It's helpfully provocative to have H Marceau's views (Letters, #287) in which he says: 'The embassies don't issue these advisories on a whim but as a last resort'. There is now a website www.nepaltraveladvice.com dedicated to this issue receiving scores of views of quite the opposite persuasion, namely that the western governments are indeed whimsical about how they judge the need for 'negative travel advice'. No views such as M Marceau's have been posted on the website so it is good to see from your newspaper that there is debate on this issue. He is wrong about not being able to obtain insurance but, sadly, closer to the mark when he speaks of irresponsible tour operators and (mishandling) tourism being a missed opportunity. Our website's central tenet is that, if the British negative travel advice were not whimsical, why then have they now removed that lethal phase advising 'against all but essential travel to Nepal'? Is the situation here suddenly so improved or, more likely, was the case for the 'travel ban' proven to be so insufficient in the first place? The website also concerns itself with how the FCO paints such a paranoid picture of the risks to tourists here and about the possible re-imposition of the negative travel advice for reasons no better than those that proved so unwarranted earlier.

Niraj Shrestha, email