Readers respond to recent articles published in The Spectator
Security v. rights
From the Attorney General
Sir: Stuart Wheeler’s article (‘Why the Tories must say No to torture’, 25 November) includes a quote from me about deportation. Taken from a Human Rights Watch report, and by HRW from a BBC online summary of a radio interview, some bits have fallen off the quote along the way, and the end result is misleading.
No one is advocating a free rein to deport where there are risks. What we are going to ask the European Court of Human Rights to look at is whether, when we are considering deporting terrorist suspects, we can strike a balance between protecting the interests, safety and security of the British public and the rights of the suspect.
Lord Goldsmith, QC
Attorney General’s Chambers, London SW1
Crosses and turbans
From John Duffield
Sir: The case of Nadia Eweida and her cross (‘The BA row is about fair play’, 25 November) highlights the way in which the entirely laudable aim of ensuring that there is no discrimination against members of special groups has seamlessly been transformed into a practice of giving them privileges.
It is entirely correct that, say, women should be allowed to become police officers; it is wrong that the physical requirements for becoming a police officer should be lower for them. It is entirely correct that, say, British Airways should be prevented from refusing to employ Sikhs or Christians because they are Sikhs or Christians, but if Sikhs or Christians wish to work for British Airways, they must conform to the dress code, which does not allow turbans or visible jewellery. The problems are caused entirely by the allowing of turbans but not crosses.
John Duffield
Loughton, Essex
Bullies of Bristol
From John Weston Smith
Sir: In exposing that bullying and bumbling body, TV Licensing, Charles Moore chose a ripe target (The Spectator’s Notes, 25 November). Recently I bought a new TV set, and the shop as required notified TVL of my name, address and postcode. I then received a very menacing letter from TVL stating that it could not find me on its register and threatening dire consequences if I did not buy a licence.
Nowhere among the threats and options did TVL ask whether I had a licence already. I have one, correctly showing my name, address and postcode and recording that I paid the fee direct to TVL itself. This body has issued renewal notices to me for many years from its register. Of course, mistakes happen, but why does TVL have to behave so obnoxiously? Why does it not start by asking two simple questions: ‘Do you hold a licence?’ ‘If so, what is its number?’
Inquiries reveal that others have suffered the same worrying experience of an unjustified accusatory letter after buying a new set. This is a very heavy-handed and hectoring approach from a body which has a lot of power and can prosecute. And it costs us a lot of money. According to its website, last year TVL spent a whopping £152 million in collecting licence fees from 24.7 million people, so it cost over £6 for each one of us. It also collects a tidy sum from telling us to use its expensive 0870 number — it took nine million calls in 2005. We pay for all the bullying and harassment Charles Moore describes.
TV Licensing is an agency of the BBC — perhaps some of its famously persistent investigative journalists should have a look at what’s going on in their own unpleasant backyard.
John Weston Smith
London NW3
From Bernard Silverman
Sir: Like Charles Moore, I am innocent of owning a TV set and I received the same threatening letter. I phoned the 0870 number and the employee (who refused to give his name) eventually conceded that I would not need to be interviewed under caution but insisted that my house would still need to be visited.
If anyone would like to found an organisation to campaign for a stop to this harassment, and if possible bring an appropriate civil or criminal prosecution against its perpetrators, I will gladly subscribe an annual amount equal to the TV licence fee.
Bernard Silverman
Master, St Peter’s College, Oxford
American charity
From Simon Preston
Sir: With reference to Simon Nixon’s article (‘Philanthropy is back’, 18 November) a contributory reason why US charitable giving is double the UK’s is that in the USA there has for some time been a vehicle specifically designed for the newly rich donor. These are Community Foundations based on local geographic areas. Happily, the idea has now taken root in the UK and there are some 40 county-based Community Foundations attracting endowment funds from entrepreneurs who, by setting up their individual funds within the foundations, have the ability to dictate the type of beneficiary they are most interested in.
Last year Community Foundations gave £57 million to charities, making them the fifth largest non-statutory grant-maker in the UK.
S.H. Preston
Tetbury, Gloucesterhire
Vachement seule!
From Richard Soper
Sir: David Rennie, in his article on Ségolène Royal (‘Ségo and Sarko: not so different, after all’, 25 November), commented on her support for a rare breed of cow. It is not surprising the breed is rare if there are no bulls.
Richard Soper
Duffield, Derbyshire
Comments