Already a subscriber? Log in
The Melanie maze
Sir: It’s a pity Melanie Phillips didn’t do the basic journalistic checks with us before going into print with her highly speculative article about Alan Johnston’s kidnap (‘A major defeat in the war to defend the free world’, 4 August).
Alan lived and worked as a reporter in Gaza for three years. He was the only Westerner to be permanently based there and, as any good reporter would, he had close working contacts with all shades of political life in Gaza — including Hamas and Fatah representatives. He wouldn’t have been doing his job properly if he
hadn’t had such contacts.
Yes, our Jerusalem Bureau Chief did contact Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus as we tried to get Alan released. We also had extensive contact with the Fatah leadership including Mohamed Dahlan and Prime Minister Abbas. As Mark Thompson said when Alan disappeared, the BBC would talk to anyone in our efforts to get Alan released.
Melanie’s allegations about Fayed abu Shamala recycle an incorrect Jerusalem Post story which used a Hamas website as a source for Fayed’s remarks. He has never attended a Hamas rally nor spoken at one. He did attend a Hamas press briefing in 2001 — not a rally — attended by 139 journalists. None of them reported on a BBC man supporting Hamas — which would surely have occurred to a room full of journalists had it happened. Melanie’s repetition of false allegations does not make them true.
As for giving Alastair Crooke airtime, as a leading light on The Moral Maze, Melanie should appreciate that the BBC tries to reflect and test all shades of opinion on its airwaves, however uncomfortable those opinions might be.
We are not promoting ‘engagement’ with Hamas nor are we turning ourselves into a vehicle for Hamas propaganda. The BBC is reporting from the region fairly and impartially and in greater depth than any other broadcaster.
Francesca Unsworth
Head of Newsgathering, BBC News
Science and conscience
Sir: Stephen Pollard’s commentary on the opt-out regarding certain medical scientific procedures seems to be an argument for an abandonment of all restrictions (‘Why Europe may soon split along religious lines’, 4 August). He apparently believes that restrictions hurt the less well-off who could otherwise avail themselves of whatever service science or medicine has to offer.
This is a curious argument as it suggests that all scientific experimentation is beneficial. Perhaps Pollard might recall the debate over eugenics in the 1920s and how that was developed to validate the Nazi extermination of the handicapped or socially undesirable. Eugenics was supported by many in the scientific community across Europe and North America and it was the ‘religious conservatives’ for whom Pollard evidently has such little regard who proved its strongest opponents, not the scientific community. Similarly it was the Catholic Church which first denounced the Nazi programme of eliminating the handicapped.
As Pollard is not a research scientist, one may wonder on what basis he so confidently assures us that the use of embryonic stem cells will bring such untold benefit to mankind. Recent work has shown that there are alternative stem cell applications which need not require any moral compromise. Restrictions may actually encourage scientists to look for alternatives that do not offend the religious beliefs of those who do not share Mr Pollard’s apparent belief in the superiority of science over conscience.
Guy Stair Sainty
Le Vésinet, France
Adoption policy
Sir: The difference between young early adopters and old ones is that young folks often adopt things (Facebook, for example, or iTunes) because it is currently fashionable whereas oldies like myself adopt things if and when they see a use for them (‘Meet the wired retired’, 4 August). For instance, I and a lot of people I know carry a mobile essentially for emergencies, usually not even switched on except by arrangement, as our existing domestic phones plus answer machine, caller identification, ringback and address book facilities do everything we want, and not everyone wants to be interrupted by phone calls when shopping or out to dinner.
I adopted email early and enthusiastic-ally because it is a wonderful tool for sending information cheaply to everyone in the family, multiple members of clubs or party invitees. On the other hand, having collected large numbers of vinyl records, cassette tapes and CDs, I know perfectly well that I would use iTunes about as often as I once used my Walkman — that is, hardly ever.
Hilary Potts
London W13
Fewer mistakes
Sir: John Harradine (Letters, 4 August) is simply wrong to dismiss the distinction between less and fewer. A few years ago the head of a cancer charity misused less for fewer on the Today programme in an item on the prevention of cancers caused by smoking. In (an admittedly priggish) letter to him I invited him to consider the possibility that his campaign to reduce smoking would be successful. If he were to re-appear on the Today programme and say ‘less serious cancers are now caused by smoking’, he would be stating the exact opposite of what he intended. He told me that his teenage children were delighted with my letter.
Robin Jacoby
Bicester, Oxon
Big red bus
Sir: As the latest copy of your esteemed periodical dropped from my letterbox, the headline ‘What if Cameron fell under a bus?’ glared out; to which I thought ‘fat chance’ as the bus depicted on your front cover is that moribund wonder of civility, the Routemaster. To be run over by said bus would be a noble gesture but the likelihood is that a ‘bendy bus’ would do the dirty deed and that would be one up for ‘Newt Labour’.
Ralph Rolls
London SW19
Also in Society
Also by The Spectator
Latest
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.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in