I despair over how little has changed in the world since the moon landing

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Saturday 20 July marked 50 years since the first man walked on the moon; I can vividly remember listening to the event on a crackling transistor radio on the bridge of a bulk-carrier, keeping watch as a young chief mate sailed along the US Eastern Seaboard. Just the day before while steaming past Martha’s Vineyard, the same little radio had relayed the minute-by-minute drama surrounding Senator Ted Kennedy driving his Oldsmobile off Chappaquiddick Bridge, with all the gory details of American politics laid bare. The clarion call on 20 July 1969 was that it was the “Dawn Of A New Era”, and there certainly have been countless technological advances in just about every aspect of our lives since the moon landing. Yet there was turmoil back then with bad news coming from Vietnam every day, and the world in the grip of the Cold War.

Scanning last Saturday’s headlines exactly a half-century later, makes one wonder just how much humanity has learned and changed in the intervening years. The Persian Gulf is a powder keg ready to explode, adding to wars already raging in Yemen, Syria and other countries in the volatile region. There’s political unrest on several continents, and all the gory details of American politics are laid bare, once again. So much for the “Dawn Of A New Era”, eh?

Bernie Smith
Parksville, BC, Canada

I don’t understand Boris

In every letter, newspaper report, television broadcast and documentary Boris Johnson is seen to be a liar, immoral, a cheat, scruffy, a prevaricator. As is obvious from the numbers of high ranking MPs who are resigning, he is definitely not someone who will unite the party or the country. In fact, he will be an embarrassment. He has already upset the EU and Muslims and other groups with his undiplomatic behaviour, his gaffes and lack of diplomacy which shows him up to be the last person on earth to be a prime minister yet he is still expected to be chosen. WHY?

Valerie Batt-Rawden
Warfield

Secrecy in the Tory party

As the new Conservative Party leader is announced, I note that the vote will be announced in full.

The number of votes cast for each candidate will be made available, just as it was at every stage of the selection process. This is exactly as it should be.

However as a Conservative Party member of over 40 years I am still baffled as to why when we have internal selections – there is an insistence on secrecy at every stage and the rules deliberately lack transparency. The rules prevent members knowing the number of votes cast for each candidate at every stage.

Surely if it is good enough for the leadership selection, it should be good for every selection. Unless there is some skulduggery going on which is why it is kept secret.

Perhaps the party chairman and board, in light of this clear contradictory process, will now change the rules to allow us mere members to know the value of our votes when we cast them.

Simon Fawthrop​
Bromley

A different view

I was kind of shocked by a recent article about circumcision (Child Protection Laws Are Clear – Except When It Comes To Male Circumcision).

This article very much sounds like an outsider saying “this doesn’t match my priorities, so we should outlaw their practice”. It reeks of cultural oppression, which I generally believe is a Bad Thing. If instead the article had been “this subset of the Jewish community are trying to end circumcision, let’s support their voices”, that would be completely different.

Maybe it feels like an arbitrary difference, but it has knock-on effects. In Iceland they outlawed circumcision without giving the local Jewish community any notice, which (understandably) freaked them out since racism and things are generally on the rise. Compare that to how it might have gone if the aim was to support outspoken community members, where instead it could have been about helping them have those discussions with community leaders, amplifying their voices and helping the change happen internally.

I think that’s an important distinction, as I’ve seen online responses to the article include statements like “they’re an objectively barbaric people and should be stopped”.

If the author feels it should be outlawed then I don’t want to argue that, but let’s call a spoon a spoon and accept the suggestion is “justifiable” cultural oppression.

Zach G
Address supplied

Two sides to every story

James Sorene, in his article about Netanyahu, praises his restraint against the barrage of missiles fired by the Palestinians (causing few casualties), but is seemingly unaware of the 295 (or thereabouts) killed and the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians injured at the border by Israeli forces.

Martin Heaton
Gatley

Don’t forget Nazanin

When are the people of Britain going to stand up for this poor lady, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who has been in prison for nothing? We just sit back and forget about her yet she is a British citizen who simply went on holiday. Her husband camped outside the embassy – well, we should have all been doing the same and camping there to show our support. For issues like abortion and war you all go and march, well let’s march to the embassy and set up our camp to help this poor lady and her family. Or are we going to be wimps and let people do what they like to us as the roll-over Brits?

Name and address supplied