'The end justifies the means when it comes to Sir David'

David Attenborough
David Attenborough

Just like your correspondent Richard Johnson takes to task Sir David Attenborough, so must I take Richard to task for disrespecting Sir David (WP Letters, December 18).

Ever since the first of his award-winning documentaries (starting with Life on Earth), Sir David and his team have not only shown the vast range of, er, life on Earth but has tried to show the impact that Man is having on our fellow creatures in order that Man can change his ways.

This culminated (for now) on his hard-hitting Blue Planet II to demonstrate in stark, often disturbing, footage just what Man’s throwaway society is doing to the planet. Within seconds of its showing, this reality was flying round the world. This provided both the catalyst for others to make their own documentaries of other stark examples around the world and for other governments to act to cut down vastly on the use of plastic.

Now, Sir David and his team could have clocked up many more air miles travelling round the world talking to heads of government, but that was unnecessary due to the impact of Blue Planet II.

Thus my conclusion would be that, in this case, the ends have justified the means and surely Richard, you should be concentrating your attention on the irony of many government heads, climatologists and other experts flying into Poland for yet another summit on climate change.

There again, one could always make mention of he-who-should-not-be-named (you know, the one who lives in, er, Trumpton) who doesn’t believe in climate change, despite his country now experiencing many more effects of climate change and him putting the proverbial Churchill gesture up at the Paris agreement by increasing coal production just to save jobs.

So, Donald, saving a few mining jobs is more important than saving the whole planet, is it?

Neil Swindlehurst

Address supplied

Bring law into the 21st century

People who suffer psychiatric damage after the needless death or injury of a loved one must see the event ‘in real life’ in order to pursue justice for their injuries.

This law is archaic and inflexible.

It was set following the Hillsborough stadium disaster, 30 years ago this coming April.

Times have changed and these days we don’t have to ‘be there’ to witness these tragic events unfolding on our phones, tablets and televisions.

Watching a devastating event happen, when it could and should have been avoided, is traumatic for the relative.

Who is to say that seeing and hearing your loved one suffer on television, in images on social media or a phone call is not as traumatic as seeing it happen at the scene?

In some cases it may even be worse, as you can do nothing to help a relative you see suffering on screen, you can only watch the horror unfold.

Psychiatric damage is more than feeling ‘a bit low’.

It’s a serious, crippling medical condition.

These so-called ‘secondary’ victims of negligence should not be subjected to unfair and unrealistic demands before they can be compensated for their injuries.

2019 must be the year the Government finally sees fit to bring the law into the 21st century. Such change is decades overdue.

Brett Dixon

President

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL)

A referendum too far ...

The two worse outcomes of the Brexit maelstrom would be: no deal or a second referendum.

Those who support the former know little of the business world while supporters of the latter have taken leave of their senses.

If the result of a second referendum was a majority in favour of remaining, and it most likely would be because the public would not again fall for spurious claims, what then?

Are we supposed to believe that those who voted to leave in the first referendum would accept it the second? They would not.

At best, after weeks of wrangling, a draw would be agreed. This inevitably would lead to a demand for a third referendum.

While all this nonsense is going on, other major political and economic matters are being put on the back-burner, and the financial costs are increasing daily.

If, however, the result of a second referendum was again in favour of exiting the EU, so what? Our negotiating position will not have altered.

EU officials will be no more sympathetic than now.

It will have been a pointless and costly exercise.

Sheer folly. I repeat what I have said many times, this was a referendum too far.

Dr Barry Clayton

via email

Vote on voting

In view of the disagreement among MPs on the British people’s vote to leave the EU.

I offer the following solution – why not have a referendum on should we have a second referendum?

Cecil Crinnion via email