Sir, I was appalled at Commander Broadhurst’s attempt to justify the presence of Chinese “protectors” on the streets of London (report, May 7) by telling us that the Chinese Government would have taken the torch elsewhere if we had not agreed to the presence of its guards. Is the commander telling us that their presence was not appropriate from the point of view of policing, but was appropriate politically? Such an argument is not for the police to consider.

As for the commander’s saying that it was a “natural reaction” for these professional guards to punch protesters, words fail me.

Jack Shulman
Maidstone

Sir, Along with the Olympic spirit exists a fiercely independent spirit among the world’s mountaineers, while for the people of Tibet Mount Everest is “Goddess, Mother of the World”. The arrival of the Olympic torch at the summit of Mount Everest has sickeningly tainted all these ideals with violent threats, a thuggish denial of mountaineering independence and with arrogant flag waving nationalism.

This season Everest climbers were banned from both the Tibetan and Nepal sides of the mountain until the torch had reached the top. Armed soldiers were camped on both sides. The Nepalese Government announced that anyone attempting the climb during the torch’s progress risked being shot. I assume the same directive applied to the Tibetan side.

So much for friendship and mutual understanding.

Peter Sherwood
Hong Kong

Explore Letters

• Feedback