Race is still an issue
Sir: I do not share Samir Shah’s flawed assumption that Britain is no longer a racist society (10 October). How many people of ethnic minorities are members of the current cabinet? How many vice-chancellors are non-whites? Would it be possible, in the current climate of religious prejudice, racial discrimination and Islamophobia, for a person of any ethnic minority group to become prime minister? Are ethnic minorities fairly represented in the house of lords and house of commons? Yes, Britain is more racially tolerant than it was ten years ago, but it still has a long way to go before it can break down social, cultural and racial barriers, and be unshackled from its centuries-old white supremacy and slavery mindset.
Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London NW2
Blameless bookies
Sir: I wonder why Ferdinand Mount asserts ‘There have always been jockeys who would take a deliberate tumble to oblige an insistent bookie’ (Diary, 10 October). Although jockeys have occasionally lost races deliberately, it has usually been for their own gain, or that of the owner, trainer or some other punter. It is in the bookmaker’s interests for sport to be straight. As a third-generation bookmaker, I object to this lazy stereotyping. Bookmakers in this country annually contribute more than a billion pounds in taxes and levies to support the Treasury and racing. None of the examples of cheating Mount gives — ‘Bloodgate’, Nelson Piquet, the Gothenburg goalie moving the goalposts and Fred Perry moving the service line — were anything to do with betting or bookmakers.
Will Roseff
London W1
Cycle logic
Sir: If motorist Anthony J. Burnet (Letters, 17 October) cares to ‘take a look at the rules of the road’, as he exhorts others to do, he will see that the Highway Code para. 66 does not require single-file cycling except in special circumstances. He might also ask himself why he feels cyclists should get out of his way. Should it not be him getting out of theirs? Any brief delay he incurs while waiting to overtake cyclists he can make up effortlessly, in seconds. And two-abreast cycling is often safer than single file, since it deters motorists (not, of course, the careful Mr Burnet) from squeezing past where there is not enough width to do so safely.
Ken Bishop
Liverpool
Continuing quangocracy
Sir: In your 5 September issue you listed some of the quangos that could be usefully disbanded in order to relieve the taxpayer. Since then Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne have hinted at clawing back the pay and influence of some of their chief executives, without making reference to their unproductive organisations. The broadsheets are still advertising for chief executive candidates for new quangos or quasi-quangos, carrying the usual six-figure-plus-bonus salaries. Two such quangos are the British Hospitality Association, which ‘represents the hospitality sector in Whitehall and Brussels’, and the other is Yorkshire Business, described as an organisation ‘whose time has come’. One groans at the thought of all this needless spending, as well as the blatant scorched-earth policy intended to create even more havoc for the next reforming government. Doubtless the posts will be filled somehow, and the new bosses given watertight contracts for as long as possible.
Gordon Goulder
Hilton, Derby
Bread and butter letters
Sir: Charles Moore tells us he has been driven by the postal strike to change his habits (The Spectator’s Notes, 17 October): for thanking people he is now reluctantly using emails rather than writing letters. But the lack of a reliable service from Royal Mail doesn’t really give him that excuse. Strike or no strike, he should write his letters of thanks in his own fair hand and then, having used his scanner, send them as email attachments. Mary wouldn’t frown on this, surely?
Anthony Rentoul
Twickenham, Middlesex
Rational religion
Sir: I enjoy The Spectator and find the writing intelligent, informed and stimulating. However, the occasional prejudiced and ill-informed remark does slip through. Marcus Berkmann, in his review of The Greatest Show on Earth (Arts, 3 October), is a case in point when he states that ‘religion is irrational and proud of it’. I am not sure what religion he is speaking of, and cannot speak for Hindus or Muslims, but from the Christian perspective this is complete nonsense. Christianity has always claimed to be rational, being based upon the Logos, the Word of Reason. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the Enlightenment or the modern scientific revolution would ever have taken place without the impetus provided by the Christian world view, which is rational and reasonable. It is somewhat ironic that those who claim to be intelligent, reasonable, thinking people do not bother to inform themselves about that which they are arguing against, and instead rely on their own or others’ prejudices.
Revd David Robertson
Dundee
Degrees of wrongness
Sir: Lloyd Evans (Arts, 10 October) claims to believe that both creationism and Darwinism are ‘poppycock’. It is true that neither fully explains the mysteries of evolution, but if he is equating the two, he should remember Peter Medawar’s dictum: ‘The ancients believed that the earth was flat. Galileo believed that it was round. They were both wrong. But if you believe that they were both equally wrong, you are more mistaken than either of them.’
Mr Evans should stick to theatre reviewing until he can distinguish the painstaking and authoritative science of Darwin from the unsupported drivel being peddled by creationists. Your readers deserve better.
Michael Lewis
High Barnet, Herts
Comments