How could the Port of Newcastle make such a mistake? How could they have made such a wrong decision? We have a wonderful port and I believe that up until now the Port of Newcastle have managed their liaison with the community well. I have also admired the work the volunteers do with the cats on Stockton break wall.

The Port of Newcastle has a big job ahead of them to mend the link between themselves and the Newcastle community. What were they thinking, authorising the cull near to Christmas and without the full support of the volunteer group? Who made the decision? The Port of Newcastle are to be held accountable because the Newcastle community will hold them accountable. In my opinion the port will now see how easy it is to ruin the relationship that they have built up successfully over many long years. It's beyond belief that this occurred, let alone that it was sanctioned. I am disgusted and horrified.

HOW dare you, the Port of Newcastle management, come into our community and think it is OK to carry out this cull of the cats on the breakwater.

In my opinion whoever in management thought this was a good idea must be sacked as we all know there are no endangered species on the break walls. They are populated only by rats, snakes and seagulls, and if not for the cats they would be overrun with vermin. What has happened to community conscience and basic common decency? I am disgusted by this barbaric act and hope that no people or children witnessed the carnage. How was this act condoned?

IT was refreshing but somewhat sad to read that the representative of the Newcastle Maritime Museum Society hopes to have a progressive plan in the New Year. It has been two years since the commencement of a series of plans by Newcastle Maritime Museum Society , none of which have come to pass. None of the issues have been resolved that previously prevented success. Why would one think that this plan will be any different?

And in the meantime, the collection is left unattended in a number of different locations around the town, gathering dust, rust and mould. While the timber and metal of some items are robust, the paper, textiles and art works are not so sturdy, and need to be housed in suitable conditions. The present storage is not satisfactory for long-term care. It might be better to sell off the significant items for their long-term preservation than the present destruction by neglect process.

THE editorial ("Our climate emergency comes next", Opinion 17/12) raised important issues for everyone on this planet. First off, Australia's successful response to COVID-19 had more to do with Australia being an island in the South Pacific rather than any clever government action.

Describing Australia as being a laggard on climate action is a jaundiced view. Up until 2020, Australia had one of the world's best rates of new renewable energy installation. From 2020, some of the subsidies for renewables ended and so did spending enthusiasm for new wind/solar farms. Our Kyoto carry-over credits were only controversial because most countries don't have any. Australia was one of the few countries to meet their Kyoto targets. That is not being a laggard.

The editorial raised the point that we were not invited to speak at the UN climate change summit. Except for the first meeting in 1979, every meeting for the last 40 years has been politicised, high on lofty rhetoric with distant climate change goals, motherhood statements and contained no scientific debate. They have been talkfests. Rather than complain about "no tangible policies" from the government, people would do better spending their time complaining about no tangible results from climate policies.

In those 40 years no tangible change to the climate has resulted from human efforts to stop global warming. Billions of dollars have been thrown at the problem in those 40 years but no reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels has resulted. In fact, the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic both resulted in very significant reductions in world industrial activity and consequent drop in global carbon dioxide emissions. No reduction in the rate of atmospheric level occurred from either event.

The rate of global increase remained the same as if nothing had changed. If you want "a real debate on what action" to be taken, then the science behind many claims should also be debated. If not, then are we doing more of the same but expecting a different result? That is a definition of stupidity or insanity.

I AM not defending China's actions in either blocking Australian imports or imposing unreasonable tariffs. But some perspective may be useful.

No doubt those who have written to this paper complaining about China are sitting at their Chinese-made computer, in their Chinese-made clothes, having watched the news on their Chinese-made TV, being cooled by their Chinese-made air conditioner powered by their Chinese-made solar panels. Yes, we have been very eager to purchase low-priced Chinese products over the past few decades, allowing our standard of living to improve while at the same time assisting China in improving its economic standing. And our elected governments have been very willing to approve bucket loads of Chinese money being used to purchase farms, our factories, our technology; even a lease of our port.

Having worked in China on an Australian aid project and interacting closely with Chinese officials I also understand that "face" is extremely important. It is a part of the Chinese DNA. In China, to openly do something to embarrass somebody is totally unacceptable. Diplomacy and tact - at least on the surface - are critical in relationships.

So, there are two things to consider here. First, China is still mindful of the "great humiliation" and may even be seeking revenge where the opportunities arise. Second, China will react and at times over-react as in the current circumstances to "megaphone diplomacy", as practised by our current prime minister who seems to think that entertaining his domestic base is more valuable to him personally than maintaining workable diplomatic relations with our most important trading partner. He should put a gag on himself and his ministers, get out of the way, and leave it to our accomplished officials to sort this problem out.

PORT of Newcastle, despite your comments in my opinion it must meet you values as you ordered the actions to be undertaken ('Investigation sought after cull 'bloodbath'', Newcastle Herald 21/12). I believe you should be forced to donate generously to the wonderful group that care for neglected animals. Shame on you.

IN reply to Dennis Crampton (Letters, 18/12), interest rates rising? I can't see that happening any time soon. When, or if they ever rise, it certainly won't be by much. Merry Christmas everyone.

FOR some time now I consider our laws have been far too lenient and after reading about the horrific allegations last Friday ('Murder accused remains in prison', Herald 18/12) I feel that these laws are long overdue to be made more tougher. Especially important is that the punishment must fit the crime. I know there would be strong opposition to this, but really, if nothing is done soon I believe that crimes will continue to escalate. In most cases now the perpetrators appear to be laughing at the system. Please don't put this on the back burner as urgent action needs to be taken.

WITH the Coronavirus Club coming to the fore a few days out from Christmas, they remind me of the Grinch. If there was a Minister for Refunds, I'd want my money back for Christmas presents purchased. It wouldn't hurt the economy or the government's hip pockets as I have only bought two. Imagine if those who've bought Christmas presents all demanded a refund for being corralled by the Grinch.

AUSTRALIA should look to Portugal, most of the US and even Canberra, and decriminalise the use of cannabis ('Cannabis use in 'class war'', Herald 19/12). The current regime is pointless, a waste of money, ruins young people's lives and turns them against the police. Criminalisation means that young people who use it don't take seriously the harms of excessive use.

I WOULD seek to participate in a vaccine, as recommended by the medical authorities ('To jab or not', Weekender 19/12). I owe it to the lady of my life and the extended filial generations. Being manly has an obligation to all, those of the family and the community at large.

TO hear a secret is to obtain the unattainable, all else is gossip.

JOHN Bradford (Short Takes, 19/11), instead of changing channels I prefer to only release the mute button as the action starts at a sporting event. I watch sport for the contest, not to see political or cultural statements. Of course all lives matter but so do all opinions, contrary to the belief of some who contribute to this page who think that their opinion is the only one that's right.