There are no bad dogs, just bad people

I read The Independent’s piece about the tragic killing in Milton Keynes of a four-year-old girl by a dog. These terrible accidents are always tragic and break your heart (even more so when you are a dog lover).

Still, I think the point is being missed by society as a whole: there are no bad dogs, just bad owners/people.

There is nothing more a true dog owner hates than other dogs off lead without recall and their owners shouting, “don’t worry he’s friendly”. There is a time and a place for dogs to run free! Maybe not in your local park when kids and families are around.

I personally have three dogs and a seven-year-old son who is autistic. One of my dogs is trained to follow my son if he should ever escape as he has no sense of danger. I now have a guardian who would put my son’s life before his own to ensure my son’s safety. Few people are as selfless as dogs, they are born to look after their pack naturally, without greed or holding grudges. These instincts are not considered or fully understood by enough people and there are more people with dogs just because… they want one.

Too many people feel they are entitled to own a dog rather than appreciate it’s a privilege. Social media drives the need for status, to look good with dangerous dogs. We should look at the owners, the lack of licenses, the lack of training or understanding. It’s the people who should take responsibility.

Daniel Duckworth

Address Supplied

I have followed recent correspondence inThe Independent on the subject of nurse education with great interest. I too trained as a nurse in the 1970s and went on to qualify as a nurse teacher at the onset of “Project 2000” in 1993. The consequences of this change for nursing share many characteristics with a later, misconceived project called Brexit. The benefits were exaggerated and the drawbacks belittled.

In 1977 young people entering the profession spent approximately 6 weeks being prepared to work in acute medical, surgical, and care of the elderly wards throughout a large district general hospital. They were expected to contribute to the caring workload and in the process learn their trade as a nurse. Indeed most hospitals could not function without their “learner” nurses. Over the course of three years, these trainee nurses would be expected to work in increasingly more complex medical environments, punctuated with classroom blocks of formal learning in preparation for their next experience. It worked on so many levels. Firstly learner nurses were employees of the hospital and received a salary, pension, and other benefits including sick pay. When they worked weekends and nights they benefited from enhanced payments. There was no imperative to moonlight for agencies to avoid running up college-related debt.

When they completed their training the transition from learner to registered nurse was seamless as opportunities were presented in a working environment they knew well and were fully acclimatised to its requirements. This model was essentially what hospitals wanted; a compliant, skilled workforce that was comparatively well paid in contrast with other students of the time.

In contrast, “Project 2000” insisted student nurses were supernumerary when on placement. They received a bursary instead of a salary which was subsequently withdrawn. Thus breaking the link between student employees and hospitals. Qualified nurses responsible for busy units had to adjust from employing useful carers to accommodating observers requiring constant supervision. This resulted in fewer areas wishing to provide student experience. Some students even reported working agency shifts on days off was more fulfilling as they actually got hands-on experience. Meanwhile, student wastage levels rocketed. It was very apparent that nursing colleges were still largely recruiting the same cohort of young people as before but expecting them to function at the higher academic level required of major universities. A significant proportion, consequently were unable to pass their mid-course assessments and/or examinations and were discontinued.

“Project 2000” and Brexit have much in common. The profession, as the nation, acted in haste–now and both now repent at their leisure.

David Smith

Taunton

I have every sympathy with public sector workers taking action to defend their living standards. I also find the government’s excuse for refusing to make realistic offers less than convincing. The Conservatives argue that such pay rises would be highly inflationary. I accept that when a firm in the private sector awards its workers higher pay, then there is a risk that the firm will finance that pay rise by raising the price of the goods and services it produces, which may well increase inflationary pressure.

However, the services of teachers, doctors, nurses, ambulance workers, border staff, etc. are all provided free at the point of delivery.  Surely, any increase in the wages of people in these sectors will be financed not by inflationary price rises, but from the public purse.

Increasing public expenditure through higher public sector borrowing or increased taxation has an indirect impact on inflation, but only in the mid to long term.  The Government itself has argued that by then the headline rate should have fallen sharply. It would thus appear that the main reason to not reward public sector workers is political, not economic.  It is strange how the Conservative government can always find the money for certain things like sweeteners to the DUP in 2017 or paying over the odds for PPE from Tory Party supporters during the pandemic, but baulk at the opportunity to pay nurses enough money to prevent them having to visit a food bank to feed their children.

M T Harris

Grimsby

Thanks to the economic calamity of Brexit, plus the unnecessary costs of remaining in Nato, bringing with it our huge inflation so deeply damaging to our economy – probably for many years – the future seems bleak.

Scotland will have nothing to gain by staying within the UK and will almost certainly secede. By leaving and rejoining the EEC they will become far richer. The advantages of many of our factories in England moving to Scotland to take advantage of the open access to the largest market in the world would then be overwhelming.

We can no longer look forward to a place at the top tables of the world. It is over. All we will have are memories of past grandeur. Is there a way back for us becoming “Great Britain” once again? Maybe there is – if you believe in miracles.

David Lee

Address supplied

Brexit’s third birthday is accompanied by credible reports that forecasts of our economic fortunes place us behind every advanced economy in the world, including Russia.

Russia has had sanctions imposed on it. We have imposed sanctions on ourselves. If the forecasts are correct, and there is little reason to seriously doubt either the direction or likely magnitude, the effects on our economies are comparable. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, in economic terms, the public are the victims of a blue-on-blue strike; and our Brexit government keeps on firing. We are suffering extensive self–inflicted damage and can look forward to more of the same.

There are other forecasts available. If prominent campaigner Jacob Rees–Mogg has got it right, and why should we doubt him, the ceasefire will arrive in half a century; more optimistic Brexiteer forecasts place it at 20 years. Regrettably, the gains of action are not identified nor is their value quantified.

Our future was far brighter whilst in the EU and our departure was profoundly damaging. Rejoining is a desirable and viable option. The benefits of membership are apparent – as they are to the inspirational and aspirational Zelensky.

David Nelmes   

Newport