The right path
Sir: I have always had the greatest respect for Matthew Parris’s incisive comments. However, in his latest column (23 July), he misreads Tory supporters. The Conservative Home survey was statistically accurate. The views expressed were those of thousands of voters and reflect their opinions on ‘U-turn Cameron’. The most frequent comment about him is ‘we do not know what he stands for and if we did, he will change it when he wants’. That is why he did not win the 2010 election, in which he should have wiped the floor with the Labour party. No doubt support could have been found for 10 more ‘pet hates’ from participants. However Nos 1 to 10 were quite sufficient to reflect the majority views of many voters. David Cameron needs to realise that he is in politics — not PR.
Bernard Mulady.
Bucks
Blanket condemnation
Sir: Reading Angela Huth’s article on life-dividers (‘Duvets or blankets?’, 23 July), I realise that I too fall into the category of blankets, being tidy and extremely punctual. However I’m also conscious of the fact that I now live on my own. Could the two facts be linked?
Ralph Rolls
London SW20
Nameless and shameless
Sir: Victoria Lane is humane in her reaction to Charlie Gilmour’s sentence (‘Give Charlie a break’, 23 July). However it has always been the case that those who are, for whatever reason, well known, can expect the courts to use that to send messages of deterrence to the greater population. If Charlie’s pa had been a suit in the City his sentence would have been nothing like 16 months, if he had been arraigned at all. This is not a good or a bad thing, it is just a fact of life. Those who expect justice to please everyone will wait forever.
By contrast, the people commenting in newspaper blogs do so tucked safely into the funk-holes of anonymity afforded by their usernames. As a result we regularly see the very worst bigotry and prejudice being expressed untrammelled by any sense of responsibility. If Charlie must pay the penalty for being known, it is equally true that these people should be made to put their names behind their outpourings. It is long past the time that all our newspaper websites required comments to be under the proper names of the individuals, because at the moment such comment columns are a breeding ground for the very worst that human nature can produce. Those who are afraid of consequences should either keep quiet or find another forum more congenial to their timidity.
Jonathan Wynne Evans
By email
The not-always-Torygraph
Sir: Max Hastings (‘Never trust an editor’, 16 July) states that ‘ironclad support for Tory administrations had been the norm when the Telegraph was owned by the Berry family’. This is untrue. On many occasions my family refused to support Tory governments. Perhaps the most notable was in 1938 when Neville Chamberlain, infuriated by the Telegraph’s opposition to Munich and appeasement, summoned the acting editor-in-chief Seymour Berry to Downing Street (his proprietor and father Lord Camrose was unwell at the time).
Chamberlain demanded that the paper change its policy, but Seymour refused. Unlike Chamberlain, he had attended a Nuremburg rally and knew the nature of the Nazi regime.
Two years later, perhaps partly as a consequence, Chamberlain was kicked out of power.
Adrian Berry
London W11
Red rose rising
Sir: I am a member at Lancashire CCC, who, against all the odds, are currently second in the championship and in the quarter finals of the Twenty20 cup. This is a team of young cricketers in their early twenties brought up through the club’s development system, headed by Mike Watkinson and Peter Moore. They only have one England player, the excellent Saj Mahmood (Jimmy Anderson being on perpetual international duty). Durham lead the championship but have a number of mature England players at their disposal. Simon Heffer’s comments (‘Failing the Test’, 16 July) do a disservice to the excellent young men of Lancashire.
Brian J. Singleton
Derbyshire
Talking point
Sir: The editorial in your 9 July edition (‘Shhh’) was spot on. I’m a US resident and can assure you that our Wimbledon coverage was not much better. However, it is not just tennis where this is happening, it is almost all sports, with the American Football (NFL) commentators being the worst. I’ve seen games where the action on the pitch is not mentioned for minutes, while the commentators crack jokes, and discuss local bars and the standard of hot dogs. This means the mute button is always in use.
This ‘over-talking’ has also become standard on most news channels, with CNN leading the way. The BBC anchors are not quite as bad, but they are awful when interviewing someone: they seem to think their questions are the important part of the interview.
Antony R. Hendey
Charleston, SC, USA
Walk this way
Sir: I too share Mark Mason’s concern about crowded pavements (‘Watch your step’, 16 July). My strategy as a small woman is to wait till a big fit man comes past, then I fall in behind and get dragged along in his wake. Works every time!
Laura Garratt
Uxbridge
Write to us The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9HP; letters@spectator.co.uk
Comments