You quote friends of the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt saying that the phone-hacking scandal is entirely separate to the decision concerning whether to sanction News Corp's acquisition of BSkyB (An apology designed to keep case out of court, 9 April). So evidence of criminal behaviour should have no bearing on a decision which is only about the "plurality" of the British media? This is a bit like saying that Enron contributed to the plurality of US business, or that MPs found to be fiddling expenses add to the plurality of British politics. Back in 2009, one newspaper editorial argued that "We can only hope that those MPs guilty of criminal behaviour finish up in the dock. Then jail." That newspaper was the News of the World.
Jeremy Hunt should block the takeover. How can the acquisition of BSkyB by a company that has admitted criminal behaviour be said to be in the "public interest"?
Dr Des Freedman
Author, The Politics of Media Policy
• One of the many charges it is possible to make against News International and its employees is one that needs no celebrity phone-hack victim to insist on their day in court. Rebekah Brooks has admitted that the newspaper she then edited paid police for information. Why aren't these payments being investigated?
Eddie Dougall
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
• Could someone please hack my phone? Will supply phone number and bank details for my £100,000.
Edward Buck
London