Letters

House style Sir: How quaint that Simon Jenkins writes ‘working class’ without irony (‘Who do you Trust?’, 30 October). He must be among the very last to do so. But then he is chairman of that stultified repository of selective memory, the National Trust. I wonder why he thinks ‘working class’ means stupid. Jenkins, of course, struggles under the terrible burden of always being right. But let’s see if a little astute correction might deflate the bubble of embracing self-love he so very complacently inhabits. Any event-organiser knows that free drinks (and possibly live sex plus public executions) will get the attendance numbers up. It’s easy. But there are higher goals than mere numerical popularity.

God and taxes Sir: I was surprised that we won the advance vote in the Spectator debate over faith schools (‘Taxpayers’ money should not fund faith schools’, 13 October). Ten years ago we would have lost it resoundingly, and it demonstrates the massive change in attitude over the last decade. I suspect this is partly because of the Bradford riots and the subsequent report on how the school system was one factor exacerbating the ‘parallel lives’ many there were leading. This was reinforced by the 7/7 London bombings; and even though none of the terrorists attended a faith school, the attack highlighted the dangers of religious extremism and sparked concern over institutions that promoted a segregated society.

Dutch tensions Sir: Rod Liddle’s magnificent portrayal of Dutch politics is marred by one error (‘Orange alert’, 16 October). The anti-immigration and anti-Islam leader Geert Wilders is not ‘almost bizarrely Aryan’, as Liddle states. His grandmother was from a Jewish Indonesian family. His blond hair is peroxided. These facts, unlike many about Mr Wilders, are not in dispute. David Jones Amsterdam The philosophy of Stone Sir: I could have a little more respect for Oliver Stone’s views on cutting defence spending in the UK if he had the slightest idea what he was talking about (‘When Stone gets stick’, 16 October).

Lessons for the GOP? Sir: In Charles Moore’s notes (9 October), he writes that ‘unusually in modern political history… American politics could learn from Britain something to its advantage’. He seems to support his ‘old friend’ David Frum, who says that the Republican party should follow the David Cameron model and detoxify their party brand. I can’t understand why. Cameron Conservatism can hardly be considered an exemplary success. The Tory leader couldn’t even win an election against an immensely unpopular prime minister who had ruined the country. Republicans, on the other hand, for all their unpopularity across the world, look increasingly certain to win back Congress next month in the US mid-term elections.

Sir: I enjoyed Robert Stewart’s review of the book about James I’s grasp of spin (Books, 2 October), but there is one fact he omits. On pets and people Sir: Baroness Warnock makes a point — frequently made by those who advocate human euthanasia (‘Moral authority’, 2 October) — that ‘we recognise that in animals, when they’re suffering, it’s best to put them out of their misery’. Leaving aside any moral or spiritual issues, a practical, and vital, difference between animals and people is that animals do not have estates to bequeath, legacies to leave, wills to make and the complex paraphernalia of property and revenue.

Spectator readers respond to recent articles Darwinian faith Sir: I am always amazed at how little Darwin’s devotees seem to know about his theory of how evolution came about. In addressing the familiar riddle of why the fossil record does not show ‘intermediate forms’ between one species and another, Mr Lewin (Letters, 25 September) caustically claims that ‘intermediate is a mischief-word employed by creationists’. Had he read my article more carefully (or, more to the point, had he ever read The Origin of Species), he would realise that it was Darwin himself who first queried the absence of those ‘intermediate forms’.

Spectator readers respond to recent articles Thought crime, style crime Sir: I welcome the new presentation of The Spectator, along with the continuing commitment to ‘elegance of expression and originality of thought’, and providing ‘a refuge from an often censorious and humourless world’. These are the reasons why I subscribe, and I am seldom let down. Yet I see with disappointment that Melanie Phillips has been quick to exercise her right to oppose Spectator doctrine (‘I think, therefore I’m guilty’, 18 September). While I agree with the thrust of her argument, a less elegant, more censorious and humourless way of expressing it is difficult to imagine. Isn’t style crime just as bad as thought crime?

The ventures of faith Sir: Peter Hitchens eloquently describes the moral vacuum created by the permissive society, and suggests recourse to the Book of Common Prayer (‘In the shadow of the Pope’, 11 September). The world, however, will never be saved by beautiful prose. Indeed, aesthetic indulgence may all too easily substitute for moral rigour. ‘We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings,’ we Anglicans pray; ‘the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the burden of them is intolerable.’ How glorious to surrender to such seductive self-flagellation. And then we go out and sin again. The Christian message is that we can overcome sin only through suffering.

Outfoxing the ban Sir: Your editorial (‘Fox news’, 4 September) rightly welcomes Tony Blair’s admission that the Hunting Act was ‘a fatal mistake’ as does everyone who hunts, although there is a certain frustration that he missed the clear opportunity to adopt compromise proposals that were available to him right up to the end of the parliamentary process. As far as the current government is concerned, I am not certain that you are being entirely fair. A free vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act followed by a government bill is not just a Conservative party commitment, it is now part of the coalition programme. Even those, like myself, who are ardent supporters of repeal could not expect this issue to be at the top of the new government’s agenda.

U and Pre-U Sir: I am, as a student approaching the A2 year, sick with envy at the small number of my friends lucky enough to be currently taking the Pre-University course. Not only did John Witheridge (‘An answer to the A-level debate — and Gary Lineker’, 28 August) succinctly describe the previous year of school for me with ‘spoon-fed coursework, punctuating and confusing the learning process with obsessive assessment’, but he also displayed the far more appealing alternative in the Pre-U syllabus. While I continue to attempt to meet the endless, pointless ‘Assessment Objectives’ of A-levels, it appears that Pre-U students enjoy a far more rigorous, yet encouragingly independent, form of learning.

Use the force Sir: The problem with Alasdair Palmer’s argument against police reform (‘The coalition’s police reforms will fail’, 21 August) is that it merely echoed Gordon Brown’s mantra for the last ten years. According to this view, what matters most is how much money is spent on public services. The more we spend on our police, schools, etc, the better they are bound to be. Some of us questioned this idea from the beginning. Others began to have doubts when services failed to improve in proportion to the substantial resources pumped in. Most people finally rejected the age of big spending when the country went bust.

What the PCC is for Sir: While I really do not wish to react humourlessly to Douglas Murray’s thoughtful piece on society’s collective sense of humour failure (‘Why can’t anyone take a joke any more?’, 14 August), I would like to clear up a couple of his points about the Press Complaints Commission. He says that we encourage people to ‘claim an offence’ if they do not like something they read. Not quite true. The PCC deliberately makes no judgment on taste or decency, and actively discourages people from complaining on the grounds simply that they have been offended. We encourage people to complain about accuracy and intrusion and the like, but that is surely to be expected.

Vive le TGV Sir: I was surprised to read about the vexations of Ross Clark on the TGV (‘Train à Grande Vexation’, 7 August). My experiences on this train have always been excellent. Last winter I was able to buy a return ticket between London and Avignon for only £110. Changing trains in Lille was perfectly easy, as the platforms were adjacent. And I find it a particular blessing that passengers are not allowed to use mobile telephones in the carriages. Rail passengers are far more likely to encounter problems in France when they are using ordinary trains, particularly those travelling from east to west or vice versa.

Neocon Coughlin Sir: Con Coughlin’s article (‘How we lost the war’, 31 July) criticising David Cameron’s supposed disenchantment with our bogged-down campaign in Afghanistan confirms him as the Henry Newbolt of our day. He does not see this conflict in terms of a cost-benefit analysis in relation to the security and wealth of the United Kingdom, but in terms of moral obligation — ‘a mission’. But why should Cameron, as the Prime Minister of a Conservative and Liberal-Democrat coalition in 2010, be morally bound by a commitment unwisely entered into in 2001 by Tony Blair in the aftermath of 9/11?

Colourful Mo Sir: I am surprised to read Charles Moore (The Spectator’s Notes, 24 July) opine that ‘in a better world’ there would have been no film about Mo Mowlam but instead one depicting the ‘heroic struggles’ of Owen Paterson. Mo Mowlam was vibrant, colourful and exuberant — an authentic character who was in every sense entertaining. Her story captivated millions; her unorthodoxy was appealing and her eccentricities made for compulsive viewing. She spoke her mind, even when that mind’s capacity was in moving decline. A film about Owen Paterson, by contrast, would not only be irredeemably dull; it would be viewed in just two households — those of Paterson and (if he has paid his TV licence) Moore.

Carrying the fight Sir: Your leading article (Military matters, 17 July) suggests that aircraft carriers are vulnerable to missile and suicide attack. I am not sure where you have sought your military advice, but those who think along these lines usually know very little about carriers. We should reflect on carriers’ invulnerability, not their vulnerability. The last time that a British serviceman was killed as a result of enemy action in an RN aircraft carrier was in 1945. The contrast with our deployed operating bases in Afghanistan and Iraq could not be more stark. Recently, an RAF Regiment Officer told me of an occasion in 2008 where the British base at Basra was mortared over 60 times in one hour; this was not an isolated event.

The mills of God Sir: Theo Hobson’s concern at the emergence of Grindr (‘Gay sex by sat-nav’, 10 July) is understandable but he goes too far in describing the phenomenon as typical of male homosexual culture. Hedonism there certainly is, but that is not an exclusively gay characteristic, nor is it the case that male gay culture is the vector by which heterosexual culture becomes hedonistic. There are other trends within gay culture that emphasise the significance of constancy and commitment. The Revd Dr Jeffrey John’s Permanent, Faithful, Stable is a particularly significant example. It applies to gay relationships the wisdom of centuries of Christian experience.

How to save the seas Sir: We can predict, sadly, that the so-called management of the ocean mining described in Charles Clover’s article (‘The scramble for the seas’, 3 July), will be as poor as the current management of the oceans’ fish stocks. To save the world’s oceans, we need much better policy, coupled with credible enforcement wherever exploitation is permitted, and the establishment of large protected marine reserves where fish and ocean beds are completely protected. Large marine reserves are vital guarantors that will allow ocean resources to survive if the fishing and mineral extraction which are permitted elsewhere fail to be sustainable.

Time to rehabilitate Sir: The issue of whether or not ‘Prison works’ is confused in your leading article (19 June) with the broader arguments about reducing the National Offender Management Service’s £5 billion budget. Even if the £2 billion of annual public expenditure on prisons was left largely intact, there is scope for savings and other benefits in localising the punishment and aftercare of offenders with much more input from voluntary and community groups. Such a localisation policy could result in better and less costly services in this part of the criminal justice system, provided sentencing reform was part of the package.