Thank you, Sonia Sodha, for bursting the bubble (“Yes, five years in jail is too harsh, but the Just Stop Oil Five shouldn’t have done it”, Comment). Party A seeks something that Party B refuses to grant. Party A therefore – usually indiscriminately – targets Party C, who must be entirely innocent for this to work, and threatens to harm them unless given what they want.
It’s called hostage taking. In their latest indulgence of the practice, Just Stop Oil once again comes across as implacable yet patronising absolutists: “Yes, we’re hurting you, but we know that it’s for the best.” Their pretence of intellectual coherence is betrayed by the essential crudeness of their message: “Give us what we want, or the bunny gets it.” I cannot believe that their antics attract more people than they alienate.
Peter Millen
Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
I can’t think of anyone less “self-indulgent” than Louise Lancaster, one of the Just Stop Oil Five, imprisoned for four years last week.
This is not a woman who acts thoughtlessly and without regard to others. I write as a friend, but also as someone who has spent decades monitoring the climate debate, not least as a former energy editor of the Guardian.
Louise is an Oxbridge-educated scientist, special needs teacher and mother whose only fault is to put others ahead of herself. She was drawn to non-violent direct action as a last resort – feeling that all other forms of persuasion to get government and industry to change direction were exhausted.
I am not brave enough to climb gantries or undertake the kinds of protests that risk losing access to one’s job, family and personal freedom but I understand and respect the logic of those “fanatics” as the judge mischaracterises them.
Thirty years of lobbying, placard waving – and writing – has failed: see the way ministers and media largely ignored 60,000 Restore Nature marchers in London last month.
Jailing Louise might be a deterrent for some but eliminating non-violent direct action could drive others into more extreme forms of protest. It certainly won’t halt global heating.
Terry Macalister
Cambridge
Protecting free speech
We write as academics to express our dismay at the education secretary Bridget Phillipson’s decision, announced on 26 July, to “stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, in order to consider options, including its repeal”. The act, whose main provisions were due to come into force on 1 August, would have significantly strengthened protection for free speech in universities, by empowering academics to bring complaints to the Office for Students.
We believe that academic freedom is a basic public good and a cornerstone of our democracy. It is also clearly under threat. We urge the Labour government to implement the act.
Edward Skidelsky, Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Exeter. Director of the Committee for Academic Freedom
David Abulafia, Professor of History, University of Cambridge
Anna Sapir Abulafia, Professor of Theology, University of Oxford
Nick Allum, Professor of Sociology, University of Essex
John Armstrong, Reader in Financial Mathematics, King’s College London
Michael Ben-Gad, Professor of Economics, City, University of London
Nigel Biggar, Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, University of Oxford
Michael Biggs, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Oxford
Robin Brooker, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Essex
David Collins, Professor of Law, City, University of London
Simon Conway Morris, Professor Emeritus of Evolutionary Biology, University of Cambridge
Philip Cunliffe, Associate Professor in International Relations, University College London
Sir Partha Dasgupta, Frank Ramsey Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Cambridge
Andrew Denis, Fellow Emeritus in Economics, City, University of London
Emla Fitzsimons, Professor of Economics, University College London
Bettina Friedrich, Research Associate, Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London
John Goldthorpe, Professor of Sociology, University of Oxford
Kenneth D Harris, Professor of Quantitative Neuroscience, University College London
Lee Jones, Professor of Political Economy, Queen Mary University of London
Matthew H Kramer, Professor of Legal and Political Philosophy, University of Cambridge
Jane Lightfoot, Professor of Greek Literature, University of Oxford
Iain McGilchrist, Quondam fellow of All Souls College, Oxford
Jeff McMahan, Sekyra and White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Oxford
James Orr, Associate Professor of Philosophy of Religion, University of Cambridge
Ian Pace, Professor of Music, City, University of London, Secretary, London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom
Jo Phoenix, Professor of Criminology, University of Reading
Lucinda Platt, Professor of Social Policy, LSE
Robert Plomin, Professor of Behavioural Genetics, King’s College London
Janet Radcliffe Richards, Professor of Practical Philosophy, University of Oxford
Abhishek Saha, Professor of Mathematics, Queen Mary University of London
Prakash Shah, Reader in Culture and Law, Queen Mary, University of London
David Shipworth, Professor of Energy and the Built Environment, University College London
Michelle Shipworth, Associate Professor in Energy and Social Sciences, University College London
Lord Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy, University of Warwick
Alan Sokol, Professor of Mathematics, University College London
Michael Stewart, Professor of Anthropology, University College London
Kathleen Stock, philosopher
Doug Stokes, Professor in International Security, University of Exeter
Alice Sullivan, Professor of Sociology, University College London
Raymond Tallis, Professor Emeritus of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Manchester
James Tooley, Vice-Chancellor, University of Buckingham
Jeffrey Vernon, Faculty Senior Tutor in Medicine, Imperial College London
Britain, a haven of calm
I was pleased to read David Kynaston’s article (“Can Britain really keep the rise of the populist right at bay? History tells us it can”, Comment).
I’ve been waiting for a conceptualisation of what Brexit was really about: a deep cry of impotent despair against a rapidly changing world, society and culture.
Let’s hope Kynaston’s thesis on the connection of Keir Starmer and the new Labour government with ordinary working people is correct. With the election of a centre-left government, Britain feels like a haven of rationality and calm in a Europe drifting further and further towards the extremes of politics.
Desmond Hewitt
Marlborough, Wiltshire
Data for the common good
As one of the 500,000 subjects whose data is collected by UK Biobank (“Scientists urge GPs to share UK patient data for research into new treatments”, News) I am more than happy for their researchers to have access to my GP records.
Having spent 10 years as a lay member of a medical research ethics committee I am well aware of the hoops researchers have to jump through to demonstrate both the value and safety of their work and the ethical constraints on their interactions with research subjects.
Anne Cowper
Bishopston, Swansea
The limits of devolution
If Labour’s attempt to “spread power more evenly across the kingdom” (“Call off the search to discover Starmerism. It is already beginning to reveal itself”, Comment, last week) is to reach disadvantaged neighbourhoods it will need a more targeted plan in addition to new powers for local authorities.
After the battering they have taken over the past 14 years, and with the demands of care driving them close to bankruptcy, few councils will be able to reinvigorate their discretional support for local communities unless the new framework includes a specific government programme to direct this. Regional empowerment will only work if it is backed up by local empowerment.
Gabriel Chanan
Ascot, Berkshire
Landlines are a lifeline
The global IT crash demonstrated why we still need telephone boxes and analogue phone lines (“The Observer view on the global IT crash: lessons must be learned from CrowdStrike fiasco”, Editorial, last week). I would urge this government to cancel the switch-off planned by telephone companies.
I was at a friend’s house when a power cut knocked out mobile phone signals. Fortunately, as an ornament, he had an analogue phone (the power is in the wire) that we were able to plug into the socket and make calls. Modern technology is not reliable enough for us to depend upon it entirely.
Nigel Boddy
Darlington, County Durham
Children need drama
I am delighted to hear that the government is expanding opportunities for working-class children in schools (“Labour’s Bridget Phillipson: ‘I will help working-class pupils defy the odds to succeed – just as I did’ ”, Interview, last week). The inclusion of more drama is so important.
I taught this wonderful subject for most of my school career. I have seen first-hand the magical powers of improvisation and mime with working-class children in the curriculum. Creativity and its positive effect on our lives should never be underestimated.
I will never forget the joy and excitement of taking my year 11 pupils to see a play in London. Most of them, I realised, might never get an opportunity again. As the stage curtains pulled back slowly, one boy whispered, “l see what you mean about the magic of the theatre, Miss.”
Wendy Breckon
Westfield, Sussex
