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

A selfish group

What constitutes a legal and proper protest I wonder?

I think about the way Extinct Rebellion and the way they protest in Bristol.

There has to be other ways rather than the completely selfish attitude that most of them have. Like forever pursuing your MP to assist the message, making sure that MP earns their worth.

“Let’s stop people going about their normal working day, let’s hold up the food etc being delivered to my local supermarket, let’s hold up the people/drivers etc who are up against quite tight time restraints, lets hold up the nurses trying to get to work etc.”

Where do these people work? How would they feel about being held up for some hours? Why should most worry as they probably don’t have jobs anyway and if they do, what do they tell their boss?

“Sorry boss, I was taking a few days holiday to stop people getting to work etc.”

“Yes, that affected our staff as well.”

Is the boss going to say ‘well done’? I think not!

My opinion – a thoroughly selfish group who think we can make a difference to the ‘world’ and incorporated into that group are maybe, some of the ‘parasites’ of our society with ‘nothing better to do’.

One final message about ‘protesters’ – who is the ‘berk’ on the television news items who rushes up to the TV cameras and reporters to hold up his placards about ‘Brexit’ so that he can been seen on the telly? He probably doesn’t work either.

I may be mistaken of course, but then so are Extinction Rebellion on their ‘best way of protesting’.

What are they going to do when the city is filled with electric cars and we have to recycle the vast amount of batteries when they have passed their useful life? Plus the normal pollutants like tyre dust and brake dust coming from all vehicles.

Chris Gleed, Proud Close, Purton

A dangerous game

“THE constitutional point is that a prime minister is appointed and entitled to advise the monarch, the basis of that is they have the support of the House of Commons.”

If a prime minister does not command a majority the accepted constitutional action is for them to call a general election to resolve the situation.

Britain’s representative democracy would be very seriously undermined by the proroguing Parliament simply so a small group can get through legislation that would not be approved by a majority in the Commons.

A prime minister is appointed by the monarch because they command a majority in the Commons. If the prime minister does not command a majority, arguably they do not have authority to ask the monarch to prorogue Parliament. The clear precedent is that the prime minister in this situation must call a general election.

Proroguing parliament for short-term political gain is a very dangerous game. It could be used by any future government that wanted to force through their own agenda, when they do not have a majority in parliament, whether that agenda be left or right wing.

Asking a vastly experienced monarch to undertake an action which undermines the authority and power of the House of Commons, is a very dangerous tactic. The Queen has had 13 prime ministers thus far, starting with Winston Churchill.

At 93 she has little to lose in supporting her House of Commons and asking the incumbent prime minister if he has a majority. If that prime minister does not, then the office is vacated and a general election triggered.

Andrew Milroy, Bellefield Crescent, Trowbridge