Letter: John Major should "interfere"
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Ms Pamela Thomas
Sir: I do not understand the logic behind the remarks made by Tom Charron who originally prosecuted Nick Ingram ("Major warned against trying to stop execution", 30 March) when he says:
I don't know how Mr Major could even intelligently ask for clemency, not knowing the facts of the case, and not appearing to interfere with the laws of the United States.
President Clinton "interfered", with vigour, in the case of the American citizen sentenced in Singapore to a flogging for spraying cars with paint. This did not stop the sentence being carried out, but an important humanitarian point was made.
In Mr Ingram's case, where the sentence is even more barbaric and brutal, surely Mr Major should "interfere" with appropriately greater vigour, if only to make a proportionately more important humanitarian point.
Yours faithfully,
PAMELA THOMAS
Oxford
31 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments