The Spectator

Nations need borders Sir: Austen Ivereigh (‘Let’s sort out the migration mess’, 17 March) argues that giving an amnesty to the 500,000-odd illegal immigrants in Britain offers a practical solution to our immigration problem. The policy sounds wonderful and comforting, but the reality is that it will send out a trumpet call to people to come here illegally in the knowledge that they will be made legal later. The experience of the United States makes the point. Since 1986 alone, it has given seven amnesties covering millions of illegal immigrants. The result has been that the number of illegal immigrants has rocketed from below four million in 1980 to around 10 million today (accounting for 30 per cent of the foreign-born population).

Paterson’s pranks Sir: Could I, as the person who unwittingly provoked Jennifer Paterson’s outburst in the Spectator kitchen, say exactly what happened? I was not, as Simon Courtauld writes (‘Who wants to buy our old office?’, 10 March), ‘a junior member of staff’, but the magazine’s advertising director. The kitchen was opposite my office and the nearest other kettle four floors down in the basement. Since Paterson only used the kitchen on Thursdays and I used to lug up all her vegetables in between flogging space, I would in her absence make the odd cup of coffee there. Finding an offending unwashed spoon, Paterson threw not plates but the entire cutlery drawer out of the window, for which she was dismissed and later reinstated.

Nothing to fear? Sir: I rather enjoyed reading Tessa Mayes’s anxious tirade about the imminent arrival of Big Brother (‘Big Brother is coming’, 3 March), although perhaps not for reasons of which she would approve. During my 88 years of life so far (in at least 44 of which income tax at between 40 and 83 per cent has been levied on part of my earnings), I have never met any self-employed person who has not admitted to ‘fiddling’ his or her tax return as a matter of routine. If, as Tessa Mayes now claims, HMRC is being much more aggressive and — dare we say it? — astute in pursuit of those who manage their own tax affairs, I stand ready to lead the applause.

Don’t blame the website From Malcolm Gooderham Sir: Your leading article of 24 February misses a fundamental point. Notably, the e-petition initiative has helped to breathe new life into the body politic, and has put No. 10 at the heart of key debates and in touch with millions of voters. The fact that ministers and officials at the Department of Transport were unprepared for such a response is also worth noting, but does not undermine the thinking behind the website.  Rather, it highlights a failure on behalf of the ministry adequately to manage — and pre-empt — such a public reaction. For MPs, or anyone else, to blame a website really misses the point. Malcolm GooderhamPolitical adviser to No.

Tolerance: for and against From C. Vestey Sir: John Gray argues that ‘relearning the habit of tolerance’ may allow us to reach a ‘modus vivendi’ with Islam (‘The best we can hope for is tolerance’, 17 February). He has learnt nothing from the events of the last 30 years. It was tolerance (and cowardice) that gave us the ‘covenant of security’ that allowed hard jihadi networks to bed down in and operate from the UK in total freedom. We already tolerate honour killings and forced marriage by backing away from a robust response for fear of ‘stigmatising’ Muslims. We tolerate the creeping introduction of civil sharia law and other parallel legal systems.

Beating bird flu From Peter Dunnill Sir: Ross Clark’s article on what will happen if bird flu becomes a pandemic (‘Will you have a place in the bio-bunker?’, 10 February) is correct in its criticism of government. However, our government could learn a lot from America. Mike Leavitt, the equivalent to Patricia Hewitt in the USA, has worked his way through the States with the message that ordinary people must do their part. Put a tin of food under the bed each time you shop, he advises, which is official US government advice. Ross Clark asks why children are not a vaccination priority, and US research can help us here as well.

It’s about the child From John Parfitt Sir: Matthew Parris should do better than his elegant nonsense about so-called gay adoption (Another voice, 3 February). Until the inclusiveness lobby turned the word ‘discriminating’ into a boo-word, it was a compliment, meaning the ability to know the difference between good and bad, deserving and undeserving; to prefer Beethoven to Big Brother. We all discriminate every day, and why not? We favour the things we like. Likewise, if my Catholic friends wish to run an adoption service for married couples, why not, especially when others are catered for elsewhere? Or will the government now insist that the Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society make grants to pranged motorists and that the British Legion welcome conscientious objectors?

Arrogant, not brave From Jolyon Connell Sir: Michael Gove is heartened by the left-wing writers who have denounced Islamic terrorism rather than seeking to make excuses for it (‘All hail the new anti-Islamist intelligentsia’, 27 January). Fair enough. But he also seems pleased that such a number of them backed the Iraq war. He calls these writers brave. Brave is not the word I’d use. Invading Iraq was always likely to appeal to left-wing intellectuals. Its most fervent supporters were the American neocons, many of whom, after all, were one-time left-wing Democrats. The idea of creating a new promised land in the Middle East was arrogant, naive, impractical and almost certain to be counter-productive â” the hallmarks of many a failed socialist enterprise.

Out of control From Sir Peregrine Worsthorne Sir: Fraser Nelson is quite right to question David Cameron about ‘social responsibility’ (Politics, 20 January), and I would appreciate a chance to follow suit. My gripe is that Mr Cameron does not seem to recognise that all responsibility involves control. Only someone in control can be held responsible, i.e. accountable. Personal responsibility means that each individual could and should take control of himself or herself. So presumably social responsibility must mean that some individuals take control of other people. Unfortunately Mr Cameron fails to grasp this nettle.

Stop hounding us From Simon Hart Sir: Ever since he was sacked by Radio 4’s Today programme for his obsession with the Countryside Alliance, Rod Liddle has not been able to leave us alone (‘At least they understand democracy’, 5 January). The problem is that it suits Liddle to pillory us as a single-issue pressure group when he knows full well that the truth is somewhat different. While no one would deny that we have played an active and key role in the hunting debate up to and beyond the introduction of the largely ridiculed Hunting Act 2004, we have been far from ‘utterly silent on the real problems which this government (and previous governments) have inflicted upon our rural areas’.