Is it too soon in the covid inquiry to play the blame game? (Credits: PA)

It seems certain members of the public have already pointed their fingers at Boris Johnson for mistakes made in the pandemic.

However, one of today’s letters advises against hasty judgments, emphasising the ongoing nature of the Covid Inquiry and the fallibility inherent in each and everyone of us, politicians included. What do you think?

Read on to see what readers think about this issue, among others.

Share your thoughts in the comments.

‘Accusing Boris Johnson of deaths from Covid isn’t fair’

You could also say he saved many lives with the covid vaccine roll out (Henry Nicholls/Afp via Getty)

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw the photo of a woman carrying a sign ‘Boris killed my husband’ (Metro, Thu).

Mr Johnson might have been accused of violating his own rules during the pandemic, but accusing him of the deaths from Covid is not fair.

On the contrary, because of his leadership the UK was the first country to roll out the Covid vaccination, allowing the majority of people to be successfully vaccinated, therefore saving lives. Hatred towards him makes the eyes blind. Murat Yildirimoglu, Bedford

Boris Johnson stated he would have acted differently with the benefit of hindsight. For once, I’m inclined to take him at his word. After all, how could he have foreseen how things would turn out?

Throughout his entire life – his marriages, his careers, his fathering of miscellaneous offspring – not once has he ever had to take responsibility for any of his failings, errors or mistakes. Julian Self, Milton Keynes

So Boris Johnson should have ‘twigged’ the virus threat much earlier (Metro, Thu).

Did he ever have the mentality to do so? In his Daily Telegraph column of July 2009, Johnson said that ‘health and safety fears are making Britain a safe place for extremely stupid people’. A decade later, he still hadn’t realised that keeping people safe keeps them alive. This is common sense, but Johnson just kept on with his indifferent, egotistic ideology. Mick Larkin, London

After watching Johnson at the inquiry, 
I find it hard to believe anything he says. But for those who do, two unicorns are arriving at Edinburgh Zoo to replace the pandas that recently returned to China. Tony Howarth, London

‘The dead can’t hear your apologies’, hecklers told Mr Johnson at the inquiry.

This might also be directed at Rishi Sunak who, while apologising to those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough, stopped short of passing a law to ensure families had legal representation at inquests.

Victims of the contaminated blood scandal or Windrush deportees may feel similarly aggrieved. As might those who suffered a miscarriage of justice in the Post Office Horizon scandal.

In many instances, some unofficial 30-year rule prevents us from learning the truth for decades, while the clock is deliberately run own, delaying or wholly avoiding compensation for sufferers who may die from state-inflicted ailments, old age or suicide. In all cases no state official will ever be held to account. Clive Morris, Epsom

The hypocrisy of Robert Jenrick

Is the focus on ‘illegal’ immigrants low hanging fruit to pander to right-leaners? (Credits: Tayfun Salci/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock)

So, Robert Jenrick resigned as immigration minister because he felt Mr Sunak’s emergency Rwanda legislation ‘does not go far enough’.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. This is the man who was caught out trying help a Tory donor avoid a multimillion-pound levy on a Tower Hamlets housing development [Jenrick later quashed his own approval, conceding that the decision was ‘unlawful’ due to ‘apparent bias’; and an appeal was later dismissed]. He also reportedly claimed £100,000 in expenses for a third home.

But I imagine that will be overlooked by many, especially the likes of Paul (MetroTalk, Fri), who will moan about ‘middle-class woke brigades’ who dare to call out bad-faith actors such as Jenrick.

Instead, they’ll be sure to stand in support of Jenrick because he pandered to them by moaning about ‘illegal’ immigrants, which seems to be a surefire way to get blind support from the right-leaners. Matthew, Birmingham

Speaking up for the silent majority…

Do they silent majority lack the leisure to parade their ‘luxury beliefs’? (Credits: Getty Images)

Julian in South Croydon (MetroTalk, Thu) asks who are the ‘silent majority’?

As he says, they are silent, so we don’t know for certain. But I would say they are the majority of people who lack the leisure to parade their luxury beliefs in protest every time illegal immigrants aren’t housed in four-star hotels.

They are a significant part of country, if not the majority, who have voted for those who have promised to reduce immigration over the past ten years.

In short, they are those labelled ‘xenophobic’ because they happen not to be fanatically in favour of open borders. David, Durham

Regarding the Rwanda policy, Paul (MetroTalk, Fri) complains that ‘using the courts is a stealth infringement on my voting rights’. There is no ‘stealth’ about it.

I assume that what he actually deplores is that what he wants to happen has been found to be illegal. Martin, London

MORE : It sounded like Boris Johnson said ‘sorry’ but he was just passing the buck – again

MORE : Boris arrives early again for his Covid grilling – but what does his GTFC beanie mean?

MORE : Government stops short of introducing ‘Hillsborough Law’ six years after report

Is it too soon to play the blame game?