Dear Editor,

Once again, the issue of non-stun slaughter (such as halal and kosher) has hit the headlines – and again we’re missing the bigger picture.

The question is not whether animals should be stunned before they are killed, it’s why we’re killing them at all. The outcome is always the same: killing an individual who does not want to die. That is true regardless of the method or reason, whether it’s for food, entertainment, or animals used in laboratories.

There is also a double standard at play. While religious slaughter is singled out, routine cruelty escapes the same scrutiny. Is testing pharmaceuticals on animals not just as horrific as slaughter? What about the horses who die at the Grand National? Farms are also places of constant confinement, where mutilations, cannibalism and psychological suffering are rife – and that’s before reaching the slaughterhouse.

The debate about non-stun slaughter is merely distraction dressed up as a moral concern. If we’re truly a nation of animal lovers, we must question the whole system of owning, exploiting, and killing animals.

Readers can learn more about animal freedom at www.animalaid.org.uk/animalrights

Elizabeth Davenport

Senior campaign manager, Animal Aid

Have you noticed that the authors of articles against net zero offer opinions but rarely solid evidence to back up their claims? But where do they get their ideas? Research indicates the right-leaning press attempts to manipulate public opinion and in turn those who write letters in papers like this.

And of course, newspapers are influenced by oil barons and other types of oligarchs who seek to use propaganda to maintain their vast profits.

These opinions are then cynically amplified by Reform and other political parties (financially supported by oil and gas interests) who voice negative views about net zero, despite the scientific consensus that reducing harmful fossil fuel emissions is crucial to minimise climate change.

Opinion pieces in editorials also use “net-zero” as shorthand for policies they oppose, frequently omitting any mention of “climate” and thereby decoupling the concept of net zero from climate change itself.

Research published by Carbon Brief shows nearly 100 right-leaning editorials opposing climate action in 2025, a record figure that reveals the scale of the propaganda against the move away from fossil fuels.

While some criticism of net-zero policies is appropriate, the idea that climate change can be halted without net-zero emissions is gravely mistaken. In contrast, numerous studies indicate that a net-zero transition is affordable and economically beneficial, especially given the significant costs of unchecked climate change and the dramatic volatility of the oil and gas markets i.e. the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

We must not be overwhelmed by this tsunami of false information driven by the oligarchs profiting from business as usual and the “drill baby drill” mantra; nor should we be taken in by false political prophets; or the misguided opinions echoed in newspaper letters. Let’s not forget there is still strong public support for both net zero and the individual climate policies behind it. Please stand firm for what you know and what science and research state to be true and please carefully consider the evidence rather than be manipulated by propaganda.

Ms J Shaw, via email

George Orwell's novel 1984 must be Nigel Farage's favourite book. He has informed us that the £5-million he received from Chris Harbourne, the crypto billionaire who lives in Thailand partly to avoid UK taxes, was a "reward for 27 years campaigning for Brexit". Dictionary definitions of "reward" include the point that it's "merited for good behavior".

Results of Nigel's good behaviour? Brexit meant that by 2024 annual income per head was down by £850 and exports by nine per cent. Nigel glorified his "success" in ending our contributions to the EU and piggy-backed on the lie that we would get £350-million back per week to spend on the NHS but hid our obligation to pay for breaking our agreements with the EU.

Has anyone seen the NHS money?

So "good behaviour" now means deep financial wounds for the nation. Orwell wrote about "Newspeak"- language designed to reverse its former meaning. Nigel excels here. What about the £5-million he received in early 2024?

As it came less than 12 months before he stood as an MP he should have declared it to the Parliamentary authority. He initially promised us that the money was for personal protection, not a reward. Imagine the scabrous criticism Reform would pile on other politicians who weren't honest about the reasons for a £5-million personal gift.

His twists and turns become too numerous to count. Another principle he repeats is "I cannot be bought by anyone". Yet after investing £215,000 in a crypto currency deal he told the crypto industry that he would be their champion - arguing that bitcoins should be deregulated and used to pay tax bills.

And the crypto company he chose is run by Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor who wrote Liz Truss' infamous budget - so bad that it ended her premiership after 49 days.

We are constantly told that Reform is the party for ordinary people and yet 75 per cent its donations in 2025 came from just three people, all multimillionaires. The Electoral Commission tells us that the total Reform received was twice Tory receipts and nearly four times Labour's receipts.

One donor was Richard Tice, Nigel's deputy, recently praised Reform's backers and MPs saying that "as businessmen they knew how to run things including a future government" and in their previous careers "their first duty had been to make money for their shareholders" Three of Nigel's 'front bench' in Parliament made their money in the main from dealing in luxury property. What might be the political inspiration for such businessmen?

Are they seriously motivated to make tolerable the lives of the 6.8m Brits trapped in "very deep poverty"? Is it too cynical to expect that those with such wealth are looking, like their leader, to use politics to get the "reward" of even more wealth?

And with another single phrase Tice indicated the gross conceit lying at the heart of Reform's attitudes. He insulted Wes Streeting, who had begun to turn the NHS around, as "that poor little chap". What language do they use about the rest of us?

And the one opportunity that Nigel failed to grasp recently to boost his conceit a little more was to represent the UK in the Eurovision Song Contest. What would his choice of lyrics be if he did his version of John Lennon's 'Imagine'?

Jeremy Hall, via email