Letters | 15 March 2008

Martial virtues

Sir: In his article about his film of the Haditha killings (‘The burden of guilt at Haditha’, 8 March), Nick Broomfield subscribes to the tired cliché that, in war, ‘everyone is a victim’. This has been the prevailing assumption of film-makers since at least the 1970s, and I had hoped a Spectator article might take a less lazy view. Mr Broomfield’s article adds a new dimension to these prejudices only by suggesting that participation in the making of a motion picture helps to heal the scars of war.

I do not wish to make light of the serious problems faced by veterans of combat, nor question the healing power of the Anglo-American film industry, but it is mischievous of Mr Broomfield to suggest that this is the whole story. I doubt it is even the most common experience. For every soldier ‘victim’ so beloved of Hollywood, there are untold numbers who have coped admirably with the pressures of war and who, far from descending into personal chaos, continue to give valuable service as soldiers or citizens. That we are in ignorance of the thousands of kindnesses and acts of grace, small and large, by our soldiers, yet ceaselessly aware of such events as Haditha, says little about the realities of war and much about the preoccupations of our media.

Mr Broomfield’s article also substitutes emotion for reason on a narrower point. He is gracious enough to acknowledge that such events as the Haditha killings are ‘inevitable’ in war, rather than the deliberate policy of the Coalition forces. But the consequence of his final sentence — and the sensationalist headline — is that any leader who resorts to military action should face war crimes charges. That is a charter for ensuring that force of arms could never again be used in pursuit or defence of the national interest.

If Mr Broomfield would like Mr Bush and Mr Blair tried as war criminals, he is in plentiful company, and among people whose reasoning is equally impaired by their enslavement to sentiment. But I hope he bases any private impeachment movement on more rigorous thinking than he based his article.

Ted Tedford

Bacton, Norfolk

Injurious Taki

Sir: Do any of the editorial staff read Taki’s outpourings prior to publication? This week’s rant (High life, 8 March) about the NHS should have received closer scrutiny before going to press. By his own admission, Taki has never had to go to a hospital in Britain. His views on the subject are therefore, at best, second-hand. Lord Mancroft’s recent unfortunate outburst is of dubious veracity and cannot be used as support for Taki’s opinions.

There is a rigorous NHS complaints procedure to help dissatisfied patients, including Lord Mancroft. A letter to the local hospital is an appropriate first step. If unhappy with the outcome, patients can then discuss their complaints with the Healthcare Commission: misusing a platform in the House of Lords benefits nobody. Taki would be taken more seriously if he visited a few hospitals in this country and awaited the conclusion of any Healthcare Commission investigation of Lord Mancroft’s complaint. In the meantime, his musings amount merely to so much drivel.

Craig Goldsack

Chairman, Department of Anaesthesia,

University College Hospital, London NW1

Lost soul

Sir: Many of your Christian readers will respond to Martin Rowson (‘I could never believe in God’, 8 March) not by trying to pick holes in his atheist ramblings, as he seems to expect, but by quietly praying for his lost soul. Many, like me, will also be thinking to themselves: ‘What a tedious and nauseating chap!’

Gus Teljer

Little Massingham, Norfolk

Personal testament

Sir: At a recent Westminster Abbey memorial service I was invited to read a passage from the New Testament. Despite an expressed preference for the King James Authorised Version, the Abbey authorities made clear they expected the modernised text — which, they informed me, ‘is the one used by the Abbey’ — to be adhered to, and I reluctantly complied.

One can but admire the open-mindedness of the Church of England these days toward traditions of other faiths. Is it then too much to hope that in one of London’s two main Anglican places of worship, Church members themselves might enjoy a similar deference to their preferences? Or is the beautiful Authorised Version, a few years short of its 400th anniversary, now officially banished from the city of its birth?

Sir John Weston

Richmond, Surrey

Wrong about Bea

Sir: I deeply regret having written in a column a fortnight ago (‘Boris’s most brilliant wheeze’, 1 March) that Bea Campbell, one of the signatories to the letter endorsing Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London, was a ‘crop-headed, lesbian feminist member of the National Association of Irrationally Furious Women Against Everything who works in Newcastle.’ It is clear from Ms Campbell’s letter last week that an apology is in order: I of course accept that she does not work in Newcastle.

Newcastle’s loss, in my opinion.

Rod Liddle

Marlborough, Wiltshire

History lesson

Sir: Lord Adonis says (Letters, 8 March) that ‘it doesn’t need the Conservatives to “bring the Swedish education revolution to Britain”’ because Labour reformers have already done so in the shape of the academies programme.

The academies programme is a typical piece of Labour rebranding — this time of the Conservative city technology college programme introduced in 1986 by the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher and secretary of state for education Kenneth Baker.

In the teeth of Labour opposition it was Conservative, not Labour, reformers who, in Lord Adonis’s words, ‘sought to introduce independent state-funded schools into England’ — concentrated in precisely the areas of low standards highlighted by Mr Nelson.

Andrew Mitchell MP

House of Commons, London, SW1