WHY would the BBC not host white supremacist Steve Bannon, when they thrust Nigel Farage in our faces and ears mercilessly during the run-up to the EU referendum?

I remember once listening to an introduction on the radio about the environment and thinking: “Thank heavens, now they will serve up someone other than Farage – maybe even someone from the Green party?” No. Out came Nige.

As a black woman I am only thankful – yet again – that as I’ve not had TV since last century I won’t be funding the platforming of a white supremacist via the licence fee.

Are the BBC bosses on some kind of mission – maybe trying to seem edgy and with it? As their so-called news coverage shows, with its this-has-been-on-the-internet-for-72-hours coverage, they just keep getting it wrong and wrong and wrong.

But then – as their corporate structure shows – they do have a tendency towards massively over-promoting and/or overpaying privileged white men…

Don’t know how many times I have to say this – if you are not white, privileged, male and or living in London and you are paying your licence fee – have you thought of therapy?

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

THIS is the text of a complaint I’ve made to the BBC. I’m so angry at the way in which they invited our First Minister to implicitly endorse a conference planned in Edinburgh for mid-November and am very relieved that she has withdrawn.

“You have invited Steve Bannon to a conference in Edinburgh. The BBC is a public body and should have a responsible attitude to political debate. Recently we have seen extreme-right politicians and personalities invited by the BBC as semi-permanent guests: Nigel Farage seems to have had a permanent seat on Any Questions during the run–up to Brexit.

“In the present uncertain climate, extreme right-wing populism is growing in England. Bannon’s advocacy of extreme rightwing and racist ideas should not be given additional exposure, especially by a public body with power and influence like the BBC.

“I see this invitation as an irresponsible intervention in debate at a time when dangerous cleavages have opened up in British, European and global political life. I am aware that the BBC does not often represent the views of public opinion in Scotland, and seldom gives air time to the SNP. But the far right is marginal in Scotland, and your invitation to Steve Bannon to speak feels like a provocation. It is unacceptable and the invitation should be withdrawn.”

Cathie Lloyd
Letters, Lochbroom

JUST when you think the BBC can’t get any worse, not satisfied with giving us daily doses of Nigel Farage, they now invite Steve Bannon to their event in Edinburgh, part paid for by the licence payers I suspect. No wonder the First Minister has decided not to attend. Who will be next to appear on our screens? Tommy Robinson of the English Defence League would seem to be a likely candidate for Blue Peter to discuss child safety, or how about reviving Late Call on the BBC with Anjem Choudary?

If we were living in the 1930s would they feel the need to invite Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini on to discuss human rights and dangers of anti-Semitism ?

The BBC has apparently responded by saying “Good journalism in a world of fake news and disinformation is more vital than ever”. When did the BBC last do really good journalism?

Brian Lawson
Paisley

HOW disappointing for Nicola Sturgeon to pull out of a media conference over the invitation to far-rightist Steve Bannon.

Don’t we need to confront all shades of opinion, bring to scrutiny those views we disagree with and deal with them?

Sadly we live in times where unless one’s views coincide with political correctness-driven “experts” and narrow interest pressure groups they are deemed irrelevant and ignored, even closed down.

Shouldn’t opinion that bucks the trend also be aired to oxygenate real debate? And doesn’t refusal to confront such views suggest an inability to? Not one of Sturgeon’s finest moves, is it?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

SATURDAY’S two letter-writers about Secretary of State Mundell hit the nail on the head. No-one would care or even notice if he resigned except perhaps to sigh with relief, (unless we got Ross Thomson or his ilk instead!). He is undoubtedly the worst and most ineffective we have had, and I am old enough to have seen many bad ones.

One point, however, cannot be taken too lightly. He may indeed be a pawn, even unwittingly, but to my mind possibly a very dangerous one. There is now no “Scotland Office” for him to head up, but a “UK Government in Scotland” one.

Why such a change for Scotland alone and not for Northern Ireland and Wales? And why has he recently moved to such substantially bigger premises, larger than his current needs? And why, when he had already increased his staff – whose salaries are debited to Scotland’s account – from around ten to 70, has he now increased the complement further?

Of the devolved nations, why does only Scotland alone need these changes?

Even if he is a pawn without himself realising it, could these changes be because Westminster intends, when the powers grabbed after Brexit are eventually returned to Scotland, to return them to the UK Government in Scotland and not Holyrood? If so, then he is a very dangerous pawn indeed and we dismiss him at our peril as just the nonentity he seems.

P Davidson
Falkirk