Pandering to dangerous delusionists

I AM beginning to find increasingly irksome ther use of “Islamist” in conjunction with words like “threat”, “plot”, “rebel” or “insurgency”.

Even if your intention, along with that of Government and the rest of the media, was originally to avoid the accusation of inciting religious hatred, is it not reasonable to assume that most people, when exposed to the term, instinctively think “Muslim”?

If this were not so, you would not feel the need to qualify it further from time to time, as in “violent Islamists”, “Islamist extremists” or “Islamist fanatics”.

Most in this country have long since ceased to feel the urge to classify our violent extremist compatriots in Northern Ireland as either “Papists” or “Prods”. Is it not time that the same courtesy be extended to the members of other faiths, some of whose co-religionists likewise exploit denominational differences in pursuance of political objectives?

I am no psychiatrist, but I do doubt that the best cure for individuals with a virulent “holier than thou” gene includes giving them a title that appeals and panders to their dangerous delusions. What’s wrong with phrases like “Malian rebels”, “violent Syrian extremists”, or “Algerian terrorists”?

From: Heather Causnett, Escrick Park Gardens, Escrick, York.

HAVING read, with some dismay, about the number of people who are emigrating from the UK, I wonder if you can settle an argument?

I feel very strongly that in acting as the “mother country” Britain has welcomed too many people into our country who either cannot or will not contribute anything to it.

Do we not have sufficient rules of entry to attract only those who can be assets, and not open-handedly welcome people who should never be allowed to come here? Of course, I am not that familiar with the rules of entry to countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada but we seem to spend far too much of our national wealth on wasters, scroungers and layabouts. What sort of social handouts and medical care do other countries give to immigrants?

From: BJ Cussons, Curly Hill, Ilkley.

WHY is there so much futile legislation churning out nowadays when too often the result is counter-productive?

Simon Reevell’s recent column (Yorkshire Post, January 16) on the use of force in self-defence is one of the best things I have read in your paper.

To make a law limiting protection from prosecution to those who act against criminals within their own homes yet deny it to people with separate shops, outbuildings, farms and people who take action in the streets when they see a violent criminal in action is nothing short of unbelievable.

In every walk of life, normal, caring citizens are penalised. Today we read of criminals who specialise in setting up false marriages between Europeans and Asians to get them citizenship, creating more unjustified dependents on our welfare systems.

After all the costs to us of trials, how much money will be regained from them? How much will jail sentences cost us? Can we deport them before that cost?

If not, that is where we need to create new laws to achieve tougher penalties and this is where liberal input lets us down and has created an unjust society for hard-working citizens.

Overbearing structures

From: B Paddey, Hoylandswaine, Sheffield.

IT was with a sinking heart that I read the article by Andrew Robinson (Yorkshire Post, January 17) on the plans for new large turbines near Birdsedge; I can feel nothing but profound sympathy for the people living near the proposed development.

There seems to be no comprehension by developers of the stress and anxiety, not to mention the loss of house value, that these overbearing structures cause when they are placed so near to people’s homes.

If they honestly want to represent the views of local council taxpayers, English councils should take a stand and immediately suspend all planning applications for new turbines until the issue of turbine minimum distances is resolved in favour of residents. A two-kilometre stand-off sounds like a practical starting point.

Bombing confusion

From: Eric Houlder, Carleton, Pontefract.

I FULLY agree with Robert Metcalfe about deteriorating standards at the BBC.

Last week, I (and many other historians) received an email from a BBC assistant producer asking for information about the German Navy’s bombardment of Scarborough, Whitby and Hartlepool in 1914.

The wording made it very clear that not only had the writer not read anything on the bombardment – excusable, I suppose – but that he had not read anything at all about the Great War either, before sending out his circular. This is inexcusable.

Throughout, he uses 
the terms “shelling” and “bombing” as if they are interchangeable, totally unaware that in a Great War context “bombing” meant throwing hand grenades.

Only later in that conflict was the term used for air-dropped weapons. It has never been used to describe shelling.

As Scarborough was actually bombed during the Second World War, the whole email was most confusing.

Sadly, I could quote many other anachronisms inflicted upon the public by television, and not only by the BBC.

However, I am sure that you and your readers are grateful 
that I am resisting the 
temptation.