Labour should welcome an antisemitism probe

Forty-five cases of alleged antisemitic online posts by Labour members, in a membership of nearly 600,000 is hardly the torrent of abuse as described by The Sun.

In October 2015, the Home Affairs Select Committee, which investigated antisemitism in the party, found that the failure of the “Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with antisemitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antisemitic”.

Jeremy Corbyn became Labour’s leader on 12 September 2015, so how can MPs such as Margaret Hodge and John Mann and right-wing groups possibly justify their absurd allegations that Labour’s antisemitism problem began with Corbyn?

Beneath all of the hyperbole that has been written about Labour’s antisemitism problem is an inescapable truth. Either antisemitism is rife within the party and Corbyn is a figurehead for that culture or, as many activists claim, this is yet another twist in what has been a carefully co-ordinated and cynical strategy by the Blairites and the right to both smear Corbyn and oust him. That antisemitism in the party is nowhere near as widespread as is claimed (certainly no worse than is in the Tory party), but a device used by disreputable people to silence and discredit Corbyn over his views on the mistreatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government.

Labour should therefore welcome the probe by the police into the antisemitism allegations, because the truth will eventually out. It will also force Corbyn, who has hardly covered himself in glory, to take the right action. He needs to act decisively and stamp out antisemitism within the party, because racism is wrong, in all of its many guises.

Julie Partridge
London SE15

There are no rational arguments against a Final Say, even for Leavers

I was with the 700,000 people in London that wonderful Saturday – hundreds of us came from Bath. Will we be classed as “remoaners” because we lost? Both Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg stated before the vote took place there should be a second vote, the former “if it was close”, the latter because he stated when you buy a house the sale is agreed, but when the detail is known you have the right to see the detail and confirm or otherwise.

It appears there is no majority in parliament for Brexit but, even though in our parliament Burkean doctrine MPs are sent as representatives not delegates, there is no way that MPs can exercise their judgment. It would cause mayhem, with Brexiteers feeling cheated.

Shortly after the war, my father took me and one of my siblings to Holland to see the Jewish company he had been trading with before; having completed his work, he then took us down the Rhine. The devastation was colossal, the roads full of refugees carrying all they had as they tried to get home. In Cologne Cathedral I remember the lists of people searching for loved ones to see if they had survived.

He said: “It must never happen again.”

When in 1971 we decided to enter the European Community, Portugal was still an authoritarian regime following the death of Salazar, Spain had Franco, the Italians were on the brink of communism, the Greeks the colonels – now they all are democracies and the whole of Eastern Europe has escaped the Soviets. A great deal of credit is the EU’s. My worry is are we likely to be heading towards the end of the longest period of peace in Europe?

We are told 90 per cent of the deal has been agreed. If so, can we be told and given a Final Say as your campaign requests?

Peter Downey
Bath

As a fellow wheelchair user, I disagree with the man suing Luton Airport

As a disabled person who uses an electric wheelchair and has travelled frequently on trains and planes, I am upset and disturbed by the action being taken against Luton Airport by a paraplegic man whose wheelchair was left on a plane.

I have experienced times when events have gone “wrong” when travelling and in almost all circumstances people have gone out of their way to help. Even though I might not have received the anticipated service I have applauded their efforts.

This report shows an attitude to problem solving for the disabled that is very unhelpful. Disabled men and women need to show respect and understanding too.

As a disabled person I look to be treated equally, not to be mollycoddled or given a superior service. I believe the staff at Luton Airport should be thanked not castigated

Alan Brown
Address supplied

The UK should not be exporting arms

Your editorial says “We must halt arms sales to Saudis until this war is over”. Why until? Why not forever? The arms we sell are not used for defence. They are used to interfere in the government of other countries and for civil wars. If a country needs help for defence then we should help make the United Nations an effective defender of the defenceless.

No country should be proud of its export of arms. It is a mark of greed over humanity.

No country should be proud of its arsenal of arms. It does not make them great.

Jon Hawksley
London EC1R

Diplomats’ children are the ones suffering in silence

Interesting and perceptive as ever from Patrick Cockburn on British diplomacy “that British diplomats often stay for shorter periods in their posts than journalists. To be fully effective, anybody, however able, needs time and experience, without these they lag behind our rivals”. So very, very true.

The point that he does not explore is the impact of constant upheavals on Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British Council service families. The consequence of my father’s two-year rolling posting meant that I was 5,000 miles from home aged eight in a 1960s boarding school with its privations and ritual beatings and abuse.

In about 1998 I asked Baroness Symons, then at the FCO, for a child-centred study of the £60m a year subsidy that placed children such as me in boarding schools, back over the 50 years of its operation as a window into abuse in “public schools”. Similarly I have spoken of the issue of a lack of a lower age limit for this practice when it comes to this separation of child and mother and its emotional impacts.

Peter Hack
Presteigne

Eating less meat is something to praise, not criticise

This is a response to the article that made a dig at millennials (and presumably non-millennials ) who are not religiously strict about being vegan while also trying to make meat-eaters feel guilty.

I expect the writer does have a guilty conscience and writes to justify her inability to give up meat. I am a baby boomer, and both our kids are vegetarian, which has influenced us in a positive way. My wife and I eat a lot less meat now and avoid beef altogether specifically. In short, there are three good reasons what we should all eat less meat.

Number one is indeed animal welfare. In very few places is meat production carried out in a sustainable and “humane” way. Just seeing some of the clips of (some) slaughterhouses is disturbing to say the least. When you buy meat you are helping to pay someone to do the killing for you.

Number two is the impact on climate change. This is surprisingly high, especially for species such as cows and sheep that ferment their food and expel methane, which is some 14 times as bad as the more commonly quoted CO2 climate change gas. Eating less meat is something we can all do to help mitigate climate change.

And number three is health. I am convinced a plant-based diet is better for us and goes some way to protecting us against many types of diseases.

So abstaining, or even reducing, our meat intake is not something to criticise. Collectively, buying less meat means fewer animals born, factory-fed and slaughtered while also helping the climate and your own health. To me that’s compelling.

Furthermore, fish is in the same category. Irresponsible fishing is depleting species at an alarming rate, and at the same time the dramatic evidence of microplastics from that food is a huge concern.

Scott Peacock
Address supplied