Sue Gray’s update omitted any reference to the ministerial code, despite its inclusion in her terms of reference. While the Metropolitan police investigation may have precluded consideration of alleged criminal behaviour, it should not have prevented further examination of her finding of “failures of leadership and judgment” and “a failure to observe ... the high standards expected of those working at the heart of government”, in relation to the prime minister himself. Her reluctance to enter this minefield may well be due to the requirement in the code that “ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister”. Clearly this is unworkable and is not addressed by Boris Johnson’s proposals for reform, which conveniently refer only to codes of conduct for civil servants and advisers (Johnson creates Office of the Prime Minister after Sue Gray criticism, 31 January). However, there is an even deeper problem. Johnson inhabits a parallel linguistic universe where phrases such as “I take full responsibility” do not have their usual meaning. Gray’s report could never have established wilful mendacity, a meaningless concept for a fantasist who cannot distinguish truth from fiction. Only Tory MPs have the power to bring this farce to a conclusion. Any of them with a shred of decency left should act to do so now. Dr Anthony Isaacs London • John Crace (Sketch, 31 January) quite rightly identifies the anomaly at the heart of our constitutional crisis, namely that we are labouring under a dysfunctional parliamentary system in which Ian Blackford is removed from the Commons for stating the truth that Boris Johnson has lied and misled the house, while the prime minister is allowed to remain and continue lying. That dishonesty cannot be called out, nor the dishonest held to account, would not be acceptable under any decent written constitution. The time is long overdue for a resurrection of the aims of Charter 88 in “drawing up a written constitution anchored in the ideal of universal citizenship”, under which no one should be censored for speaking truth to power any more than those in power should be able to promote untruths. Perhaps a Charter 22 could make the case for such reforms. And certainly, the recruitment of large numbers of signatories to such a charter would be easy in the age of social media. Austen Lynch Garstang, Lancashire • Never has the contrast between Keir Starmer and Boris Johnson been thrown into sharper relief than during the former’s magnificent speech in the Commons on Monday. One man radiated decency and demonstrated true respect for the sacrifices and losses the British people have endured these last two years. The other shied yet again from accepting personal responsibility, and for good measure sought to tar his opponent with the name of a paedophile. Whatever decision Tory MPs make in the coming weeks about Johnson’s future, I am hopeful that Britain will soon have a prime minister it can be proud of. Daniel Peacock Manchester • Congratulations to the compiler of the Guardian Codeword for incorporating into Tuesday’s puzzle (Journal, 1 February) three words so appropriate to Boris Johnson: buffoon, clown and oafish. Jennifer Jenkins London • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.