God and taxes
Sir: I was surprised that we won the advance vote in the Spectator debate over faith schools (‘Taxpayers’ money should not fund faith schools’, 13 October). Ten years ago we would have lost it resoundingly, and it demonstrates the massive change in attitude over the last decade.
I suspect this is partly because of the Bradford riots and the subsequent report on how the school system was one factor exacerbating the ‘parallel lives’ many there were leading. This was reinforced by the 7/7 London bombings; and even though none of the terrorists attended a faith school, the attack highlighted the dangers of religious extremism and sparked concern over institutions that promoted a segregated society. Evidence of how some faith schools are selecting pupils on academic grounds has brought them further into disrepute.
It makes it even more surprising that the government has just lifted controls on the curriculum of schools operating under the academy or free schools system, many of which are faith schools, and is also relaxing inspection of whether such schools are promoting social cohesion. Is that wise?
Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain
Chairman, Accord Coalition,
London WC1
Sir: There is an important issue of democratic principle underpinning faith schools which appears to have been overlooked in your recent debate. Taxpayers whose funds are invested in faith schools include people of faith and people of no faith. People of faith accept that some of their taxes are invested in many activities to which they are opposed, e.g. NHS abortions. Surely those speaking on behalf of those with no faith should follow that democratic example and accept that some of their funds are invested in faith schools? What happened to live and let live?
Paul and Audrey Edwards
Cambridge Historical nitpicking
Sir: I never cease to be impressed by the erudition of fellow Spectator readers like Lord Monson (Letters, 23 October). Since Downton Abbey began to unfold on our television screens, I have learned all sorts of interesting things, such as the fact that in the belle époque no gentleman would have dreamed of riding a skewbald horse to hounds. Only gypsies did that.
All this fascinating information has been provided by people wishing to criticise the series for its lack of authenticity. So to all those who are enjoying finding fault with Downton Abbey, I say that we are rediscovering what the great Victorian history painters learned painfully a century and a half ago: that anachronisms are almost impossible to avoid when depicting events and people from another era. Even Orchardson, perhaps the historical painter par excellence, who went to vast trouble in his preliminary researches before putting brush to canvas, made mistakes: these were gleefully pointed out by well-informed critics at the time.
The conclusion must be that, however much time and research you might devote to producing an historical painting (or, by extension, a novel or film), the only faultless depiction of a particular time has to be a contemporary one. It can contain no anachronisms, as they did not exist at the time.
We must simply accept that there will be minor errors, which will not detract from most viewers’ pleasure. And we are getting better. If you do not believe me, look back at some of the ‘classic’ or ‘vintage’ period and historical films produced in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Some of the anachronisms are so egregious, and hilarious, that it is now impossible to take these films seriously. Downton Abbey represents a considerable improvement.
Alistair Kerr
London SW1
The mother’s line
Sir: Melanie McDonagh (‘Who’s the daddy?’, 23 October) overstates her case. I have always understood the reason that Judaism changed from patrilineal to matrilineal descent was the result of Christian neighbourly rape. The rabbis, by means of Responsa, decided humanely that the offspring of such encounters were not only Jewish but legitimate.
Gerald Samuel
Petersfield
Friends of Ted
Sir: Charles Moore’s item about Arundells (The Spectator’s Notes, 23 October) was not quite accurate: 13,000 people visited the house in 2010; an additional 2,000 were unable to do so owing to restrictions on numbers. The trust’s principal objectives were to keep the house and its contents for the nation; the musical objectives were subsidiary.
Strenuous efforts are being made by the Friends of Arundells to reverse the trustees’ decision and to keep the house open for the nation. After all, Ted Heath was a considerable political figure, yet it is noteworthy that there is little appreciation for his achievements. Clearly he did not have many friends — something the Friends of Arundells aim to redress.
David Morgan Jones
Staffordshire
An office and a commission
Sir: In his review of The Verdict: Did Labour Change Britain? by Polly Toynbee and David Walker (Books, 23 October), Paul Routledge remarks that the authors quote the National Audit Office approvingly at many points but that no mention is made in the endpaper biography of Walker’s employment by the NAO when the book was being written.
There’s a good reason for that. David Walker has never worked for the NAO, the parliamentary body responsible for auditing central government. Until recently, though, he did hold a communications post at the Audit Commission, the auditor of local government.
Barry Lester
Head of Media, National Audit Office
London SW1
Comments