Letters

16 July 2011

Spectator readers respond to recent articles

No defending the tabloids

Sir: Toby Young (Status anxiety, 9 July) suggests that we are only shocked by tabloid phone-hacking scandals because we are ignorant of the ways of tabloid journalism. He seems then to equate phone-hacking hacks with ‘these Fleet Street foot soldiers’ who are busy protecting us from becoming French (shudder) — i.e. even more corrupt. What? Are all the foot soldiers also hackers? I’m not on any high horse, nor am I enjoying an orgy of sanctimony (or of clichés), but to suggest that we should not condemn too readily because the amoral, immoral or downright cruel pursuit of a story is some sort of ethically transcendent category in the search for a purer nation is the sort of editorial comment that makes me wonder if The Spectator really is for me. Ah, but then there’s Peter Oborne’s excellent article.

Tim Clark
By email

Cameron’s career moves

Sir: The piece by Peter Oborne (‘What the papers won’t say’, 9 July) was stunning. My view is indeed that David Cameron is a glib PR-wallah following in the footsteps of Tony Blair. He entered office with no big ideas, and seems destined to leave it having achieved nothing and with his party in disarray. Where are the conviction politicians of yesteryear?

Peter Bromwich

Spain See you in court

Sir: Tom Bower and I are both looking forward to trying my libel suit against him in Toronto, and can leave our many disagreements to that adjudication, where I will testify with pleasure and answer any questions his counsel has for me. And I can assure him of a lively and prolonged sojourn in the witness box explaining the malicious novel he wrote, ostensibly about my wife and family and me. Three factual points arise from his recent letter to the Spectator (9 July). All 17 charges against me were either abandoned, rejected by the jury, or vacated by the Supreme Court of the United States, although the appellate panel which that court excoriated did revive two charges after the high court asked it to assess the gravity of its own errors; it is not a disinterested conviction. My agreement with the defendants in my libel suit against Richard Breeden and others included the provision that each side would comment as it wished on the settlement, and I never suggested there was an apology from Breeden. When the details of the settlement are published, Bower’s disagreement with my comments about it in my piece in the Spectator will be shown to be false. Christopher Browne was a competent investor, but scarcely a saint; he was, unfortunately, a chronic, frequently treated alcoholic, which sharply hastened his death. He did lose $70 million for his investors in our company as it was mismanaged by my successors, and did publicly lament bringing Breeden and the others into the company. It is true that he died when his heart stopped, but so does everyone, including Charles I.

1 | 2 Next page