Helena Horton is a Guardian environment reporter.

Craig Bennett, the CEO of the Wildlife Trusts which represents nearly a million nature lovers, said Keir Starmer had shown “extreme arrogance and weakness” by removing the whip from Chris Hinchliff for organising a rebellion over the planning bill. He told the Guardian:

I am shocked to hear this news. Right now I am walking in the Chilterns close to chalk streams which are under threat from the planning and infrastructure bill. Chris Hinchlff was a defender of these chalk streams.

I think this kind of behaviour shows extreme arrogance and weakness from a ruling party. And a sign of weakness is when you are not prepared to listen to reasonable discussion and debate from people broadly on your own side trying to help you achieve a better outcome.

And weakness is displayed when you shut down sensible suggestion because you are so nervous about trying to present yourself with false strength you do things like these to show a presence of strength. What it really portrays, deep down, is political weakness. It displays that the government is out of touch on these crucial nature issues. Chris Hinchliff is much closer to the British public’s views on nature than the government which is passing a bill which will trash wildlife.

When governments succumb to groupthink, they often go down in a spiral of self decline if they are not able to take sensible suggestions from their own side.

They are displaying all the signs of bunker syndrome you normally only get after many years of government.

Credit to Chris Hinchliff, he went into politics doing what you are supposed to do which is make the world a better place. Keir Starmer could learn a lesson from him.

Neil Duncan-Jordan has issued a statement about the decision to suspend him from the parliamentary Labour party, saying he does not regret not opposoing plans to make disabled people poorer. He was acting in line with Labour values when he voted against the welfare bill, he suggests.

Three Labour MPs have also been removed from their jobs as trade envoys. They are: Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammad Yasin.

Allin-Khan and Ribeiro-Addy both voted against the welfare bill at second reading, while Yasin did not vote either for or against.

Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP who ended up leading the revolt against the welfare bill (see 3.13pm), has confirmed that she has also been suspended by the parliamentary party.

As PA Media reports, the York Central MP said she had been suspended for “standing up for my constituents” over the benefits plans.

Maskell said she had had a “positive conversation” with the chief whip, adding:

He knows my heart and why I did what I did. I explained there are lines I can’t cross because of where I come from in politics with my faith.

She said she was “not angry” but “upset that we are in this place because I believe we are better than that as a party. I believe that strength comes from the backbenches.”

The SNP says the suspension of Brian Leishman shows that Labour MPs will be punished if they stand up for Scotland. (See 3.59pm.) The SNP MP Pete Wishart put out a statement saying:

It says it all that the only Labour MP who has dared stand up for Scotland has been suspended by Keir Starmer - simply because he refused to betray his constituents like every other Scottish Labour MP has done repeatedly.

The message is clear - the SNP is the only party that can be trusted to stand up for Scotland. For the Westminster-led Labour Party, it’s a sackable offence.

Wishart also said Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, should say whether or not he signed off on the decision for Leishman to be suspended.

Brian Leishman, the MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, has put out this statement about his suspension.

Momentum, the leftwing Labour group, has criticised the suspension of three MPs who voted against the welfare bill. A spokesperson said:

Suspending the whip from MPs who stood up for disabled people against cuts is a desperate act from a failing government that does not have the solutions to Britain’s problems.

This intolerant crack down on principled dissent, rather than changing course, is a pathetic response to dire poll ratings and threatens to tear apart not the Labour Left but rather the Labour party itself.

Keir Starmer has suspended at least three MPs over “persistent breaches of party discipline”, Geri Scott reports in a story for the Times. She says:

The move will be seen as an attempt to restore party discipline before MPs depart Westminster for the summer, after the prime minister was recently forced to U-turn on controversial welfare reforms by his own backbenchers. One party source said the MPs had been suspended for “persistent knobheadery”.

(If knobheadery has become a sacking offence in parliamentary politics, then who knows where this might end?)

Scott says more suspensions are expected this afternoon.

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian correspondent.

Kemi Badenoch was offered a security briefing in March, on privy council terms, where she would have been told about the Afghan data leak, and the secret resettlement scheme for the first time, it has been revealed. But she did not attend because she did not think it was urgent.

At a post-PMQs lobby briefing, the PM’s press secretary said Badenoch was offered the briefing in March – but refused.

Badenoch’s spokesperson said that as opposition leader she received “innumerable” offers of security briefings, and refused this one as it was not marked as urgent. In June the issue was listed as urgent, so she sought a briefing, and was informed about the scheme on Monday, he added.

Badenoch’s spokesperson was unable to say precisely how many briefings were offered, or to confirm if another shadow minister went in Badenoch’s place, and was then unable to brief her because of the superinjunction.

At the No 10 briefing, Downing Street refused to say if Stamer accepted the need for secrecy, but said the bar for such superinjunctions should be set “exceptionally high”. The PM’s press secretary said:

It should never be used to hide inconvenient facts or save ministers from embarrassment.

The data leak had highlighted “the total incompetence at the top of government” under the Conservatives, she added.

Asked about calls for a full public inquiry into what happened, the No 10 spokesperson did not rule this out. but said it was “right that parliament is able to scrutinise this issue in the first instance”.

After PMQs the Liberal Democrats released a statement from Ed Davey, the party leader, firming up what he said to Keir Starmer implying there should be public inquriy into the Afghan data leak. (See 12.17pm.)

In the statement Davey said:

It’s catastrophic that a security breach of this size and significance - with potentially lethal consequences for Afghans who bravely supported the British campaign in Afghanistan - could occur at the MoD under the Conservatives’ watch.

The scale and length of the superinjunction used to cover up the ministers who oversaw this scandal - as well as the potentially enormous cost to the taxpayer - is unprecedented. The British media should never have been forced to go to court to shed light on this scandal.

Keir Starmer must launch a full public inquiry - to report by the end of this year - to ensure no stone is left unturned in the pursuit of answers. Such scrutiny is well overdue.

At the post-PMQs lobby briefing No 10 did not rule out a public inquiry, but indicated that Starmer is happy for the Commons defence committee to take the lead investigating this at the moment.

Earlier, during PMQs, Starmer himself did not pick up on Davey’s suggestion that a public inquiry should take place.

It would not be quite right to describe that PMQs as totally pointless. The Legacy Act answer was interesting (see 12.51pm) And, on Gaza, Keir Starmer is starting to sound adrift of public opinion, which is arguably more aligned with Ed Davey. But, as Lewis Goodall from the News Agents podcast points out, there was a massive, 30-minute hole in the exchanges.

A stunning and shameful PMQs. Parliament has been denied its right to scrutinise the government for two years via a constitutionally unprecedented superinjunction. Huge amounts of public money has been spent in secret. 100,000 Afghans put in danger. Did any backbench MP get up and ask the PM about it? Express any outrage as a democratically elected politician? Ask the PM to rule out it ever happening again? No. Not a word. Pathetic.

PMQs is often presented as the fulcrum of the national debate. Not today.

Instead the main exchanges, between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch, were unilluminating, forgettable and a bit dull. They both sounded in need of a good holiday, as most of us probably are.

But the final exchanges did at least produce some useful talking points for Tory or Labour activists who want to spent time campaigning over the summer, instead of taking a break. This is what Badenoch said:

It’s the end of term, so why don’t we go through his end of term scorecard? The economy is contracting; inflation, highest in the G7; unemployment up every month under this government; spending out of control, borrowing costs more expensive than Greece, and this is just the first year.

The fact is, this summer, they’re going to have to go to their constituents and explain why they’ve been making such a mess over the last 12 months. And isn’t [it] the case that the worst – given that this is just their first year – the worst is yet to come?

And Starmer replied:

We’re happily going to go to our constituents. We’re going to tell them we promised two million extra NHS appointments and we delivered four million extra appointments. I’ve got to upgrade that, it’s now 4.5 million extra appointments. So we’re going to tell our constituents that.

Then we’re going to tell them about the free school meals we’re rolling out, free breakfast clubs, the free childcare and school uniform costs. We’ll tell them about that.

And then when we’ve done that, we’ll move on to affordable houses and tell them about the £39bn we’re investing.

When we’ve finished that, we’ll tell them about the rail and road upgrades across the country with a £120bn investment, and of course, the three trade deals. We’re only just getting started.

Around the time Badenoch was speaking, the Tories were sending an email to supporters about yesterday’s opposition day debate, and Labour and other parties voting against the Tory call for the two-child benefit cap to stay for good. This is a niche issue for rightwingers. But Badenoch chose not to go on this, and instead focused on the economy – as she has been doing increasingly in recent PMQs. It is probably the right choice; ultimately this is the issue on which the government is most likely to be judged.

Badenoch was also a little less angry and hypberbolic than usual today. Her pitch was more about the government being bad, rather than diabolically awful. Whether that was intentional, or just because she is flagging a bit, wasn’t obvious, but it was an improvement nevertheless, because it made her sound more credible. She has yet to find a way of besting Starmer at PMQs with any regularity, but more often now she is holding her own.

Opposition to the government’s plan to repeal the Legacy Act, the Tory legislation granting an amnesty to former soldiers and former terrorists at risk of prosecution over Troubles-era crimes, is growing, and yesterday it was reported that Al Carns, the veterans minister, may even resign over the issue. And that is why Keir Starmer’s response to a question about this from the SDLP’s Colum Eastwood was interesting. It was probably the strongest defence Starmer has yet given for what the govenrment is doing.

The Eastwood/Starmer exchange came just after Kemi Badenoch’s questions, and just before Ed Davey’s, so it got missed earlier. So here it is.

Eastwood said Starmer would never know how much it meant to victims in Northern Ireland when he said, in the past, that no murder would be immune from prosecution. He asked Starmer to recommit to that.

And Starmer replied:

This is a really important issue. Can I begin by saying I have a profound respect and debt to our veterans who serve.

This is a complicated issue, and we’ve got to get this right.

Veterans are at risk because of the false promises of the last government. Let’s be clear. They made a false promise of immunity that does not exist. It was unlawful. It was struck down, and it was undeliverable. Their failed Legacy Act leaves veterans exposed with no settled process.

We will create a secure, transparent system that protects veterans from unjustified persecution and gives victims families and survivors the confidence that they need in the process.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says if Starmer holds a public inquiry into the Afghan data breach, the Lib Dems will support it.

Can I associate myself with the prime minister’s words about the shocking Afghan data breach under the previous government, kept secret for three years. And he will have our support if he decides to pursue a public inquiry.

He asks about the Mann/Mordaunt report into antisemitism.

Starmer says the government will respond. It must fight antisemitism whereever it is.

Davey says the Israeli plan for Gaza would amount to putting Palestinians in a prison, and would be “ethnic cleansing”. He suggests the UK should be sanctioning the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Starmer says the government is appalled by what is happening in Gaza.

Civilian deaths should be fully investigated, he says.

UPDATE: Davey said:

The world is looking on in horror at the scenes from Gaza. And now, Netanyahu’s ministers want to lock the whole population of Gaza into effectively a giant prison, a plan that would clearly amount to ethnic cleansing, as former Israeli prime minister Olmert has said.

Does the prime minister agree that this is utterly abhorrent and unacceptable, and will he make clear to the Israeli government that the UK will not stand idly by and will act, starting by sanctioning Prime Minister Netanyahu himself?

And Starmer replied:

I am appalled by these suggestions in relation to Gaza, just as I am appalled by the reports of yet more civilians being killed whilst trying to access aid. So on both fronts, I am appalled by what we are seeing and what we are hearing. We raise it regularly, as he would expect.

In relation to the civilians being killed, I would expect them to be fully and transparently investigated with full accountability for any failings, and Israel must clearly put in place measures that properly protect civilians in line with international law, and that is the case we’re pressing repeatedly.

We do also want to see alongside that an immediate ceasefire, so that the remaining hostages can be brought out and aid at volume and at speed can be got in, and a political process open that, in my view, is the only way we’re going to get a lasting solution.

Keir Starmer starts by saying MPs across the house have always supported the UK supporting Afghans who helped the British army.

Yesterday the government set out the failings that Labour inherited.

Starmer says ministers in the last government have “serious questions” to answer.

Yesterday, the defence secretary set out the full extent of the failings that we inherited – a major data breach, a superinjunction, a secret route that has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.

He welcomes the fact the defence committee plans to hold an inquiry.

Today is the last PMQs before the summer recesss. Here is the list of MPs on the order paper to ask a question.

Julian Smith, a former Tory chief whip, has accused David Cameron of treating the Brexit referendum as “some sort of Eton game”.

He made the comment in an interview looking back at his career with Red Lines, a Radio Ulster podcast.

Smith, who was a backbencher at the time of the referendum but who subsequently became chief whip and Northern Ireland secretary, is not someone known for criticising colleagues in public. In his interview, he says he was initially inspired by Cameron, but felt his handling of the referendum was “unforgiveable”.

He says:

I joined the Conservative party because of David Cameron, because he was dynamic ... but looking back on it, it was unforgiveable that this fundamental question was put to the British people when you have a whole range of issues, not least the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

It was put to the British people as if it was some sort of Eton game.

As chief whip under Theresa May, Smith had to deal with the repurcussions of the vote to leave as May tried, and failed, to get a Brexit deal through the Commons.

Changes to sick pay to cover part of workers’ salaries from the first day off could end up benefiting British businesses by as much as £2bn, according to analysis commissioned by the UK’s main union body, Jasper Jolly reports.

John Healey, the defence secretary, has challenged Reform UK to justify its claim that convicted sex offenders have been allowed into the UK under the government’s Afghan resettlement scheme.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, made this claim in a video he posted on social media yesterday. He claimed the threat to women in the UK was “incalculable”. Richard Tice, the party’s deputy leader, has made similar claims in an article in the Daily Telegraph. The party has a long history of depicting people seeking asylum in the UK as criminal, on the basis of flimsy, contested or non-existent evidence, and in a way that is viewed as racist by critics.

In an interview on Times Radio, Healey said that people who came to the UK under the relocation scheme set up to help people affected by the data leak were vetted before they arrived. Anyone with a record of violent or sexual assault was excluded, he said.

Healey admitted that he could not vouch for what people have done since they arrived. “No doubt some of them have committed some offences and got into trouble. That’s true right across the board,” he said.

Asked specifically about Farage’s claim that Afghan relocation schemes were creating an “incalculable” threat to British women, Healey replied:

If he’s got hard evidence of individuals that pose a risk, he needs to report that information to the police ... We run security checks about the backgrounds of those individuals and where they pose those sorts of threats, they’re prevented from coming and denied access to Britain.

In an interview with LBC Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, hit back at his former ministerial colleague Johnny Mercer rather more forcefully than he did on the Today programme (see 8.09am) over Mercer’s comments about the Afghan resettlement programme.

Tom Swarbrick, the presenter, quoted what Mercer said about how this “whole farcical process has been the most hapless display of ineptitude by successive ministers and officials that I saw in my time in government”.

Asked to respond, Wallace said:

No, I don’t agree with it. I think my record would show the opposite. It was me and Priti Patel, before the collapse of Kabul, who decided we were going to accelerate bringing people back who were under threat …

People hadn’t come out before. And we made sure that we did this. I think what Johnny, you know, fails to grasp, is quite the massive scale of collapse that happened very quickly in Afghanistan, leaving people at risk, and we had to do our very best.

Wallace also praised the Times defence editor Larisa Brown, who at the time was writing for the Daily Mail, for getting the Mail to campaign for a scheme to help Afghans who had worked alongside the British military. This helped to persuade the government to focus on getting people out, he suggested.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, is today proposing all all green energy projects be moved to a government subsidy scheme, in a speech accusing Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch of peddling “myths” about net zero.

As PA Media reports, Davey will call for a “rapid” transition to Contracts for Difference (CfD), which work by guaranteeing generators a fixed “strike price” for electricity regardless of the wholesale price, in a speech to the IPPR this afternoon. PA says:

CfDs are awarded by government auction to firms bidding to produce renewable energy for the UK grid, with developers either paid a subsidy up to the strike price or repaying the surplus while the market price fluctuates.

Davey will say that only 15% of green power is produced under such contracts, with the rest still coming from an old legacy scheme.

The 2002 Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROC) scheme, which does not involve a strike price guarantee, closed to new generation in 2017 but still governs some projects on contracts due to expire by 2037.

Davey will argue that the ROC scheme was introduced “when ministers didn’t have the foresight to realise that renewable power would get so much cheaper over the next two decades”.

He will call on ministers to move all legacy agreements on to CfD, saying the transition would slash household energy bills by “breaking the link” between gas prices and electricity costs.

The party leader is expected to say: “People are currently paying too much for renewable energy. But not for the reasons Nigel Farage would have you believe.

“Because generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas – even when you factor in extra system costs for back-up power when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.

“But people aren’t seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas.

“Unlike Contracts for Difference, companies with ROCs get paid the wholesale price – in other words, the price of gas – with a subsidy on top. Subsidies paid through levies on our energy bills – costing a typical household around £90 a year.”

Davey will describe the legacy system as “manifestly unfair” for consumers and call on the government to “start today a rapid process of moving all those old ROC renewable projects on to new Contracts for Difference”.

Kemi Badenoch has suggested that the individual responsible for the Afghan data leak should have been sacked.

Speaking on LBC last night, she said:

The first thing that came to mind [when she heard about the data leak] is that this is what people are angry about, that if you had been working in a job in the private sector and something like that had happened, you’d be out on your ear.

And it just reminded me of one of the frustrations I had as a minister, that because you couldn’t sack civil servants, they kind of knew that they could do whatever they liked. At worse, they’d be moved to another department.

Yesterday, in an interview with the News Agents podcast, John Healey, the defence secretary, said the individual responsible was “no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief”.

Asked about this on Sky News this morning, Healey said that the problems did not just relate to one individual and that he would not be launching a witch hunt. He said:

As far as the individual goes, I am not going to launch a witch hunt or point the finger at him.

When it was put to him that expecting someone to be disciplined was not a witch hunt, he replied:

I am sorry, those were decisions that would have been taken at the time. This goes much bigger than the mistaken actions of a single individual.

John Healey told Sky News that the Afghans named in the spreadsheet that was accidentally leaked listing people who had applied for resettlement in the UK were not automatically eligible to come to this country.

The defence secretary said:

Most of those names on the list were people who didn’t work alongside our forces, didn’t serve with our forces, aren’t eligible for the special scheme that Britain put in place quite rightly to recognise that duty we owe those brave Afghans who supported our forces.

Now they’re not eligible for that. Their name is on the dataset, and there was never the plan, never the plan, to bring everyone in on that dataset into this country, and nor should we.

Asked if the risk posed by the leak could give them a right to claim asylum, he replied:

It doesn’t give them a right to claim access to Britain. It doesn’t give them a right to claim asylum. It doesn’t make them eligible for the special scheme that Britain put in place for those who’d worked alongside or served with our forces.

John Healey, the defence secretary, has defended his decision not to immediately lift the superinjunction banning reporting of the Afghan data leak when Labour came into office.

Asked why he initially let it remain in place, he told Sky News:

Because we came into government a year ago and we had to sort out a situation which we’d not had access to dealing with before.

So that meant getting on top of the risks, the intelligence assessments, the policy complexities, the court papers and the range of Afghan relocation schemes the previous government had put in place.

And it also meant taking decisions that no one takes lightly because lives may be at stake.

And in the end, we were able to do this because I commissioned an independent review, which I published yesterday as well from Paul Rimmer that took a fresh look at the circumstances in Afghanistan now, four years on from the Taliban taking control, and the important thing it said was that it is highly unlikely that being a name on this dataset that was lost three-and-a-half years ago increases the risk of being targeted.

In his interview on the Today programme, Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, was asked about Johnny Mercer’s claim that the UK ended up admitting people with only “tenuous” links to Britain through its Afghan resettlement schemes. (See 8.09am.) Wallace said: “I don’t think he’s entirely right.”

He explained:

Now, in the Ministry of Defence, and I remember this at the time, originally, it was assessed there’d be about 12,000 people going spanning the 20 years, plus their families who had been leaked to working directly for the British state.

The policy was, we didn’t want the whole Afghan army to come. We wanted – because we’d invested billions of dollars, as had the allies, in them, trying to protect their state.

These were people directly linked to our different parts of our military and they were 12,000. The total number seems to be 18,000. I believe they were the right people.

UK inflation unexpectedly rose in June driven by fuel and food prices, Richard Partington reports. The Office for National Statistics said the consumer prices index rose by 3.6% last month, up from a reading of 3.4% in May. City economists had forecast an unchanged reading.

Good morning. Normally when ministers make announcements in the House of Commons, we know at least some of the detail already because they been well trailed in advance. Yesterday was a rare example of a ministerial statement being used to reveal something utterly surprising and genuinely new (at least to anyone who had not seen the stories that dropped just 30 minutes earlier, when reporting restrictions were lifted). And this was a story about the murky workings of the Deep State. Here is our overnight story, by Dan Sabbagh and Emine Sinmaz.

Today attention is focusing on who is to blame. And two former Tory ministers are having their say in rival articles in the Daily Telegraph.

Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary when the leak happened, has used his article to defend going to court to stop the inadvertent release of names being reported. He said:

I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up.

I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out.

Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened.

Wallace has also been on the Today programme this morning, and he insisted he was not to blame for the injunction being a superinjunction. He said:

When we applied in August 2023, when I was secretary of state, we didn’t apply for superinjunction. We applied for a four-month injunction, a normal injunction.

Wallace said it was the court that converted this into a superinjunction (meaning not just that the leak could not be reported, but the very existence of an injunction gagging the media could also not be reported). Wallace claimed he did not know why.

In his article Wallace largely defends the decisions taken by the previous government, but Johnny Mercer, who was veterans ministers in the same government (but not in the MoD – he worked out of the Cabinet Office), is very critical of the way the whole Afghan resettlement programme was handled. In his Telegraph article he said:

Whilst there will no doubt be a rush to blame the individual who sent it (I know who he is), it would be entirely unfair and wrong to do so. Because I can honestly say this whole farcical process has been the most hapless display of ineptitude by successive ministers and officials that I saw in my time in government, of which this poor individual was just the end of the line …

The MoD has tried at every turn to cut off those from Afghan special forces units from coming to the UK, for reasons I cannot fathom.

They also lied to themselves about doing it. The UK’s director of Special Forces told me personally that he was offended and angry by my suggestion that his organisation was blocking the Triples.

Certain MoD ministers had a criminal lack of professional curiosity as to why the Triples [members of the Afghan special forces] were being rejected when there were so many subject matter experts who said they clearly should be eligible.

They even tried for a long time to say that Afghan special forces were not eligible.

Mercer said the UK ended up letting the wrong people in.

And the net result of this spectacular cluster is that we’ve let into this country thousands with little or tenuous links to the UK, and still some Afghan special forces we set up the bloody schemes for, remain trapped in Afghanistan, Pakistan or worse, Iran.

I feel furious, sad and bitter about the whole thing, and do as much as I can to get through each day not thinking about Afghanistan.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Liz Kendall, work and pensions secretary, gives evidence to the Commons work and pensions committee.

10am: David Lammy, foreign secretary, gives evidence to the Commons international development committee.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

Noon: The Home Office is publishing a report by David Anderson KC into the Prevent programme.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.