Our readers from across the county give their weekly take on the biggest issues impacting Kent and beyond.

Some letters refer to past correspondence which can be found by clicking here. Join the debate by emailing letters@thekmgroup.co.uk

Exams not the best way to assess pupils

As this year’s examination results awarded to the latest group of students are announced, it is important to recognise the true nature of these examinations.

The examinations are not designed as a measure of achievement. They are a means of grading pupils and students within prescribed groups.

The purpose is not to meet the needs of pupils and students but to enable universities and business to recruit the appropriate number of young people as required by the British economy.

Pupils and students work hard, guided by their teachers and lecturers and deserve the successes they have achieved but the system is not designed to enable them to fulfil their potential.

The modern generation of young people are greatly in advance of previous generations but the grading system is designed to equalise out the grades achieved. It is not designed to record that level of improvement.

As evidence of this improvement we have only to look at the ability that the younger generation show in handling the advances in technology.

Our aim should be to design an educational structure that enables all young people to reach the highest level of success and that will fully develop their potential.

Society as a whole must take responsibility for the children within that society and that means taking direct control of all institutions affecting young people.

To do this demands a complete restructuring of schools and universities.

It also requires a revolution in the means by which pupils and students are assessed during their progress through the educational system as an integral part of their learning process.

Ralph A. Tebbutt

Facing a cost-of-driving crisis

Although there is some time to go, from 2025, vehicle drivers from Kent will have to pay to leave the county.

At present, to cross the River Thames west of Dartford, the Blackwall Tunnel is the obvious chalice and although it can be congested, it is the logical crossing into East London. It has always been free to travel through the tunnel and even when the second tunnel was opened, it remained free.

Now, TFL have announced that when the new Silvertown tunnel open, estimated to be 2025, it will be tolled. When that happens, the Blackwall Tunnel will also be subject to tolls. Whereas residents further west have the choice of several crossings, travellers crossing the Thames both in and out of Kent will have to pay for the privilege.

There is also talk of tolling the Woolwich Ferry, which mentions in its charter that it should be a free crossing. Similar to the situation with the Dartford Crossing, the toll was initially to pay for the cost of the crossing but, as we all know, the costs have been repaid and yet we still have to pay the price to enter or leave Kent via this route.

If the Blackwall Tunnel becomes subject to this additional toll, the result will be that the Rotherhithe Tunnel and Tower Bridge will be busier. If we do nothing, then this additional ‘tax’ will be levied with no benefit to the users. Action needs to be instigated soon, or it will be too late.

Jon Leigh

Stop wringing hands over crossings

The absurd, and insulting, claim by Keith Nevols of the Liberal Democrats, that those opposed to illegal immigration are motivated by hysteria and hate proves that it is time that honesty and common sense was applied to the issue of that taking place via small boats crossing the Channel.

The Left constantly claims that those taking this route are impoverished and desperate people fleeing persecution in their own countries and that to oppose its continuation is wrong. However, the fact is that, whatever impelled their departure from their homes, those on the boats are fleeing France, a beautiful, prosperous, and democratic first world nation and a member of the EU, an organisation so beloved by Liberal Democrats. It is not intent on oppressing them, or depriving them of the means to live. As far as the financial issue is concerned the immigrants are able to pay traffickers thousands of pounds for their places.

Those who are genuinely in fear for their lives could apply through legal channels, joining the many who do, and would almost certainly be granted permission to come. By taking to the boats they are like those who walk to the front of bus queues, expecting to be allowed to take precedence over those waiting, while often leaving their families at home to fend for themselves.

The deaths at sea are tragedies but the responsibility lies with the traffickers. It seems unlikely that the British and French security services cannot infiltrate these organisers, making possible their arrest and conviction on charges including murder.

As far as the government is concerned it has proved unbelievably incompetent in taking action to close down the illegal crossings. It should be made clear that anyone arriving in the UK in this way would be taken to purpose built barracks. They would be provided with sleeping accommodation, sufficient food, medical care, and education for any children involved, but all who were economic migrants would be permanently denied entry to the country, returning to their own being the only option.

By all means let us help the countries involved through foreign aid, but so called liberals refuse to accept any limit on the numbers to be allowed entry to the UK, despite there being hundreds of millions from the third world who wish to move to developed nations.

If nothing is done beyond the wringing of hands then eventually voters, who are aware that our health system lacks sufficient doctors, the economy does not have enough jobs for unskilled workers, and the supply of houses is already insufficient, will reject politicians who refuse to deal with the matter, with unpredictable, but certainly radical, results.

Colin Bullen

Immigration needs to be selective

I have always suspected that this shameful Conservative government actually wants an open door policy on immigration, hence their reluctance in turning the boats around or stopping them.

This soft touch by the Home Office is making a mockery of our so-called democracy and acting against the will of the country who voted for strong independent borders.

Like many millions of others in the country, I am not against immigration per se as there are lots of benefits to be had by immigration, but we have to be selective I say this on the grounds that this very small island simply cannot cope with lack of housing, medical and dental care, education, with the vast majority living off benefits. It’s not about compassion for fellow man, but about seeing that our way of life, our social standing, are not brought down to their own countries level as we too will end up with poverty and deprivation if we carry on just allowing ‘anyone’ to come into Britain as it’s simply not sustainable for all the above reasons.

The official guidance issued to the Home Office staff tasked with handling the backlog of 170,000 applications to stay in the UK is absolutely disgusting and typical of this government's feeble attempt to control illegal immigration.

If someone is genuinely escaping war and terror, etc, then I am all for them being given asylum, but if we do not find out about these people, which the Home should be doing, then we are building up a great deal of trouble.

Our government should hang its head in shame at the lack of control over its borders, but slowly and surely the truth is creeping out about what this government actually wants.

Mr S. C. Anning

No wonder we’re a disappointment to refugees

Sid Anning complains that asylum seekers in this country are not grateful. Let's look into that.

Britain is a lovely country with kind and hospitable people. After all, refugees from Ukraine received great help and support.

So, having fled from hardship at home, losing everything and risked their lives on a dangerous sea crossing - those people arrive to find senior politicians telling them to 'f off', the Prime Minister wanting to fly them thousands of miles away in the hope that they vanish, the Home Secretary wanting to force them onto an overcrowded diseased barge and people rejoicing on social media when some are killed at sea.

So yes, perhaps one can understand how they might not be grateful - and are very disappointed - when they discover that the country they have heard so many positive things about actually hates them with a passion they could not have foreseen.

Keith Nevols

Farage a big loss to the Commons

Bill Ridley is, of course, correct in stating Nigel Farage will never become Prime Minister.

However, it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that he could have become an MP.

He offered the citizens of Thanet the opportunity to elect him as their representative. The Tories were terrified of him and threw huge resources at the constituency to prevent this happening with people who would never normally get off their bottoms drafted in to canvass the streets in support of the Tory candidate.

Support for the Tory candidate fell by 10% and support for Nigel increased by 27%.

In their blind panic, the Tories spent more money than is legally permitted during a political campaign. Things being what they are and to divert any blame from the person responsible, a minion within the party claimed an administration error had occurred and the party had accidentally overspent by a considerable amount.

Even so, Nigel polled over 16,000 votes which is more than some sitting MPs get.

So an opportunity was missed to gain a character on the back benches not seen since the days of Dennis Skinner. What fun the public would witness at PMQs as Nigel innocently requested answers about MPs’ other jobs, family members on their payrolls and attendance at parliament records.

He would be as hated by the Commons as he was by the European Parliament when he had the audacity to question its financial affairs.

Pete Trow

Bill is an attack on freedom

Local councils will soon be banned from boycotting companies complicit in human rights abuses. The government has introduced a new bill to ban councils from adopting ethical procurement policies. The bill would make it unlawful for public bodies to make decisions about procurement or investment policies on ethical and human rights grounds.

Amnesty International has condemned the bill as 'outrageous' and an unwarranted encroachment on the ability of public bodies to pursue ethical procurement and investment policies. If it becomes law, it will close off a key means to hold companies to account for human rights abuses, once again showing that our government thinks little of the plight of persecuted communities around the world. People who care about issues such as climate justice or the arms trade will also be dismayed by this legislation.

Following on from a series of anti-protest and anti-asylum laws, the bill represents another serious attack on basic human rights and freedoms.

Graham Minter, Amnesty International Kent Network