Letters: Remainers lost – and Richard Dawkins needs to accept that

Deny Remainers oxygen

Sir: Your correspondent Richard Dawkins seems to have a very tenuous grasp of logic for an academic (Diary, 5 October). He excoriates a referendum on the grounds that in the run-up the voters may have been misled. There is one choice between two alternatives, and the supporters of each outcome will do their best to persuade. Both may be less than truthful. Yet he adores a general election with five or six candidates hawking their conflicting and unfulfillable manifestos — all of them those pillars of veracity, politicians.

Let us be frank. Since the shock result of 2016 we have listened to the whines of the EU fanatics for more than three years until they have become extremely boring. Please do not lend your valuable pages to giving them yet more oxygen. The fact is the referendum was not rigged (this has been tested in the courts and rejected). The Remainers lost. Get over it. As for Master Dawkins, may God forgive him.
Frederick Forsyth

Beaconsfield, Bucks

Leave meant leave

Sir: Richard Dawkins (Diary, 5 October) states firmly that those voting Leave in the Brexit referendum in 2016 ‘most certainly did not mean “Leave with no deal”’. I’m unsure how he knows this. He is certainly wrong in my case: I voted to leave — with a deal if that was possible, or under WTO rules if no deal could be negotiated.
Peter Lucey

Wokingham, Berkshire

Plastic stupidity

Sir: Laurie Graham’s ‘Talking rubbish’ (5 October) made me chuckle, as it brought back so many memories of my own childhood in the 1940s and 1950s. My mother and father were both ‘waste not, want not’ advocates. My dad composted almost anything he could and repaired anything that was broken, while my mother turned sheets sides to middle and shirt cuffs and collars whenever she spotted frayed edges.