As a non-observant Jew, the eruv means little to me.

I believe that one can interpret biblical commands and manipulate them to an absurd degree. That orthodox Jews should remain prisoners in their homes on the Sabbath is a complete nonsense.

I see no objection to a mother taking out her child in a pushchair or a disabled person being wheeled to synagogue.

The installation of poles and wires creating a boundary enabling them to do so is quite absurd and I am sure the good Lord thinks so too.

However, so what. It does no harm and satisfies some members of the community, although not all. Some ultra-orthodox Jews find it still unacceptable.

The subject regularly seems to offend Walter Grey (Be mindful of an anti-Semitic backlash', Letters, January 19). Why?

He suggests an anti-Semitic backlash because of the large Jewish population in the borough of Barnet. Is he really concerned about anti-Semitism? I think not.

One does not have to be particularly brilliant to read between the lines. He may claim not to be an anti-Semite, but whom is he fooling? Why is he concerned about the prospect of an increase in anti-Semitism?

It obviously upsets him deeply that there is a large Jewish population in Barnet and the eruv is a politically correct way for him to express his prejudiced views.

Who do you think you are fooling Mr Grey?

I care not about the installation of an eruv, one way or another. But please do not insult the intelligence of the Jewish community.

Jeffrey Kwintner
Fairfield Crescent, Edgware