame for Haj deaths

Sir: The scenes at Jamart bridge during the Haj were dreadful and horrific, but it seems unfair to lay the blame on the Saudi authorities alone (letter, 14 January). I am an Iranian with no political affinity to the Saudis, but I have seen for myself the effort, time and expense that the authorities expend in preparation for the holy pilgrimage.

I am an engineer and was asked by the Saudis to examine the bridge for structural safety and to monitor it closely during the 2005 festival. I found nothing wrong with the structure except that it needed some minor repairs. Many measures had also been taken to make the movement of crowds safer, such as widening the bridge at bottlenecks and streamlining the area around the Jamarah stones. This was undertaken at great expense and with the help of international experts.

The problem is that up to four million people try to walk from above, below and around a 1km-long bridge that varies in width between 20m and 50m. At three locations, people stop to throw stones at a wall while there is still a mass of people behind them. These men, women and children have different cultures and attitudes. Some carry their baggage, some push buggies. Some are weak and slow and some are strong and fast. The strong push their way through the crowd with little regard for the weak, young and elderly.

The real tragedy is people's poor behaviour, lack of respect for one another and little common sense. I fail to see what difference it would make if there was an independent state looking after the holy cities, as suggested by Dr Hargey in his letter.

DR DAVOOD LIAGHAT

FELLOW OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS LONDON N14

Sir: Your reports on the latest Haj deaths correctly placed the greatest onus for this tragedy on the Saudi government. For more than a quarter of a century, the patriarchal Saudis have provided woefully inadequate security and are quick to take refuge in pathetic excuses for their recurrent incompetence during the pilgrimage. For this and other compelling reasons, Muslims should take the innovative and courageous proposal put forward by the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford (letter, 14 January) seriously.

An independent sovereignty in the Hijaz consisting of Mecca and Medina could be run very much like the Vatican, but with modern democratic structures and sophisticated management. As everyone knows, Vatican City operates successfully and independently of Italy. A similar constitutional arrangement involving Islam's holy places would leave the Saudis free to pursue reactionary Wahhabism elsewhere in the kingdom without imposing their peculiarly intolerant brand of Islam on the rest of the global Muslim community. Such a development would be a godsend for everyone, especially Muslim women.

DR J WOODMAN

HARROW

Fly all the flags on our British Day

Sir: Gordon Brown's flag-flying initiative is welcome. We should mark our pride in this nation and its place in the world.

But before many of us would feel happy with regularly raising the flag, Gordon Brown needs to give us reasons for celebration. A codified constitution that denies the Prime Minister, including possibly a premier Brown, the prerogative powers of a medieval monarch is essential. Electoral reform and an upper chamber no longer dominated by appointees should be included in this programme.

As for the "British Day" itself, if Gordon Brown delivers such reforms, I for one would fly flags on his birthday.

And the flags would be multiple, with that of the European Union and the UN flying alongside the national flag. This country's celebrations should not be marred by reckless and self-centred nationalism abroad, or social injustice and religious fundamentalism at home. The value of a flag lies in what it really represents, not in how many times it is raised.

TIM WILSON

TONBRIDGE, KENT

Sir: Gordon Brown calls for a national day to enjoy "Britishness" and asks where our Fourth of July is.

Perhaps the most obvious choice would be to resurrect "Empire Day" (as it's on 24 May, it would merge nicely with the Spring Bank Holiday) or Commonwealth Day (11 June, also the Queen's official birthday). As it's Britishness we're celebrating, though, maybe 26 March (Act of Union between Scotland and England - sorry, Ireland and Wales) or maybe we could adopt Trafalgar Day, 21 October, as a single momentous day in history, when our continued Britishness was assured.

Personally I favour 15 June, the sealing of the Magna Carta and the beginning of our country's gift of freedom to the world.

DAVID BRICKNELL

BRISTOL

Sir: Once one was proud to be British, because goods in the shops most were labelled "Made in Britain", and even when travelling the world, British-made goods were on display.

Today, the vast majority of what we buy in the shops is from overseas, being produced by people working in Dickensian conditions, as reported in The Independent ("Shop until they drop", 14 January). The utilities are now predominately foreign-owed.

The British family silver has been sold off, and Gordon Brown is living in a different Britain than most of us.

DAISY DRAPER

COWES, ISLE OF WIGHT

Sir: The paradox of the calls for more displays of patriotism from the modern right (which includes New Labour) is how mindlessly imitative they are of a certain other country.

The British have never lacked patriotism, and have shown it whenever the occasion arises, but it is profoundly out of accordance with the national style to boast about it. When shallow politicians call for more displays of national pride, they should at least be told to look for things in accordance with their own country's traditions instead of those of a different country.

Their wish to imitate everything American, added to their foreign policy of making Britain a total satellite of the US, says many things about them, but it certainly doesn't emphasise their Britishness.

ROGER SCHAFIR

LONDON N21

Sir: If we are to have a "British Day", then I suggest 9 May. It has been officially designated as "Europe Day" for years without attracting the slightest popular interest or support, so why not use it for a better purpose?

DR D R COOPER

MAIDENHEAD, BERKSHIRE

Sir: If Americans have flags in their gardens, do the British have gnomes in theirs - or is that just the English?

KEITH NOLAN

CARRICK-ON-SHANNON, CO LEITRIM, IRELAND

Why teachers have no time to teach

Sir: Your sensationalist headline about poorly performing schools ("Our failing schools", 11 January) drew my attention as the former head teacher of a successful school. It made me wonder about the correlation between the designation that a school is failing with the nature of the circumstances in which it is located.

In some communities there is, sadly, a poor attitude towards education, such that teachers are actively opposed rather than receiving the support they and their pupils deserve; parenting skills are at a premium. Schools do their best but cannot change the world unaided.

Recognition of reality by politicians and inspectors would do much to improve performance and restore lost confidence and respect (Tony Blair, please note). I know how hard teachers work, virtually without exception, but the great majority of teachers' efforts are expended upon keeping order rather than teaching. Imagine what could be achieved if teachers could concentrate on teaching: attainment would be transformed and the job would be actually desirable; some people might even wish to be head teachers!

According to your statistics, almost three quarters of the so-called poorly performing secondary schools are those the unrealistic inspectors deem to be "coasting". These are good schools with good results, which have found a way of working well, but are criticised for not getting better every year. Hence my use of the word "sensationalist" above. A little more rationality in all quarters would be a real breath of fresh air in an increasingly unwholesome atmosphere.

DAVID MOULSON

SCUNTHORPE, NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE

Hunting Act isn't about fox welfare

Sir: There was no surprise in the countryside (Christopher Clayton, letters 9 January) that the suspension of hunting due to foot and mouth had no discernable impact on fox numbers. There are plenty of ways of killing a fox and, just as they are now, farmers and land managers used alternative methods.

The impact of the Hunting Act on the fox population will be similarly confused. In some areas, such as heavily afforested upland Wales, fox control is now nigh on impossible, but in others more foxes are being killed by alternative methods that a government inquiry found were no more humane than hunting with dogs.

Surely, however, there are very few people left who think that the motivation for the Hunting Act had anything to do with foxes?

TIM BONNER

COUNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE LONDON SE11

Ecology cuts will risk loss of fine scientists

Sir: The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) proposes to close three leading research centres on the grounds that environmental research has become discipline- rather than site-based and that it is more economical to have scientists in a few places rather than locate them near their study areas.

This concentration of people will involve the redundancy of about one-third of them. NERC believes it can cherry-pick the best scientists from the closed stations and transfer them to distant surviving NERC stations.

In practice, however, these good scientists will be unwilling to move for personal reasons and will be snapped up locally (for instance, by universities, other research institutes or conservation quangos) and their long-term, site-based research (eg, on population processes or the effects of global warming) may be lost to science and to the nation.

I write as a retired senior officer from NERC's Banchory research station and I know also the bad effects on morale of scientists that arise from lack of confidence in their parent organisation. The proposed closures by NERC should be strongly opposed.

PROFESSOR DAVID JENKINS

ABOYNE, ABERDEENSHIRE

Government has an interest in D-Notices

Sir: Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance denies that the British government has "issued a gagging order" to prevent publication of the name of the British MI6 agent alleged to have been present during the torture of suspected terrorists in Athens (Letters, 7January). He also claims that D-Notices "constitute a purely voluntary code, one without any form of legal sanction".

The secretary of the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee is technically correct, but he is being economical with the truth in claiming that the "advice" given to editors in the British media does not come from the Government but, rather, from an "independent" committee. His own website says that the D-Notice Committee is "a joint government/media body". It is therefore independent of neither the Government nor the media.

The D-Notice system was set up in 1912, and since 1945, the secretary of the committee has invariably been a senior military officer. Are we seriously expected to believe that the British armed forces are "independent" of government?

British governments cling to the system because it enables them to supress information they would find embarassing. Such a system would be unlawful in the US as being in breach of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

JACOB ECCLESTONE

DISS, NORFOLK

Armed fanatics

Sir: Why should I be afraid of a religious fanatic in Iran having "the bomb" but not afraid of a religious fanatic in America who has lots of "bombs", remembering that the US has already used two "bombs" to kill thousands of innocent civilians.

TERRY PARR

SWAFFHAM PRIOR, CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Fuelling controversy

Sir: Guy Keleny should not beat himself with twigs too harshly about mixed metaphors (Errors and Omissions, 14 January). It is indeed possible to fuel a backlash, since, in scientific terms, fuel is another word for energy. In the example he gives, the bent tree, when released, will translate a forcible effect in proportion to the potential energy stored in its tensioned state. Pulling the tree back a little further is precisely the "fuel" it needs to hurt more when released in the predictable backlash.

ALEX LEWIS

MAIDSTONE, KENT

Disrespect for Galloway

Sir: I was appalled to see George Galloway on Channel 4's Big Brother on all fours in front of Rula Lenska. This undignified image will stick with him and, unfortunately, in our minds. Even worse will be the reaction in other parts of the world, especially among the Arabs and Muslims whose support he covets. The next time he faces senators in the US, they will die laughing.

ZAHID JAWED

HIGH WYCOMBE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Religious stereotypes

Sir: Simon Carr (The Sketch, 13 January) writes of the Education Secretary's performance in the House of Commons that "Ruth Kelly put her case with such assurance that it took a moment to realise the Jesuitical drivel she was offering". Ms Kelly is, as we are constantly reminded, a Catholic. But if she were Jewish, would Carr write off her speech as "Rabbinical rubbish"? If not, why not?

DANIEL BAIRD

GLASGOW

Game of two halves

Sir: The omission of the European Cup-winning team from the New Year honours (Report, 13 January) was explained thus: "It was more of a cock-up than a conspiracy, but there are two honours lists a year and it is expected that Liverpool will receive due recognition in the next one." Surely no cock-up: it seems entirely appropriate that Steven Gerrard and the others should get their well-deserved rewards in the second half.

THE REV STUART CURRIE

WORCESTER