THE Skripal/Novichok affair, the apparent attempted execution of a Russian spy turned double-agent on British soil by his former colleagues which culminated in the death of an innocent bystander appears to have been solved ("Moscow accuese UK of manipulating facts over spies", The Herald, September 6). The Government seems keen to draw a line under the proceedings but I am sure I am not alone in finding this an unacceptable conclusion.

The drips of information released via the media contains several inconsistencies which are difficult to reconcile with a state-sponsored assassination attempt, the major one being that it failed to kill the intended victim never mind provide a motive. The poison used, although referred to as a Russian weapons-grade nerve agent as proof of its origin, is actually available from other sources including here in the UK. At times we have been told there was only one sample of the agent and at others that Charlie Rowley stumbled upon a completely unopened perfume gift-pack that contained Novichok and that he became contaminated assembling the atomiser.

At the time there was debate as to whether the two sources could be linked by chemical analysis. One would have thought assassins capable of staging this attack would have disposed of any evidence in a professional way rather than leaving it lying in the park or in a nearby dustbin where investigators would be certain to search and find it. I find the complete absence of public appearances by any of the victims including the Skripals themselves difficult to understand given the potential corroboration of the official narrative that their personal statements to the general public would create.

The recently released mugshots of the Russian hit-men are very convincing despite the fact that the Russian authorities deny all knowledge of them and they are both recorded entering the UK at exactly the same time (to the second) which must require years of training. On the same TV screen yesterday I saw a flying saucer shooting up the Palace of Westminster; it looked very convincing as well.

I have no idea who poisoned who or indeed if the event actually happened at all. If we have identifiable suspects in the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal and the culpable homicide of Dawn Sturgess then, even if they cannot be apprehended or choose not to appear to defend themselves, why can they not be tried in absentia? If this trial took place in a public forum the evidence could be questioned and we who elect the government could be made fully aware of the facts rather than possible spin.

David J Crawford,

85 Whittingehame Court, 1300 Great Western Road, Glasgow.

THE expensive police investigation of the Skripal affair has been a complete waste of time and money, because we already knew who was behind it, and because it ignores the crucial question: why did the Kremlin feel free to use a Novichok neural poison in a British city?

The answer is that Vladimir Putin views Britain, our governing class and our government with complete contempt. He has seen the moral cowardice and psychological weakness at the heart of our country.

If we do not have the will to suppress the epidemic of stabbings, acid attacks and gun crime by young thugs in our cities, why should a major foreign power show any respect for our criminal laws? In 1952, it took just one judge, Lord Carmont, to end the scourge of the razor gangs.

If we negotiate a one-sided peace agreement with terrorists, which gives them a de facto amnesty, while our own soldiers are pursued to the grave, and the terrorism continues, why should anyone respect us? By contrast the Spanish held their nerve and eventually the Basque terrorist movement ETA disbanded.

The same psychological weakness has been at the heart of almost every failure by British governments of the last 60 years. Only under Margaret Thatcher was there a degree of strength.

Otto Inglis,

6 Inveralmond Grove, Edinburgh.