Your Letters
17:48 UK time, Thursday, 9 September 2010
Pedants' Corner: at first glance I thought this story (Nottingham patient death 'may have been prevented') was good news: "Looks like we were able to save lives" ... but no. "We messed up and someone died," which is generally considered the opposite. May v. might. It matters!!
Lucy Jones, Northwich
When I spotted the first line of this story, I assumed a writer hadn't quite finished off their first draft and got rid of the placeholder...
Helen, Lancs
I don't know about you, but to me this story's headline is a little over the top - "within half a mile" and "100 - 200 ft below" is NOT a near miss, even for something as large as jumbo jet! OK, they got closer than they should have done, but that's no need to try and panic the public!
LucyP, Ashford, Kent
Surely a near miss - coming close to missing, or just failing to miss - means they collided? Surely what happened here was a near hit?
Dr Reece Walker Ph.D., London UK
So for we have planes and trains. Therefore to complete the set - I saw a guy in an automobile this morning going through a red light at traffic lights narrowly missing oncoming traffic.
Tom Webb, Surbiton, UK
To Sue from London (Letters, Wednesday), I too have become my mother. I looked at that article and thought "Phwoar, wouldn't boot him out of bed for eating crackers."
Sophie, London
"Euro MPs backed the new EU directive after long negotiations and EU member states have two years to make it law." Looking at the video I have to ask, what MEPs?
Edd, Cardiff
Google Instant promises live search results; presumably by automatically searching every time you type a letter. Cross reference with at 0.2g to 7g per search. One billion Google searches a day multiplied by an average search length of six letters is 1.2 to 42m kg each day. As a perspective, the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 7.9m kg of crude oil each day. I'll get my coat and walk home.
Dave, Essex
I was flabbergasted (in the style of the Telegraph piece) that the police and their dogs could have the audacity to enjoy their jobs. How dare they collectively share a little humour with the rest of the world. I'm sure the 51 seconds it would take to Tweet 140 characters (based on an average rate of 33words/min - thanks Wikipedia) could be successfully claimed back by such measures as docking 51 seconds from the break that I'm sure they don't take because they are working, or the few minutes overtime they don't claim for. (Although a guess at the demographic of those reading the Monitor daily, you're likely to be immune to pompous outrage and have a healthy sense of humour.)
Paula, Canterbury
The 
