The Lucy Letby case shows the value of whistleblowers

Unlike Andrew Malkinson, Lucy Letby is seen to have been justifiably convicted of her crimes. But some guilt must also be apportioned to the hospital trust which not only ignored the concerns of senior medical staff, but for too long also dismissed the sudden, inexplicable increased death rate in the neonatal unit. It has been reported that consultants faced threats of discipline when they suggested that the police should be involved.

Whistleblowers are regarded with suspicion, and often punished. Powerful organisations have always guarded their reputations at the expense of the vulnerable. Nowadays they are perhaps deserving of a crumb of sympathy because social media can so easily pass off misguided opinions as truth.

But there has to be devised some means of confidentially investigating claims of wrongdoing without prematurely vilifying the whistleblower or the accused. We are all well aware that unlikely people sometimes do dreadful things. We must hope that the Lucy Letby case will inspire a more rational, less defensive approach by those in power in many spheres.

Susan Alexander

South Gloucestershire

I take issue with Stephan Lawrence’s recent letter, in which he made three debatable assumptions regarding pensioners.

In 2005 I was devastated to discover that my pension had been invested in an account which had been depleted leaving me with a pension of £1360 per year – my fault for not scrutinising. So my state Pension is significantly important to me. Additionally, I am single, don’t own a house and I vote Labour.

There are millions of pensioners similar to me who depend on a state pension to survive – which we have paid for through our NI contributions. I have no quibbles with the amount received, but to live on £200+ per week demands constant attention.

Lawrence, you have not missed anything, but a readjustment of your understanding of pensioners is necessary. It’s dangerous to stereotype people. Better to wait for the next election.

Keith Poole

Basingstoke

What you are missing are the hard cold facts. Most pensioners are receiving the basic state pension which, assuming they qualify for the full pension – millions don’t – has increased from £141.85 a week to £156.20 a week. Not only is this less than the government increase for the national minimum wage for all age categories, this represents an annual increase of £886 per annum – hardly inflationary given food inflation, not to mention energy costs.

It’s time to be clear about the value of state pensions. There are two state pension schemes in the UK. The basic state pension £8,122.40 per annum and the new state pension £10,600.20 per annum.

There is also an assumption held by many that today’s pensioners have generous occupational pensions. Whilst some do, the majority of pensioners do not have private pensions.

It is time to stop vilifying the elderly; many millions of people over the age of 66 have to rely on their basic state pension of £8,122.40 per annum. This inter-generational envy is a distraction. It is unfair to blame pensioners for the pay-as-you-go pension arrangements which every government has enforced since the creation of the welfare state in 1948. National insurance contributions should have been hypothecated rather than going into general taxation receipts, so the NIC paid by todays pensioners was set aside to meet their pension costs upon retirement.

To state the obvious, today’s pensioners have paid for their pension through taxation when they were working age. Today those of working age will not only be dependent on future generations to meet the costs of their pensions, but will suffer the financial consequences of any erosion to the value of the state pension. To put this into context, Britain already has one of the lowest state pension levels in Europe.

Lesley H

Sutton Coldfield

Adam Lenson’s thought provoking piece querying the choice to portray Leonard Bernstein in the upcoming film Maestro with a Christian actor wearing a prosthetic nose was clearly from the heart. The writer, a Jewish freelance theatre director, clearly feels the Bernstein role was a missed opportunity for a Jewish actor.

Whether one agrees with his observations or concluded from his list of performances where Christian actors played Jewish roles that a Jew might have offered greater “authenticity” is a moot point. But we should remember that all actors are required to pretend to be other than themselves, and we’ve all witnessed Jewish actors insightfully portray other sexes, religions, races, and sexual preferences to wild applause and huge critical acclaim.

Whether the decision to enhance Bradley Cooper’s performance by the addition of a prosthetic nose is a success remains to be seen but, despite various interpretations of the morality of using such an emotive device we do know the wider Bernstein family have approved the addition.

Once we’ve all had a chance to see the film, we can all make our own decisions about the rightness or wrongness of the directors’ decisions. But going with an open mind is vital if we are to try and see into the heart of Leonard Bernstein or the way his Jewishness steered his course through life.

Steve Mackinder

Denver, Norfolk