How can Matt Hancock be taken seriously over protests after omitting reports on Bame deaths?
How can Matt Hancock expect to be taken seriously, when he asks people not to attend Black Lives Matter protests? He has just omitted submissions from black and ethnic minority groups from the report on Covid-19, which shows that risks to life are much higher for black people, but leaves out references to underlying causes such as structural racism.
This omission is such a classic example of the structural racism that the protests are talking about. It illustrates why the Black Lives Matter groundswell is so necessary.
Dr Bob Banks
Grindleford, Derbyshire
A better way to protest?
When the American civil rights activist Rosa Parks, in 1955, wanted to show her views about the Montgomery Bus Company’s policy on segregation of passengers, she encouraged her supporters to stop travelling on these buses and the subsequent economic damage peacefully persuaded the company to change its ideas. Perhaps those currently showing their displeasure about the death at police hands of George Floyd should be more imaginative than using street demonstrations in their actions?
Why not publish hard facts about numbers of active neighbourhood watches and special constables and complaints against police in this country, and how they are distributed among the various forces? Such a mind concentrating policy, if adopted, could work wonders.
John Kenny
Acle, Norfolk
Cockburn’s truth telling is what politics needs
In Saturday’s edition, Patrick Cockburn wrote that “on a single day this week 359 people died from coronavirus in the UK – more than the number of deaths in all 27 EU countries over the same 24 hours”. Is this what the Boris Johnson meant by “taking back control”?
Michael Bone
Saxtead, Suffolk
Once again Patrick Cockburn writes an article pointing out the ineptitude of the current administration. Would he consider standing for parliament? We really do need his help.
Margaret Mountford
Wilmslow
Time to emerge from the coronavirus bunker
It took a conference call between the Education Department’s technical panel and the government’s scientific ‘A-Team’ (Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance) to convince the teaching union bosses that their members were no more at risk than people in any other profession. If it’s safe for children and those who educate them, it’s safe for us. No more cowering at home, terrified of the apocalypse. Time to stop clapping “essential” workers and join their ranks: shop staff, those involved in justice, religious and charity work, utility employees, and so on.
Of course for some of the population, the crisis was a fabulous bank holiday. Rishi Sunak wants to wean people off furlough payments. Fat chance; they’re having the time of their lives and want the “Mother of the Nation” to keep Scotland in lockdown for just a while yet.
Dr John Cameron
St Andrews
The evidence over face masks hasn’t changed
The government has made a complete mess of whether we should wear masks. We were told by Jenny Harries, way back in the mists of time, that we may feel a false sense of protection because masks would not protect us from catching the virus but only from transmitting it and, more weirdly, that some of us idiots may not put our masks on correctly, thereby rendering them ineffective. No one worried whether we would be washing our hands correctly.
Grant Shapps is now claiming that the evidence surrounding wearing face masks has changed. It hasn’t. The evidence, on which Shapps is relying, and which he conveniently claims has changed is, I assume, from the World Health Organisation (WHO).
We never thought they offered protection. We always knew they only potentially reduced transmission. Given that we (and the WHO) know virus carriers may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic while transmitting the disease, any measure that may reduce, however slightly, transmission must be a good thing. Isn’t that “following the science”?
In addition an apology is owed to Sadiq Khan, who wanted face masks to be compulsory on London’s public transport network in April but was derided by the government. One could so easily despair.
Beryl Wall
London W4
Another set of rules
“If you don’t follow the rules, the police will have the powers to enforce them,” was the prime minister’s warning, on 23 March. Now we know that appetite for enforcement did not extend to a certain political adviser to PM, yet it certainly now includes anyone who wants to make a protest. Whilst the word unprecedented is very frequently used (ironically), this laissez faire set of rules is now unenforceable, so is unlawful.
Stuart Wilkie
Kings Lynn
Let our failed leaders feel the pain
The World Bank president has described the economic effects of the pandemic as “devastating”. However, I have not heard a single one of the key decision makers - politicians and senior civil servants all – suggest that they personally should incur any economic cost.
May I suggest that the Office of National Statistics establish the average percentage loss of income and pension entitlement suffered this year by the average Briton and then impose that cut on the decision makers? This would expose them to the financial aspect of the decisions they are making. Those decision makers may have wonderful imaginations and great empathy – but there is nothing like personal experience to build understanding.
Bob Grayson
Sheffield
