Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

Case for the defence

Make absolutely no mistake that any weapons produced by human hand be they nerve toxins, biological, or radiological, by any nation for the possible purpose of use against other human beings as being the sole object of causing unspeakable harm to others is a clear example of mankind at its most evil, and should be condemned along with weapons of mass destruction.

However in the recent case of the ‘chemical nerve agent’ issue which resulted in the poisoning of an ex Russian secret service agent and his daughter there is absolutely no excuse for Western nations, in this case led by this country, to embark upon a hostile and rabid witch hunt against the Russian Federation solely because it without doubt suits their intent to do so, whilst turning a blind eye to their repeated protestations of having nothing whatsoever to do with it.

We in Britain live in a justice system which has always clearly stated a person or organisation is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty, however in this case the Russian Federation has been found to be guilty prior to having been allowed to present their defence against the accusations, and quite appalling our defence minister Gavin Williamson tried to make political capital out of telling Russia to ‘shut their mouth and go away’ and such an outburst should warrant calls for his resignation from the front bench.

It should be realised at this juncture in time that there are many others from nations around the world both in the east and the west that would without question seek to use any means, no matter how evil, to discredit and damage already poor relations with Russia, which surely must include the now fascist leadership in Ukraine, or Georgia, or any other ex Soviet state which could have retained such nerve agents which remain active for very many years. Also the possibility of the American CIA or the Israeli MOSSAD organisations having got their hand upon such material should also not be ruled out.

GA Woodward, Nelson Street, Swindon

In best interests

I hold no torch for Russia’s President Putin and feel sure Mrs May’s decision to expel 23 ‘suspected spies’ is what would be described as a normal response given the events in Salisbury.

However, I would be equally happy for the UK Government to expel (or extradite) the 21 Russians accused by their own Government of corrupt activities. Mrs May as Home Secretary personally refused extradition requests for 12 of the named individuals. It certainly seems odd that Russian fugitives charged with criminal offences in their own country should be given the protection of British citizenship. Their continued presence in the UK might well be said to ‘not be in the best interests of the country’, especially as they are clearly targets for the Russian State.

Des Morgan, Caraway Drive, Swindon

Early April Fool?

As I read the report “Catclaw could help cut parking problems” (SA March 14), I realised it was two weeks too early to be an April Fools joke but assumed it was a tongue in cheek solution to a serious problem.

To prevent anti-social pavement parking it is proposed that small devices called “catclaws” could be placed on the edge of pavements and any vehicle driving over them will have its tyres punctured.

While such devices may be of use, in situations where high security is required, it is farcical to believe they could be used as a deterrent for pavement parking. Imagine an emergency vehicle, which requires close access to a building, driving over them and being immobilised by punctures. What about the safety issues relating to vehicles which may mount pavements and then drive off with punctured tyres?

Pavement parking is a serious problem which affects all pedestrians. It is especially detrimental to the safety of the disabled, the elderly and young children. There are existing laws which could be and should be used to prevent this anti-social behaviour. However, the authorities responsible for enforcement have failed consistently to take adequate action to prevent it. They have effectively turned a blind eye and encouraged the ongoing escalation of this detrimental practice.

With a local election just around the corner local politicians will be out telling residents what a good job they are doing or can do for us. Evidence proves their words are hollow and their actions are negligible.

Kenneth Kane, Wharf Road, Wroughton