The Spectator

Letters | 14 February 2013

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

Sir: Ross Clark’s analysis of the NHS in the wake of the Mid Staffs scandal made dispiriting reading (‘Death on the NHS’, 9 February). There is indeed sickness in the health service and there is no doubt that ‘fundamental cultural change is needed’. But no matter what management changes are made, how can one legislate for compassion? The Mid Staffs scandal exposed its virtual absence. It is nurses who are in the front line of hospital care. There was a time when the press described them as angels. Mr Cameron said they do everything to make you comfortable. Does that mean letting you lie in excrement, leaving you without water and allowing you to starve? How far our angels have fallen.
Lewis Childs
Dundonald, Belfast

No need for nukes

Sir: In addition to the excellent reasons advanced by Lord Bramall (‘Lord Bramall’s last stand’, 9 February) there is one undeniable fact which supports his view that Britain could abandon nuclear weapons. Of the countries of western Europe, only the UK and France have them. The French, perhaps, to obscure the memory of having caved in during two world wars; the British, as Lord Bramall suggests, because being a member of the nuclear club gives us self-importance. Other countries could develop the technology to build nukes, but have chosen not to do so.

The question of whether nuclear deterrence ‘worked’ during the Cold War is impossible to answer. Perhaps we were just lucky. Yet any state could now fall victim to terrorism or menaces from Iran, North Korea, or some future enemy. Most do not seek protection in nuclear weaponry — so why should we?
M.G. Sherlock
Colwyn Bay, North Wales

Me, cruise?

Sir: For the last week I have been deep in the heart of the Ecuadorian Amazon, exploring the wonders of the Yasuni National Park, and Ecuador’s brilliant scheme to leave the oil there in the ground, rather than dig it up and ruin the unique environment in the process — a scheme, incidentally, which the British government would do well to support. I am still in Ecuador as I write, being stuck at Guayacil airport overnight, waiting for a plane home.  In the circumstances, I have had time to catch up on the press, including the current edition of The Spectator. I don’t want to sound nit-picky but I have not, definitely not, been ‘cruising the country looking for a safe seat to hand over to Boris in 2016’ (Steerpike, 9 February).  My cruising days are over and anyway Boris, as most people should know by now, is quite capable of looking after himself.
Stanley Johnson
By email

Benefits of shooting

Sir: Simon Barnes exclaims ‘what an extraordinary way to run a nation’s countryside’ when mentioning the shooting season (Diary, 2 February). Of the pheasant, he asks, ‘Has any creature ever thrived so much because of its ability to die?’ We suggest a better question might be: has any creature benefited so many other wild birds because of its role as a quarry species? Research by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust shows that, on our own farm, the national 30-year decline in songbirds was reversed in just three years, through game management practices designed to benefit wild pheasants. This involved habitat creation, winter feeding and the control of common predators such as crows and magpies, foxes and rats.

Another study carried out by the trust on 150 sites in southern and eastern England identified that game estates had up to 65 per cent more hedges per square kilometre than farms with no game shooting. We have also shown that rides (good for butterflies) are wider in game woods and that there is more woody cover in the bottom of hedges on farms where shooting takes place. We’ll have to leave the benefits of partridge conservation to insects and other birds for another occasion. Quite a way to run the nation’s countryside, we suggest.
Teresa Dent
Chief Executive, The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

A broad definition

Sir: Last weekend my father-in-law was pottering about in the kitchen, chuntering away about gay marriage. He wondered aloud why he couldn’t marry his brother, or indeed his son, notwithstanding any objections from his sister-in-law and myself. I told him rather firmly to stop acting like a middle-class Alf Garnett. Having just read Charles Moore (Notes, 9 February), I think he may have a point.
Julia Pickles
London SW1

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