The appointment of Richard Sharp has undermined the whole ethos of the BBC

The BBC has long been the subject of usually unfair criticism from both Tory and Labour supporters at different times – which ironically suggests that it is probably doing its job rather well.

As an inveterate listener to current affairs coverage on both Radio 4 and BBC TV, I have always found it scrupulously even-handed – to the point sometimes of giving too much air time to fringe populist voices. When individual producers, commentators and reporters overstep the mark they get pounced on pretty quickly by politicians and other media. However the BBC has an important role in investigative journalism, and that often does involve treading on some quite powerful toes, predictably provoking political outrage.

The constant threat to reduce or abolish the licence fee is already an example of blatant political interference. Of course, the BBC must be financially and editorially accountable, but to the public not to political parties, and the licence fee is not government money. The best arrangement would be for the BBC to have an apolitical supervisory board.

In this context, to have allowed the selection of both the chair and the director general to have become political appointments undermines the whole public service ethos of the BBC. Something like the apolitical Judicial Appointments Commission is needed for these posts.

One has only to observe the brainwashing effect of state media in autocratic regimes like Russia to see where government interference can lead. We need to be constantly alert to creeping political meddling and ultimately political control of such an important and respected national institution.

Gavin Turner

Norfolk

There is little mystery about Steve Barclay’s refusal to offer a legitimate pay rise to health workers.

The government is hell-bent on pursuing its policy of austerity – the debilitation of the country as the means of justifying privatisation, which of course allows the transfer of government money to big business, which is the core objective of this government.

It may be quite cynical but I believe Barclay is withholding a legitimate pay increase to health workers in order to provoke industrial action which will accelerate the debilitation the Tories desire. Funding is not the problem Barclay pretends it is, yet it’s his chosen excuse. Sunak chooses another red herring: inflation.

To this government’s enduring shame, we can see from the huge, steady increase in the wealth of big business. The government has regularly diverted much of its “deficit” spending straight into the coffers of large corporations instead of using it solely to promote economic growth, which it claims is its priority.

Privatisation by debilitation is an essential component of this process.

Andrew McLauchlin

Stratford upon Avon

The recent attack on the Merseyside hotel housing asylum-seekers saw a mob set fire to a police van and throw fireworks and stones at the hotel. It seems likely that the lives of the refugees in the hotel were in danger.

The home secretary, Suella Braverman, later condemned “the appalling disorder” but in my opinion, Braverman has played a leading role in promoting anti-refugee rhetoric.

Braverman confessed she“dreams” and “obsesses” about deporting refugees to Rwanda. Last December, Braverman made a speech in the Commons in which she denounced refugees as “criminals” carrying out an “invasion” of the UK.

Braverman has refused to stop vilifying asylum-seekers or moderate her language against them.

She is not the only Tory politician who has been accused of whipping-up anti-refugee racism. A number of Tory MPs including Jonathan Gullis, Lee Anderson, and Brendan Clarke-Smith have repeatedly used the protection of parliamentary privilege to openly identify hotels housing asylum-seekers. 

They have done this despite being warned of attacks. Lee Anderson, recently promoted to the deputy chair of the Tory party, boasted he would “not be silenced” from naming hotels accommodating asylum-seekers.

Sasha Simic

London

Regarding the violence in Knowsley, in all the articles I’ve read about the issue of asylum seekers being accommodated unsuitably in hotels, nobody mentions this in relation to the housing crisis.

Why is that? The reason they are in hotels, at great expense, is because of the lack of decent, affordable housing in this country.

Yes, we have a duty to help those coming to this country and as a wealthy country, you’d think that wouldn’t be too much of a problem. But if we want to be able to provide a decent life to asylum seekers as well as to those already living here, we need to address the housing crisis.

The reality is, Britain is not an easy place to live in if you’re not wealthy, or don’t have family who can assist financially. If you want the UK to be a safe haven then you first need to tackle the housing crisis and our infrastructure problems.

Helen Tremaine

Addressed supplied

I agree wholeheartedly with your reader Judith Daniels when she states that Liz Truss and Boris Johnson have not learned from their mistakes. But I would take issue with her opinion of Boris Johnson’s support for Ukraine.

History has shown that Johnson only does something if it’s in his best interest to do so, his support for Ukraine is no different. Having failed at home he cast about for a cause that would feed his own delusional view of himself as a great wartime leader in the mould of Churchill. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was simply convenient.

Of course, it’s in Ukraine’s best interest to feed his monstrous ego – giving him baubles, civic receptions, and naming streets after him – as he has proved a very useful tool for their cause.

His support was also a useful way of keeping him in the public eye (thus further feeding his ego) and a useful tool for sniper attacks on Rishi Sunak’s government.

I do not believe for a moment he cares a jot about the suffering of the Ukrainian people, he is only furthering his own career and feeding his ego.

Nigel Groom

Essex