The Spectator

Letters to the Editor | 3 June 2006

Readers respond to articles recently printed in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Spectator</span>

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

  • Weekly delivery of the magazine
  • Unlimited access to our website and app
  • Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
  • Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

Nobody calls me a leftie beardo and lives to tell the tale — I happen to be a devout Thatcherite. I do not like what our exam boycott is doing to students. But while it is the only means we have of applying pressure to our employers (which it is), I intend to continue boycotting until the employers give serious ground.
Geoffrey Sampson
Uckfield, E. Sussex



Our party piece

From Alex Bannister
Sir: Charles Moore (The Spectator’s Notes, 27 May) should perhaps have checked with his fellow Telegraph columnists before launching into his latest diatribe against the Daily Mail. He attacks our report on the Beckhams’ World Cup party for being inaccurate before spitting out a whole series of inaccuracies himself. Chief among these was the bizarre claim that ‘there was no rain at all’. Our reporter was drenched for six and half hours out of the seven he spent there.

He goes on to pull us up for reporting that Gordon Ramsay was suffering from a ‘crippling injury’, saying that he was dancing ‘energetically without limping’. How strange. Ramsay had to withdraw from training for his charity football game because he was so badly injured. Besides, his Telegraph colleague Hilary Alexander certainly seems to side with us. She reported the following morning that Gordon Ramsay was ‘hobbling around with a knee the size of a watermelon’.

I could go on to defend the other claims in our piece, but the point is made. Even a novice journalist knows that if he wants to attack a fellow journalist on grounds of accuracy, he should take care to be accurate himself.
Alex Bannister
Daily Mail, London W8


Amnesty and abortion

From Kate Allen

Sir: The debate on abortion is a difficult one to have (‘If Amnesty declares the “right to kill”, it will kill itself’, 27 May), but, with proponents of differing views invoking human rights in their arguments, it’s not surprising that Amnesty International should debate how it should respond.

One of the many strengths of Amnesty is that this debate will involve members here in the UK and in more than 70 national sections and structures around the world, with decisions eventually being taken by representatives of our 1.8 million members in democratic structures such as Amnesty’s ‘parliament’ — the International Council Meeting.

Consultation within Amnesty International isn’t about to close. Indeed, the motion passed decisively at the UK section’s AGM in April also called for consultation to continue over the next year. For that reason, I’ll leave my response to Simon Caldwell’s very personal viewpoint there and instead encourage our members to continue the discussion.
Kate Allen
Director, Amnesty International UK,
London EC2

Ignorance was bliss

From John Bunyard
Sir: Rod Liddle’s attribution of unhappiness to a surfeit of choice (‘Profusion of choice makes us unhappy’, 27 May) is imaginative, if difficult to prove empirically: those who lived through the no-choice command economy of the Soviet Union can attest that it was no barrel of laughs. The truth is that there is no single explanation for today’s unhappiness. One underdiscussed but important contributor, however, is the psychological effect of the proliferation of broadcast media.

The world of 50 years ago — with which today’s comparisons are made — was one where the majority of Westerners could spend the greater part of their lives receiving only reinforcement of their beliefs, whether affirmatively (patriotism, family, church, monarchy) or negatively (communism, sexual deviancy, atheism). Such a situation was propitious for primate brains, in which reinforcement is a chemical matter. Exposure to conflicting beliefs on an hourly basis by courtesy of the satellite has changed all that. The unhappy reality of Mandelson, Mugabe, Rumsfeld, Ahmadinejad and Chirac all in one news broadcast is more than evolution could equip us for.
John Bunyard
Ashford, Kent

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in