Saturday's Letters: Lib Dems have forgotten the priority of protecting Britain

To suggest Trident is a Cold War weapon aimed at St Petersberg and now an irrelevance is deliberate misleading arrogance. We all seek multilateral nuclear disarmament but there are existing, and there will be future unforeseen threats, that require the maintenance and upgrade of the ultimate deterrent.

If, one day, all these weapons can be banished then we will all breathe a huge sigh of relief, but you can't forget the science or lose the technology of these weapons. Dictators and rogue states can now access the theory and practicalities of construction from websites. They now only need to source weapons grade plutonium.

The Trident system and the Vanguard submarines are undetectable and since the oceans cover two thirds of the world's surface, the LDP should respect peoples' intelligence and acknowledge Trident can quite simply be targeted anywhere and the submarines deployed accordingly.

But they should recognise and admit that the level of danger now faced by western nations is as great as it has been in the last 20 years. It is no time to play politics with the sovereignty and safety of the British people.

In the same vein, the skeletal and creaking abilities of the RAF would be irreversibly weakened by the cancellation of the third tranche of Typhoon. The Jaguars have gone, Tornado is elderly and needs

replacement and the Harrier is in its final phase. I repeat, it is easy to get rid of what you don't use. It is difficult and the mark of a statesman to argue for what is necessary and our protection comes first and should never become part of a political argument.

From: Richard D Gledhill, Woodhall Park Drive, Stanningley, Pudsey.

From: Ian Wingfield, Bamford, Hope Valley.

YOUR correspondent John Dawson (Yorkshire Post, April 17) rightly castigates Labour for taking us into war based on a lie – I thought in fact there were several lies.

However, he overlooks that many Labour MPs opposed Tony Blair and a successful vote in the Commons to go to war was only possible with wholehearted support from the Conservative opposition under Iain Duncan-Smith.

It was apparent in March 2003 and the months leading up that on any objective assessment the arguments being used to justify that illegal invasion were seriously flawed – the infamous dodgy dossier is just one example. To this day, it appears that notwithstanding the evidence of lies and deceit used to justify the case, and the terrible cost in lives, the majority of Conservative MPs still support the original decision. Some – Michael Ancram is a notable exception – realised their error and recanted

The justification for invading Iraq changed frequently as the falsehoods became apparent – originally it was WMD, then get rid of Saddam, then restore democracy.

As another correspondent on the same letters page points out, in respect of decisions on siting wind farms, there is precious little democracy in this country. Similarly with Afghanistan the justification changes – originally we were there to foster development but now it is to keep the streets in the UK safe – another falsehood

Time after time we have been presented with evidence, much of it through coroners' inquests, of the serious shortcomings in equipment which cost the lives of so many members of our armed forces.

The serious failures by Labour over the years since 2003 has laid them wide open for stinging criticism, yet the Conservatives have failed to hit home and highlight the shortcomings and the consequences for members of our armed forces. Labour has had a continuous stream of pathetic defence ministers from Hoon through to Ainsworth, the latter probably the worst by far, which is saying something. And the Conservatives answer to these – Liam Fox, who is equally pathetic.

I suggest the Conservatives would be well advised to remain silent on Labour taking us in to costly and illegal war and readers might like to reflect that the only real opposition came from the Liberal Democrats.

From: R Billups, East Avenue, Rawmarsh, Rotherham.

BERNARD Dineen (Yorkshire Post, April 19) gave the game away big time.

Week in, week out, he lambasts the Labour Party and praises his beloved Tories, praying nightly for a Tory win.

Preaching to the converted, he declared that Cameron had a clear round as the opinion polls surely can't be wrong. All Cameron had to do on May 6 was turn up; it was in the bag and he'd win doing handstands. Then the race got underway and lo and behold, the favourite came in last.

Dineen was totally gutted; all his hard work blown to bits, the campaign in disarray. It looks like the two Bernards – Dineen and Ingham – have another five years of writing the Tories up to try to get them elected.

Passenger safety must come first

From: Jeff Thomas, Strait Lane, Huby, Leeds.

WE now have a new problem to deal with – volcanic ash syndrome. This was nature at its most spectacular and potentially damaging and frightening. Thank goodness common sense prevailed. The bodies responsible for air safety took the right decision. Passenger safety must always come first, above commercial consideration.

As you might expect, some airlines and insurance companies are squealing loudly. Let them squeal. They have a responsibility to ensure passengers are compensated fairly. After all, isn't this type of event why some of us pay insurance premiums? The likes of Ryanair tried to get away without compensating their customers, now we hear they are complying with EU law and so they should (Yorkshire Post, April 23).

Our Government should come down hard on any other airlines or insurance companies who try to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

From: JW Smith, Sutton-on-Sea.

I FIND it hard to understand why there is so much criticism of the decision to close down the air space as a result of the volcanic eruption.

Your Editorial Comment (Yorkshire Post, April 20) was absolutely right in saying safety had to be paramount in such instances. Only on Thursday, Royal Air Force fighters have been grounded through volcanic ash contamination.

Granted, many thousands have been inconvenienced but every one of them is returning home safely. If the action only saves one life, it is fully justified and there is plenty of evidence of the damage which volcanic ash can cause to a jet engine.

What do the complainers want? A fully-laden jumbo jet with a maximum fuel load, the engines on maximum thrust, straining to gain height as it leaves Heathrow suddenly losing all power and crashing on perhaps Reading and Slough? I don't think so.

From: RH Wilson, Dead Lane, Lockington, Driffield.

MAY I reply to the letter by Frank Collins (Yorkshire Post, April 23) as his misinformation may give cause for concern to some insurance policy-holders.

There is no such exclusion clause in a modern insurance policy referring to "Acts of God".

All policies clearly set out which contingencies are covered and the exclusions are also clearly specified. In any event, I doubt whether the term "Act of God" could be legally defined. To a deeply religious person, all events may well be regarded as Acts of God but to an

atheist there could be no such act.

Mr Collins writes "more often than not this (an Act of God) usually applies to storms, lightning and heavenly happenings (whatever they are)". If he has a householders policy and cares to read it, storm and lightning are listed among other contingencies as being covered and there will be an exclusion referring to the standard excess which applies to these perils.

I am surprised that Mr. Collins appears not to be aware of the millions of pounds paid out in claims by insurers, in recent years, following severe storms and floods widely reported in the media.

Without wishing to be disrespectful, it is my opinion that his

reference to volcanic activity as being in the "Devil's domain" is moving into fantasy land.

Vital lessons we must learn about good teaching

From: JW Slack, Swinston Hill Road, Dinnington, Sheffield.

WHAT a coincidence that Gervaise Phinn's excellent article on his view that politicians have failed the test on education should appear on the same page as Tom Richmond's column which included, at the end, Schools Secretary Ed Balls' admission that during a stint as a "pretend teacher", "the more I talked the less the children listened" (Yorkshire Post, April 17).

Full marks for him noticing – children from a very early age recognise collectively someone who is not behaving naturally.

I hope that Mr Balls reads and understand Mr Phinn's views very carefully since his open experiences with children in classrooms across the country is beyond question and his understanding of the English language across curriculum boundaries is considerable.

Even more important are the issues of pre-school child experiences and the tragic lack of good parenting experienced by many children who find themselves in foster care or care homes. The modern obsessive concern about child protection leads to great difficulties in adults developing relationships to become role models for the children who desperately need a reliable caring adult as a guide. It is forgotten that children learn to care and respect others from the quality of care and respect they experience.

The imposition of targets and inappropriate testing regimes prevents good teachers developing flexible methods to deal with individual needs

be they intellectual, emotional or social.

This principle applies also across the whole ability range – even the very brightest have special needs of a different type.

Mothers who leave a mess

From: Mrs Christine McKenzie, Beaumont Street, Stanley, Wakefield.

WITH regard to the recent letters about litter (Yorkshire Post, April 17 and April 20) we have very little chance of cleaning the country up when disgusting, lazy, young mothers leave disposable nappies on the

floor of the changing rooms at the swimming pool at Rothwell Sports Centre, even though there are numerous clearly visible bins to put them in.

The cleaners and attendants do their best, but on pointing this out to them the other day, the cleaner said that was the fifth she had picked up during that one morning.

The attendant commented: "I bet they wouldn't do this in their own home." I'm not so sure, given the mentality of such mothers.

Water relief

From: DM Loxley, Hartoft, Pickering.

I READ the article "Charity raises fear of water crisis" (Yorkshire Post, April 19) and could only shake my head in the sad realisation of the idiotic way we think. It is a problem which has been known about for many years.

We have, or had, the technology; to generate electricity from wind power; to de-salinate and clarify water; to pump and store water. Put these three together and water crises disappear, in the UK at least.

Export the plant to regions where the problem is acute and even there the problem can be greatly alleviated.

Is this too simple?