Trigger warnings at the theatre perform a valuable public service

I don’t think many who oppose trigger warnings quite understand where they have come from, and who they were designed for (“Matt Smith casts doubt over use of trigger warnings: ‘Everything’s being dialled and dumbed down’”, Sunday 1 September).

They exist so that people can make an informed decision about whether they should see, watch, or read something.

If you have PTSD, complex trauma, are a survivor of domestic abuse or have other mental health conditions that could be triggered by something you see on stage, on screen or in a book, you need to know ahead of time.

You can then choose whether you watch/read or perhaps use a coping method to get through the triggering subject matter so that you can be moved by the rest of the work.

The argument “we didn’t do this when we were younger” is not good enough. The idea of PTSD was around for a lot longer than the accepted diagnosis. PTSD is not just for soldiers, but for anyone who has suffered trauma that has continued to affect them.

Trigger warnings are, therefore, just as important as strobe light warnings. They need to be well considered, not over the top, and discussed with people with lived experience.

I don’t think the entertainment industry needs to be “dialled and dumbed down”, as Matt Smith has said, but just agree to appreciate that people should be made aware and given a choice on certain material.

Yes, art is supposed to be dangerous, to move you, make you think and question – but I don’t think it should be naive to the reality of trauma. Giving people a choice is seemingly underrated, but could help many people engage with art they would otherwise struggle with.

Charlie Swift

Address supplied

Ofsted’s one-word grades are finally being scrapped. In my opinion, they were almost meaningless in terms of providing useful feedback (“Two words for Ofsted’s inadequate one-word ratings for schools: good riddance”, Monday 2 September) and yet led to great harm, including, probably, the suicide of Ruth Perry.

As a teacher, fortunately now retired, I always tried to emphasise the positive even when students knew the work was challenging for them. The difference between simply stating “inadequate” and giving a list of suggestions for improvement is that one crushes, while the other puts forward a positive path for better results.

What is needed is help and a plan giving detailed individual suggestions for positive changes. Some of this may now be happening in place of grading, but that is not yet apparent.

Frankly, I would rate the Ofsted processes as inadequate – but I know that they are now trying to learn from their mistakes and there is “room for improvement”. A good start.

Dennis Fitzgerald

Melbourne

Labour, under chancellor Rachel Reeves, is set on reshaping Britain’s economy, with a strong focus on the housing crisis. Reeves’s agenda includes reinstating local housebuilding targets and easing some green belt restrictions – a notable shift from previous policies.

Labour aims to build 1.5 million homes this term, targeting underused areas of the green belt, now rebranded as “grey belt” land. However, Labour must overcome nimbyism – local opposition to new construction.

Labour’s plan includes appointing 1,400 new planning officers to ensure progress, but the real test will be in regions where green belt protections are strongly defended. Reeves insists that communities can’t always say no.

Success will require balancing national housing goals with local concerns, fostering vibrant, well-rounded communities with essential infrastructure.

To secure public support, Labour must clearly communicate its strategy, focus on responsible development, and involve local communities from the outset. By championing sustainable, inclusive urban development, Labour seeks to reposition itself as the “party of home ownership” and redefine housing policy in Britain.

Daniel Austin

London

If tobacco was introduced to the world today – and its pernicious effects on health understood in advance – it would be unlikely to receive a licence for sale in most countries, including the UK.

The argument for permitting the sale of cigarettes cannot be justified simply because they have been available for many years. On the contrary, the hundreds of millions who have died from this addictive habit, and the millions more who continue to die and suffer from second-hand smoke, are compelling and logical reasons for an outright ban.

Comparisons have been made with alcohol, with proponents of tobacco pointing out that plenty of people drink themselves to death. There are, however, safe limits for the consumption of alcohol (and some claimed health benefits for moderate wine consumption), whereas there are none for tobacco.

Those who are so vehemently opposed to the banning of smoking in open public spaces, such as pub gardens, should consider the wider picture and the utter futility of this injurious and fatal habit. Smokers should consider themselves fortunate that they are still able to buy cigarettes at all.

David Platts

Newark

After the debacle surrounding the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance, it is hard to see how the Labour leadership could regain the full trust of voters again. They are, in my opinion, politically blinkered to the outrage from voters like myself.

It really is an odd attitude for a newly elected government to take, given that this renders a great many of their own supporters a great deal poorer. Is this really a Labour government at all?

This measure shows the prime minister to be a meddler, with immeasurably less competence than voters expected. Unless the government can show empathy to the poor and needy, they will lose any hope of a second term in office.

Collin Rossini

Essex