Letters

Tuesday, 7th April 2009

Spectator readers respond to recent articles

Listen and learn

Sir: We’re going to have to get used to cuts, says Kate Chisholm (Arts, 28 March), while criticising the axing of the last children’s programme on the BBC’s mainstream networks as a cut too far. Last year a meagre £1.6 million of the £460 million the BBC spent on its radio services went on programming for children. For years BBC executives have justified this neglect by saying that children don’t want radio but only TV and pop music. But do we remove fresh fruit juice and green vegetables because children prefer burgers and pop?

To talk, children must first learn to listen, and last year’s government-commissioned Bercow Report exposed serious speech, language and communication needs [SLCN] in UK children, prompting the government to invest £52 million in an SLCN Action Plan leading up to a Year of Language & Communication in 2011-12. Radio can play a role in this.

The BBC Trust wants practical partnerships with socially conscious organisations to reduce a growing public service broadcasting deficit. A children’s radio network would be a very sensible place to start.

Susan Stranks
National Campaign for Children’s Radio
Brighton

Settle the act

Sir: Charles Moore suggests (The Spectator’s Notes, 4 April) that the best approach to the tradition of Catholics being prohibited from marrying an heir to the throne is to ‘leave well enough alone’. Yet that is not an orthodox conservative argument: Edmund Burke laid it down that in order to remain conservative, one must change.

The British monarchy has subtly evolved over centuries and decades, and has gradually introduced changes which in general have strengthened the institution. Edward VII was very unhappy with the traditional Protestant declaration monarchs were obliged to make upon accession, as it contained an unkind rigmarole excoriating the cult of the Blessed Virgin (as a happy visitor to the monks of Tepl in Marienbad, he regarded the Marian cult benignly). Lord Salisbury would not permit the King to alter this declaration, saying there would be ‘riots in the country’. Subsequently, George V did alter it, simply declaring himself a faithful Protestant and deleting the more blood-curdling words about Rome and all her superstitions: there were no riots in the country, and it was accepted as a sensible evolutionary step.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

Anne Wotana Kaye

April 9th, 2009 5:10pm Report this comment

Why have journalists taken to using it simply as a synonym for rival or enemy?
============================
In reply to M Skeggs' question,
I believe this is just an example of the general dumbing-down of literacy and general education. Our government believe in the saying, "In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king."

Post comment