Following the London Bridge attack, we need to talk about British foreign policy

I am writing regarding the recent and very sad terrorist events in Manchester and London. It is noticeable that most media coverage seems to be paying attention to the terrorist`s religion as the main driver or reason for these acts. People do not commit acts such as this due to religion.

Surely it is about time we started having an adult discussion in this country about the link between this type of appalling act and our foreign policy with regards to the Middle East over the past 20 years.

There is a direct and clear link between our military adventuring in the area and the increase of Islamic extremist groups and their willingness to direct terrorist acts at our western democracies.

We should not be afraid to talk about the link between our activities in the Middle East and our dwindling oil supplies as the main reason for these activities. We have very effectively and efficiently destabilised the entire of the Middle East leaving power vacuums that Isis and others have stepped into.

The people of this country deserve to be served better by the media in driving these hard and unpalatable discussions into taking place.

Steve Tingle
Address supplied

The election of Jeremy Corbyn would make the prospects for peace and security much better at home and abroad.

Corbyn recognises the very reasons that have brought the country to a point where random terrorist attacks are almost becoming commonplace.

Despite the efforts of the right to conjure up terrorists as some sort of evil that emerges from the ground, the reality is that the actions of governments over the past 16 years have helped create the conditions for terrorism to grow.

Remember, no one was talking about Islamic terrorism before the turn of the millennium. The military interventions of Britain together with the US and other countries in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped create the conditions from which Isis has emerged.

The selling of arms to countries like Saudi Arabia has also added to the turmoil.

At home, Britain seems to have learned little from the days of the Troubles in Northern Ireland when the Irish were made into a suspect community courtesy of anti-terror legislation. The same formula, despite its proven faults, has been used against the Muslim community.

Corbyn would pursue a less antagonistic foreign policy. He would not be accompanied on every foreign visit by a phalanx of arms sales people. He would strengthen the police and security services here, without handing out draconian powers that take away ever more citizen’s liberties. This policy would not eradicate terrorism at a stroke but it would be a step in the right direction toward a more peaceful terror free world.

Paul Donovan
London E11

“Enough is enough” was Theresa May's response to the horrible London attack but they were also the words on placards meant for Thersea May, whilst she was barracked for vicious cuts at the 2012 Police Federation. Each year since, police numbers have deteriorated but the Government claims there is no connection to their effectiveness.

Yesterday, a former Met chief warned “the streets of London have been lost” to knife crime and that the Government was “lying" about the number of armed officers on the street. He singled out May for being “criminally negligent”. Since she became Home Secretary in 2010, we have lost 20,000 police officers, destroying community policing and the intelligence that comes with it.

May is not a safe pair of hands. She’s a liability.

Stefan Wickham
​Oxted

Aaron Balick's lofty “Why I won’t be marking myself as ‘safe’ on Facebook today” may be fine for him. Last Saturday we spent the day with our daughter, son-in-law and their friends in south London. We left to return home to Hampshire, leaving them planning to go out and celebrate our daughter's birthday “in town”.

We know there are millions of people in London, so what are the chances? But I can't tell you how relieved I was that night to see her “safe” post.

Jill Buss
Hampshire

Aaron Balick makes a good point. At 01:15 on the night of the Manchester bombing, friends who live a mile from the Arena phoned me to say they were safe because they did not want me to hear of the incident on the morning radio news, and panic.

Last week, they could not contact me for two days because I had left home without my mobile. Having lived happily without it for the first fifty years of my life, I felt I could survive its absence for a day or two. I recovered it to find several texts asking if I was dead and that if I had not answered by a deadline, they would assume the worst.

I reassured them that I had not yet shuffled off this mortal coil but I believe God had the date in his diary. Not sharing my faith, they were not amused. Not sharing their devotion to IT, nor was I.

Terence Carr
​Prestatyn

There is still time for “48 per cent” to have a decisive impact on the Brexit process. It’s quite simple, requiring all Remainers to vote Labour in seats where Labour has the best chance of beating the Conservative candidate, or to vote Lib Dem or Green in seats where the latter parties have the best chance to beat the Conservative.

If most or all Remainers were to vote in this way on Thursday, the most likely outcome would be a Lab/Lib Dem/Nationalist/Green coalition, in which the non-Labour MPs would drag the coalition government back to (at the very least) a very soft Brexit, and away from Theresa May’s divisive hard Brexit.

Never before has the case for tactical voting been so clear or compelling.

Mark Trotman
Gloucester