Letters: Our friends start the year with a mass execution

The following letters appear in the 4th January edition of the Independent

(AFP/Getty Images )

That wonderful regime is at it again. You know the regime I’m talking about, the one we roll out the red carpet for when they come to London, and give them audiences with the Queen. The one for which, when their king died recently, our government ordered UK flags to be flown at half mast, as though their king was somehow related to our royalty. The one we sell gargantuan amounts of weapons to which have been used by the regime in the slaughter of 5,800 civilians in Yemen.

The regime that just recently beheaded 47 people for alleged terrorism offences and plans thousands more, including Abdullah al-Zaher, who will be executed simply because when he was 15 years old he attended a protest. The regime that stones people to death, and chops hands off for stealing bread.

A bit rich really, executing people for terrorism, given that the regime is the biggest exporter of fanatical Islamic ideology in the world. Yes it’s our best mates, the most despotic regime in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia.

Mark Holt

Liverpool

Early last December Parliament voted to join the coalition bombing Syria. David Cameron argued the bombing was necessary to stop Daesh, a twisted regime which publicly beheads its opponents. In the run-up to the vote David Cameron accused those against another round of pointless bombing in the region of being “terrorist sympathisers”.

David Cameron is an enthusiastic supporter of Saudi Arabia, an ally of the UK and part of the coalition bombing Syria. The feeling is mutual. Mr Cameron has been awarded the Saudi Order of King Adbulaziz Medal of Excellence.

Saudi Arabia beheaded more than 150 opponents in 2015, the highest number recorded by human rights groups for 20 years. The Saudis have started 2016 by beheading 47 people.

There has been widespread condemnation of this appalling and extremist act from across the region and by human rights organisations. But there is silence from the British government. Who’s the “terrorist sympathiser” now?

Sasha Simic

London N16

I can’t think of much that is likely to provoke more anti-Saudi terrorism than the execution of 47 alleged “terrorists”, including “a top Shia cleric”. Either the Saudi government is stupid, or this is a deliberate attempt to provoke a terrorist response in order to justify a crackdown on Shia opposition groups.

Such a crackdown could precipitate the kind of situation in Saudi Arabia that the crackdown on opposition groups by the Assad regime in Syria provoked in 2011.

Julius Marstrand

Cheltenham

Can Corbyn find a clear policy story?

John Rentoul is too polite (Voices, 30 December). The question is, what on earth does Jeremy Corbyn think he’s playing at? He has had two action-packed demonstrations of how to lose general elections by presenting a confused and incoherent story to the electorate.

The Conservative Party adopted a disciplined and united front, accurately described as “a bribe a day”, few of which were ever intended to be honoured. The Labour Party burbled earnestly and incomprehensibly. Research indicates that a clear message might well have given it the opportunity to form a coalition government.

The floods, which have exposed the irresponsibility of three decades of tax cuts, give an opportunity to formulate a new argument, but it has to be clear and economically feasible. If there isn’t anybody in the Labour Party who can create clear, feasible policies they could always employ someone. Lynton Crosby, perhaps?

Rod Bulcock

Eldwick, West Yorkshire

I really don’t understand the basis of the constant stream of allegations I see in the media that Jeremy Corbyn is “extreme left-wing”; surely he’s just left – he wants libraries and hospitals and social housing and a more equal society.

A great many political pundits insist in print that the public will only elect moderates, and yet the newly re-elected Tories are selling off all our national assets and presiding over the greatest increase in inequality seen in this country since Dickensian times. Perhaps it’s just me, but I fail to see how that might be considered to be even remotely moderate.

Forcing the sick and disabled back into work only killed a moderate number of them, I suppose, but can somebody – anybody! – please explain to me precisely what it is about the Labour Party leader’s political position that is more offensive or outrageous?

Julian Self

Milton Keynes

A bird cannot fly on one wing, and neither can the Labour Party.

John Whitehead

London EC2

Give churches a fair hearing

One of the reasons that I began to take The Independent some years ago was that you avoid the abusive and intemperate language that often takes the place of reasoned argument in other newspapers.

I was therefore disturbed to read your editorial “Christian vision” (2 January). Whether the BBC does in fact neglect its Christian audience is hardly the point. However, from the opening snide comment about supposed Christian humility, through to the dismissal of the arguments of two Archbishops of Canterbury as “twaddle”, the piece is unworthy of your paper.

Michael Brennan

Bath

Adrian Chiles may have overstated his case when citicising media coverage of religions, but your own editorial is itself disconcertingly unbalanced.

It is ludicrous to claim that the leaders of the British churches hold to “some imagined vision of Britain that lives only in the Church’s imagination”. Justin Welby and Vincent Nichols have a more well-grounded understanding of the realities of life in Britain today than many politicians and political commentators.

Is it that Christians are a soft target? Christians are well used to ridicule and criticism. That’s OK; we can take it. But when did we last see a fair and well-reasoned critique in our media of the origins and beliefs of other faiths and world views such as Islam? Or even, perish the thought, of secular humanism?

As a Christian, I don’t seek a privileged position for the Church in the media or anywhere else, but I do want a level playing field.

Geoff Larcombe

West Wickham, Kent

As a committed Independent reader, and a Christian, I concur with the views expressed in the editorial of 2 January.

Over the centuries commentators have noted that the favouring of Christianity by Emperor Constantine came not only with advantages, but also with costs. I feel that Christianity’s place in our society is shifting to one which is potentially closer to that described in accounts of the early church.

I do not object to pictures of the Pope kissing a lacquered baby Jesus, but whenever The Independent challenges abuse of the poor, exposes corruption, and promotes minority rights, it perhaps unwittingly promotes “true religion”.

Andrew Starr

Leicester

Stop abusing the free health service

The funding crisis within the NHS is a crystal clear failure of government. I have no doubt about that. However, I am also convinced that we need a shift in public attitudes towards our “free” service.

We are responsible for our own health. The health service, is there to help us exercise that responsibility, not to assume it for us.

To change attitudes we need to know how much it costs to see our GP or use a hospital service. I don’t believe that it would deter too many people who need medical attention. People with simple complaints or injuries would begin to think twice before making a GP visit or a trip to A&E, or missing a clinic appointment.

Paula Jones

London SW20

There’s a reason for those Letwin gaffes

The author of the profile of Oliver Letwin (“The Tory king of clangers”, 2 January) seems to regard as him as an endearing and clever figure, albeit accident-prone.

The impression I get of Letwin is of someone with a complete lack of empathy with those from less privileged backgrounds and the problems they have to face, often due to the appalling policies of the government of which he is a member.

Andrew Lee-Hart

Birkenhead, Wirral

Knighthood for a man of mystery

Gordon Elliot (letter, 2 January) argues that, because other parties have abused the honours system, it is unreasonable now to criticise Lynton Crosby’s appointment. But past questionable appointments cannot be used to justify today’s, and Mr Crosby’s alleged contributions to public service remain a total mystery.

Beryl Wall

London W4