Trump and Boris Johnson have ushered in an era of unspeakable greed – but it won’t last

Send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

We have entered an era of political and diplomatic change. The acquittal of Donald Trump, by no means the exoneration he has claimed, almost gives him a level of autocratic power, which is concerning. In the UK, with a clear majority, Boris Johnson no longer pretends that he will fulfil Brexit or election promises.

Both countries are now governed by a rich elite for whom self-interest is dominant. In the US, the White House is now the powerhouse for mandating global deals which benefit the president’s family and friends.

Even the appallingly constructed and completely one-sided “Middle East Peace Plan” and lauded only by part of the US and part of Israel, seems to be anything but. In the UK, the rich elite is openly being rewarded by donors who are happy to share their eye-watering profits with their political friends.

It cannot last. Even the most ill-informed members of the electorate, the most bigoted, and duped will realise the error when the only change to their circumstances is financial hurt. But in the meantime, we can only hope that the political and diplomatic damage caused by these charlatans is at last reversible.

Matt Minshall
Britanny​, France

BBC Licence fee

While the government is reviewing whether not having a TV Licence should be decriminalised, perhaps it could also consider whether pub landlords screening Premier League matches without a commercial viewing agreement should continue to be punished?

Colin Burke
Manchester

Don’t call your animal companion a pet

Referring to an animal as a “pet” or as “it” reduces a sentient being with a personality and emotions to an inanimate object – a possession to be used in any way the “owner” wishes. Contrary to some reports making headlines this week, we are not seeking to ban these words; we’re simply suggesting that it would be more respectful to refer to the animals in our homes as “animal companions” and ourselves as their “guardians” in the same way that all social movements concerned with cultivating respect have made appeals to stop using terms that are racist or sexist or that otherwise imply that the subject is less important than the speaker.

Ingrid E Newkirk​, managing director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) Foundation

Inappropriate clothing?

Because women have a greater range of choices over how to dress, they are more open to criticism for poor judgment. By contrast, men don’t have the option of wearing an off the shoulder shirt at work in the first place!

Graham Estop
Sheffield

The film industry must not change

In 1940 Hattie McDaniel won the Oscar for best-supporting actress in Gone With the Wind because she was considered the best. Twenty-four years later Sidney Poitier won for best actor for Lilies of the Field for the same reason. I doubt either would have been content to be elected on account of their colour in place of their talent.

The Duke of Cambridge, who called for more diversity at the Baftas, would also do well to consider the matter of anomaly in these days of ludicrous, not to say hypocritical, colour-blind casting. In the film Judy, Miss Garland’s British pianist was played by mixed-race actor Royce Pierreson. The man he portrayed was Burt Rhodes, an indigenous Yorkshireman born in 1923 and as white as the duke. Supposing his performance had been decided the best among a selection of supporting actors. His win would have been on the basis of a demographic misrepresentation.

To argue for diversity for its own sake is the thin end of a substantial wedge. What happens next year, for instance? Will Prince William apologise for not being a person of colour himself?

Edward Thomas
Eastbourne