Letters: Don’t overlook the Trumpisms

Canterbury tales

Sir: Having opened my copy of The Spectator upon arrival in the post, I read your article ‘Welby’s gatekeeper’ with interest (23 January). I was surprised and humbled to discover how much power and influence I have over the political engagement of the Archbishop. Let there be no doubt that the Archbishop sets his own agenda.

More fundamentally and crucially, I was disappointed to see victims of abuse and wider issues relating to safeguarding being brought in to play in a politically focused piece about the workings of Lambeth Palace. It is a matter of public record that the Archbishop and his team are ready to meet with survivors and have done so regularly. The specifics of the Smyth case are currently subject to a review, to be published later this year. It is not possible to comment specifically on the matters raised in the article until that review is finalised. We remain appalled and deeply grieved at the abuse suffered by many at the hands of the Church. We pray daily for survivors and continue to do everything we can do ensure the Church is a safe place for all.
David Porter
Chief of Staff and Strategy to the Archbishop of Canterbury, London SE1

Lacking Trust

Sir: As an ex-Countryside Access Officer I can attest to the National Trust’s rigidity and commitment to ‘progressive ideology’, as mentioned in Rod Liddle’s piece (‘Who volunteers to be lectured by children?’, 16 January). In fact, at times we did refer to the NT as the National Front. I remember once organising a walk to a local landmark called Black Dick’s Tower. I was taken to task by the local NT officer and asked to rename the walk. I pointed out that was the name of the tower and it was also on the OS map. Another time I was told not to use the term ‘alien species’ when referring to certain flora and fauna; for example grey squirrels.