High price to pay if we do bomb Syria

WHAT is it with British Prime Ministers? They all seem to feel that they have to have a war at their instigation with no thought to whether or not their own people would be in favour.

Any arms sent to or air strikes on Syria will not be done in my name. We all find the situation appalling and wish that this civil war had never started or deteriorated to the extent it has but does the Government really believe that killing even more people is going to solve it? With the unprecedented rise of the Muslim population in England, does David Cameron really think that fanning the flames of radicalism will be in the best interest of our country?

Keep the British out of wars that are nothing to do with us no matter how much we sympathise with the ordinary people, or even with the rebels trying to exert their voices in their own lands.

From: Peter Hyde, Driffield.

Reading Robert Halfon’s article on why we should involve ourselves in Syria (Yorkshire Post, August 29) makes me think the Lord was not too selective when he dished out foolishness.

We have Blair, who went to war in Iraq on a lie that he had weapons of mass destruction, who is “peace envoy to the Middle East” and we have Halfon, who clearly has not looked at all the ramifications of the possible results and not willing to wait for clarification by the UN inspectors wanting to send our forces in come what may. An idiot on either side of the political divide, me thinks.

From: Nigel Boddy, Fife Road, Darlington.

WE really must learn the lessons of the past, as your Editorial stated (Yorkshire Post, August 28). Please don’t bomb Syria. It will just cause a power vacuum. Help the refugees flooding into Jordan but do not bomb Syria. When we meddle in these countries we usually cause more harm than good.

Truth behind shameful cull

From: Susan Shaw, chairman, Kirklees Badger Protection Group, Marsden, Huddersfield.

AS a local wildlife conservation group who have spent 20 years protecting our native badgers from persecution and harm, we are devastated to learn that the unscientific and pointless killing of badgers has begun in Somerset and Gloucestershire. The stated intent of the badger cull is nothing to do with reducing bTB in cattle, but to establish if free shooting of badgers is effective, humane and safe. If it is concluded that this is the case, the badger cull will be rolled out across wider areas of the UK.

Shockingly, it has emerged in the last few weeks that only 120 of 5,000 badger deaths will be witnessed by independent monitors. The most eminent scientists in the country are overwhelmingly and vociferously against the cull. The very best possible outcome of a full cull is a small 16 per cent reduction in the incidence in bTB, at worst it could actually increase bTB.

Everyone is aware that this cull is nothing to do with reducing bTB and everything to do with a political agenda and a deal struck between the current government and a certain lobby of the farming union, hell-bent on finding a scapegoat for a problem created within the cattle farming industry.

Vaccination is the way forward, and it is shameful that our native badgers are being slaughtered for political expediency.

From: Mrs Lofthouse, Forest Gate, Otley.

AS a veterinary surgeon’s widow, I find it difficult to understand why so-called animal lovers dote on badgers and have no affection for gentle cattle and calves who are being slaughtered in their hundreds.

Exporting immorality

From: David Howram, Lady Heton Drive, Mirfield.

I REFER to the front page report (Yorkshire Post, August 27) regarding the investigation carried out by Compassion in World Farming where the charity found sheep being contained in trucks for 18 hours while being transported from the Sheffield area to the Deux-Sevres region of France.

It was further found the Dutch hauliers took the animals the 650-mile distance in July temperatures and the animals were packed so tightly they could not lie down. Then to compound their stress, it was found upon arrival they were left for up to a month in dark sheds.

The report then concludes that a spokeswoman from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We inspect all livestock being exported at the start of the journey and then at the port to ensure our strict animal welfare standards are being upheld.”

This statement surely prompts the question, what then happens to the animals’ welfare standards both at sea on the vehicle ferry and then on the road journey in another country?.

The report mentions that Charles Sercombe, National Farmers’ Union livestock board chairman, said that if all the requirements for transporting the sheep had been complied with then nothing illegal had taken place. If this is correct, then where is the morality in this practice, Mr Sercombe, particularly when the animals leave the shores of the United Kingdom?

The charity reported that many people will be shocked to hear of animals being subjected to this type of stress.

I too am shocked and in my opinion this practice is bordering upon cruelty and I too agree with the CIWF charity chief executive that there is an absolute lack of common sense inherent in the live animal export trade.