PLEASE keep your letters to 250 words maximum giving your name, address and daytime telephone number - even on emails. Email: letters@swindonadvertiser.co.uk. Write: Swindon Advertiser, 100 Victoria Road, Swindon, SN1 3BE. Phone: 01793 501806.

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

Danger exaggerated

THE Prime Minister offers a picture of doom and gloom with regard to ‘national security’ suggesting that Britain faces at least two more years of heightened terror alert.

Part of the reason for this situation is the possible return of scores of Isis fighters to the UK and the potential threat from states such as Russia, North Korea and Iran. Instability in north Africa, Yemen, Sudan and Syria were also said to be causes of concern.

What connects these strands of terror is the UK Government’s complicity in perpetuating the danger to its citizens. Indeed I often remind myself of the words of HL Mencken who said “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Whilst I don’t doubt the intent of murderous Isil returnees, I do doubt the resolve of the Government to protect the people from them. After all there is a simple answer, which is to refuse them admission.

As for Mrs May’s allusion to threats from Russia, N Korea and Iran, these are easy to claim, much harder to prove. Salisbury was a targeted attack on an individual, a traitor to his country and possibly ours too (his daughter was deemed collateral damage) and whilst very sad, it should not be used as a political tool to suggest we have to fear ‘the Russians’ – there are much more dangerous home grown elements at work in our society.

In trying to frighten the population Mrs May can claim to be ‘protecting us’ and the price for this protection will be more money for the police, the intelligence community and the armed forces, not forgetting that £48m was suddenly found to enhance facilities at Porton Down. It will almost certainly also result in loss of freedom and “Those who would give up essential freedom, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.”

Des Morgan, Caraway Drive, Swindon

Report failings

One in four adults will experience a mental health problem each year yet often mental health care falls below the standards we should expect.

Last week we revealed that some of our most vulnerable patients, many of whom have complex mental health conditions, are being badly let down by the NHS, causing them needless suffering and distress.

In our report Maintaining momentum: driving improvements in mental health care, we found that some patients are not being treated with dignity and respect of their human rights and this is further compounded by poor complaint handling.

Our investigations shine a light on severe failings but this is not done to attribute blame. We aim to ensure that the organisations complained about make changes to prevent the mistakes happening to others. In this instance, this is to ensure that mental health patients get access to the treatment and support they need.

This is only possible due to patients and their families taking the important step of complaining when things go wrong.

The vast majority of complaints are resolved locally.

However if you are not satisfied, you have the right to bring it to us – the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman - for an independent and impartial view.

Rob Behrens, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Only one standard

We hear a lot about ‘targets and standards’, ‘cost-effectiveness’ and the ‘efficient use of resources’ in relation to our public services.

During my training, I was taught that there should be only one standard and that is: “Would you, or one of your loved ones, be satisfied to receive such care”?

This should apply whether the ‘care’ is being delivered by the emergency services (police, fire or ambulance) or the health and social services.

Our politicians (both in local and central government) have a statutory duty to provide such public services. They must ensure that they are of an ‘acceptable standard’ – and that there are enough front-line staff and equipment (‘resources’) to be able to deliver such a standard.

Malcolm Morrison, Retired orthopaedic surgeon, Prospect Hill, Swindon