Whilst in no way seeking to support the erstwhile leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, and whilst deriding his excuse for aborting his council meeting (so as not to compromise the upcoming inquiry), I totally embrace what I saw to be the real, yet unspoken, reason for ending the meeting – the energetically obstructive public intrusion into proceedings.

How could deliberations have continued? Would any judge be able to conduct a case with vociferous hectoring from the public gallery?

Whilst lauding public and press access to such meetings, and embracing the sentiments of those intervening in this case, democracy is ill-served by any public intervention that prevents this sorry council from meeting to reflect on its miserable, nay scandalous, performance.

John Northover

London, N11

While the failure of the Kensington and Chelsea Council to act in any sort of decisive manner in the aftermath of the fire was inexcusable, it could perhaps be viewed in the context that very few councils in the UK would be capable of dealing with such a disaster adequately.

What compounded their inability to act decisively was their failure to request help from central Government. However, this then begs the question: why did central Government not recognise this and step in themselves?

On the same morning of the awful killing outside the Finsbury Park Mosque the Cabinet understandably convened an emergency meeting, so why was the same not done following the Grenfell fire? Looking at the two events I find it difficult not to think that Government just didn’t want to be associated with what was unfolding in west London and was quite prepared to let the local council carry the can for all that was taking place. As poor as the council response was, it was left out to hang by Theresa May.

S. Lawrence

​Enfield

EU leaders are no better than Theresa May

Theresa May has been accused of taking hostages for declining to give EU citizens in the UK a unilateral guarantee on continued residence. I’ve heard no such comment on European leaders regarding their failure to offer UK citizens in Europe an equivalent guarantee, but then whose role would it be to criticise them?

The Prime Minister has suggested letting around three million EU citizens stay in the UK as a quid pro quo for just under 1.2 million Britons being allowed to remain in Europe. This has been described as inadequate, which very clearly it is. A fair deal achieving reciprocity would maintain open access and freedom of movement into the EU for migrants from Britain until such time as the current 1.2 million figure for British settlers reaches three million.

John Riseley

Harrogate

Corbyn can’t be accused of hypocrisy for sacking his MPs

What is Patrick Cosgrove talking about? Jeremy Corbyn was never congratulated by the various Labour cabinets or shadow cabinets over the years for defying their wishes, which would have to have been the case for Cosgrove’s attempted analogy to have traction.

Corbyn followed where his beliefs and conscience led, took the consequences and remained in the party.

To launch yet another kite for a “new anti-austerity, anti-Brexit, pro-Europe, pro-public services, pro-young people, pro-environment, pro-electoral reform party”, based on your correspondent’s presumption that he knows what the “officially disapproved-of 49 Labour MPs”, and others desire, would, if successfully engineered, suit the Tories very well.

No party can implement a wish list to suit everyone, but in any case a party now in ascendency with elements of those qualities and more, already exists: Labour.

The Brexit saga has still some way to go and to answer the question: “What’s stopping them?” (from forming another party); probably common sense.

Eddie Dougall

Suffolk

The UK could never stand up to Google alone

If ever there were an example of why the UK should remain within the EU, it is the EU Commission case against Google which was reported this week. Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s Competition Commissioner, announced that the Commission is fining Google $2.7bn (£2.05bn) for abusing its online search monopoly, a record anti-trust penalty.

Only the EU is large enough to be able to extract this sort of redress from one of the newer non-tax-paying digital multinationals. I cannot imagine Liam Fox having that sort of power or even the willingness to use it.

Chris Payne

The Philippines

The Tories cheering was disgraceful

I was absolutely disgusted at the behaviour of a lot of Conservative MPs after the result of the Labour amendment was announced.

To cheer the way they did shows a distinct lack of class and lack of respect for the people they claim to represent. It also shows the massive gulf in divide from ordinary members of the public and those MPs.

What else makes me laugh is the fact that quite a few of them actually agree with the amendment! But as it was motioned by Labour and, in particular Jeremy Corbyn, they vote against it.