Ignorance can be no defence for Boris Johnson

I had always thought that a basic principle of British law is that ignorance of the law is no defence for those who break it.

So it is particularly egregious for the maker of a law, Boris Johnson, to claim that he did not know that the 20 May party at 10 Downing Street was not allowed under the rules he himself made.

If he can get away with using that defence, then surely all those thousands of individuals who have been prosecuted by the police under the same rules can successfully argue that their cases be dismissed.

Peter Coggins

Oxford

If we have a prime minister who is incapable of recognising a party, having attended it for 25 minutes, and then offers a defence that no one told him it was wrong and against the Covid regulations he himself set for the country at the time, do we really want his finger on the nuclear button?

Carol Ferguson

York

The imminent demise of Boris Johnson raises two important questions. Firstly, are any of his potential successors prepared to live in the harshly decorated Downing Street flat? Secondly, if the answer to the first question is “no”, how much will the next round of redecorating cost?

Perhaps the Tories hope that a thick coat of whitewash will be sufficient to erase memories of the damage inflicted on the country over the past 11 and a half years.

Phil Whitney

Cromford, Derbyshire

Can anybody tell me why Operation Save Big Dog and Operation Red Meat are needed if, as all his Tory chums keep saying, the tousled Tory leader is innocent of all accusations?

Surely nothing says guilty like a leader who won’t put himself up for scrutiny?

David Higgins

Yeovil, Somerset

Anyone who has been involved in staff recruitment will recognise that neither the prime minister nor Dominic Cummings should ever have been given line management responsibility.

In my opinion, they will never conform to guidance or be effective as members of a team. They are creative loners who should be used to generate ideas for others to act on or reject.

Perhaps the Tory MPs who will determine the shortlist for a new party leader would benefit from some basic management training first.

John Wilkin

Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

Twenty years on from Guantanamo Bay admitting its first prisoners, many have described the political stalemate in the United States-run enclave and criticised US failure to resolve the issue.

However, there has been little discussion of the UK’s share in this mess. The full scale of UK involvement in the US programme of kidnap and torture after 9/11 is still unknown.

The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) was, in its own words, “unable to conduct an authoritative inquiry” or produce a “credible report” in their latest attempt in 2018. This was because they were thwarted from collecting the necessary evidence, as their report explains.

This is unacceptable. The ISC in its current form is unable to complete such work. Long-mooted reforms to bolster the powers of the ISC must be implemented so that parliament and the public have confidence that the ISC is able to perform its role effectively.

Stephen Timms MP

Lord Andrew Tyrie

Co-chairs of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition

Rebecca Tidy’s article appears to suggest that Nadine Dorries’s commitment to ending the BBC licence fee means that BBC content will then be free to air. That must be the most unlikely of all outcomes.

As someone who has never had a television licence (or owned or viewed television) for the 45 years I have lived in the UK, I am regularly hounded by the TVLA to explain myself, and I agree that the way the licence fee is operated is iniquitous.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

But if Tidy wants to turn the telly on to amuse her child, then she is going to end up paying a subscription to one media company or another, and it won’t be much if anything less than the licence fee itself. And from what I can see, all but the BBC provide much more restricted and biased content.

Rachael Padman

Newmarket, Suffolk

Further to your story about 67,000 people dying at home last year without access to pain relief and other vital care, the Health and Care Bill currently before parliament offers a once in a generation chance to solve this problem.

Currently, the bill explicitly names maternity and other services that must be delivered but makes no mention of palliative and end of life care.

My amendment, which was debated in the Lords yesterday, would make it compulsory for palliative care services to be commissioned in every part of the country, ending the postcode lottery that currently condemns many people to die in pain and without dignity simply because of where they live.

This amendment is supported by Marie Curie and other leading hospice charities, as well as politicians of all parties. With demand for palliative care set to increase by 42 per cent in coming decades due to our ageing population, we must act now to ensure future generations have the care and support we would all wish and hope for at the end of our own lives.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Crossbench member of the House of Lords