Letters

27 June 2009

Spectator readers respond to recent articles

About Charles and Chelsea

Sir: You have got the wrong end of the stick about Prince Charles and the Chelsea Barracks scheme (Leading article, 20 June). If the Prince had made public representations to the local planning committee, using the conventional procedures, he would have joined many well-organised local opponents and would probably have scuppered the scheme that way.

He chose not to do that, presumably because he didn’t want to embarrass his Qatari friends. Imagine, then, that your boss, or one of your clients, received a personal letter from the Prince asking them to sack you and replace you with someone from his own circle. You wouldn’t like it, would you? The way he went about this was by any standards quite improper, not to say ungentlemanly, and to my mind also cowardly and somewhat bullying.

Timothy Brittain-Catlin
Broadstairs, Kent

Remembering Waterloo

Sir: Matthew Parris was absolutely right in commenting on our concepts of what is ‘a long time’ (Another Voice, 6 June). When I was an infant (and so unfortunately unable to remember it myself), I was introduced to an old lady who could remember how, when she was a child, her grandfather would sit her on his knee and tell her about his experiences at the Battle of Waterloo. I am now 53.

Lt Col NJ Ridout
Tbilisi, Georgia

Deny me my detectives?

Sir: The ‘secondary pornography’ arising from reportage of sex trials, which allows ‘millions’ to read about them while concealing ‘their feelings of unhealthy interest in the cloak of self-righteous anger’ (The Spectator’s Notes, 20 June), could equally apply to those of us who enjoy whodunits. Miss Marple, like many other investigators, rarely denied me essential and satisfactory details of how those who were murdered met their sticky ends. Should I seek help?

Robert Vincent
Wildhern, Hampshire

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

JohnAnt

June 26th, 2009 2:39am Report this comment

Councillor Greenhalgh is partly right: H & F is certainly less inefficient than it was. But like most councils it is still not good value unless you are philoprogenitive or indigent - or of course, unless you are employed by it. Its Council Tax, even after a 3% cut, is still quite high - compare the Band D rating for H&F - £1146.71 with Kensington and Chelsea - £1079.12, or Barnet in North London - £1113.20.
Council tax in H&F is of course lower than its neighbours in Hounslow (£1400) and the equally spendthrift north London councils of Haringey, Islington, Camden, all in the £1270-£1450 range.
But what are most of us net taxpayers paying for? A refuse collection, street lighting, pavement repair. Pricey.

Post comment