Moore’s TV dinner Sir: While I have been generally supportive of Charles Moore’s quest to impose a degree of financial proportionality on what the BBC pays Jonathan Ross, and of his ‘scheme’ to withhold payment for his TV licence until the matter is satisfactorily addressed, I am dismayed to read that he is doing so
On the Iraq inquiries Sir: Lest myths become accepted as facts, may I correct two aspects of John Kampfner’s article (‘The secret Iraq deal’, 27 June) about the Iraq Intelligence Review, which I chaired. First, a myth has grown up that the Review’s criticisms of the government were originally more trenchant but were watered down
A nuclear Iran Sir: Should there be any doubt, following James Forsyth’s article (‘What to do about Iran and the bomb’, 20 June), that the Iranian government intends to build atomic weapons, it is answered by the forest of anti-aircraft weapons protecting their uranium enrichment plant at Nantaz. When in the area two weeks ago
Built on a lie Sir: J. Alan Smith (Letters, 13 June) points out that Churchill from 1940-45 was, like Gordon Brown today, ‘a prime minister who was “unelected”’ — as though that should allay concerns about the democratic legitimacy of Mr Brown’s premiership. But the main concern about Mr Brown’s democratic legitimacy is not so much
Back to Black Sir: Taki (High Life, 16 May) exaggerated the ineptitude of my counsel in Chicago, and in this I am happy to agree with Tom Bower (Letters, 23 May), but they were not my counsel of choice, whom I was prevented from retaining by an asset seizure that was subsequently judged by the
Racism isn’t right Sir: Reference is made in the headlines of Fraser Nelson’s article on the BNP (‘The rise of British racism may be horribly close’, 30 May) to ‘far Right politicians’. Surely Mr Nelson does not imagine that there is anything right-wing about the BNP? As its 2005 general election manifesto shows, it is
Time to talk it out Sir: The EU is certainly one important cause of parliament’s loss of self-respect, but you fail to mention (Leading article, 23 May) what is now the main cause of the malaise: in 1997 the Blair government introduced the routine timetabling of primary legislation, and did so with the connivance of
Black as he is painted Sir: Taki is a wonderful man but his lament about Conrad Black (High Life, 16 May) cannot pass uncorrected. Conrad Black’s defence did not suffer because he was forced to rely on ‘friendly Canadian lawyers’. One lawyer, Eddie Greenspan, is Toronto’s top fraud defendant, while the second lawyer, Ed Genson,
A charted course Sir: Charles Moore has lost his bearings and entered ‘terra incognita’ in his recent exploration of the Royal Geographical Society’s remit and work in the 21st century (The Spectator’s Notes, 9 May). To be clear, the society stays true, today as over its 170-year history, to its founding charter to ‘advance geographical
Taxing questions Sir: Fraser Nelson writes (‘A tale of two Gordons’, 2 May) that internal Treasury documents justify the 50p tax rate on the basis that ‘Karl Marx’s progressive tax structure was designed so that the tax burden was heaviest on those who were most able to contribute’. Certainly, Labour spokespersons daily repeat this cosy
Broken pledges Sir: Labour has lost all credibility, having broken a clear manifesto pledge not to raise taxes but then doing so. It is the second pledge that it has failed to honour, the first being its failure to hold a referendum on the EU constitution. If directors of a company break clear pledges made
The beat goes on Sir: I read with growing rage James Delingpole’s column (You know it makes sense, 18 April). After castigating the policing of the G20 demonstrations, he takes the opportunity to list a number of actions the police have taken in recent times that he objects to. But some context is required. I
Liddle’s Lent Sir: As someone who is employed by and works within the Church of England I have been waiting 20 years to see an article like Rod Liddle’s (‘The C of E has forgotten its purpose’, 11 April) appearing in a major British publication. He is accurate in nearly everything he says. The current
Listen and learn Sir: We’re going to have to get used to cuts, says Kate Chisholm (Arts, 28 March), while criticising the axing of the last children’s programme on the BBC’s mainstream networks as a cut too far. Last year a meagre £1.6 million of the £460 million the BBC spent on its radio services
Bloody rude Sir: Michael Portillo (‘The view from Basra’, 28 March) accuses the British army of arrogance and, effectively, of incompetence. He says we’ve been humiliated. This may accord with his new television persona, but it is still disingenuous, apart from being bloody rude. It is his own political class that has been shown up
No progressive Sir: David Cameron’s article last week (‘It is not enough for Labour to lose this election’) mentioned the post-bureaucratic age ten times. Mr Cameron loves this phrase because it was coined by a progressive — Al Gore’s former speechwriter Andrei Cherney. And as the April date for Mr Cameron’s proposed £5 billion cuts to
Art for money’s sake Sir: It is hardly surprising that Olivia Cole (‘How to put children off art’, 14 March) found so many schoolchildren in the National Gallery and that they seemed to be learning little about art from their visits. The Gallery, like other public bodies, has a funding agreement with its sponsor department,
No axis of evil Sir: Melanie Phillips’s article (‘Beware the new axis of evangelicals and Islamists’, 7 March) contains untruthful statements about me. I have never said that I wish Israel, in her words, ‘to be destroyed’ or to ‘disappear just as did the apartheid regime in South Africa’. I have never believed this and
Don’t go Dutch Sir: The Dutch postal service was privatised, you say, ‘with no perceived damage to the services they offer’ (Leading article, 28 February). You would not say that if you lived here. Firstly, deliveries: there is one a day, which arrives at absolutely random times but is usually around 3 p.m. — even here
Bonus issue Sir: Ross Clark (‘Big bonuses in the public sector’, 21 February) summed up the challenge we face. The Institute of Fiscal Studies figure Clark quotes of a 12 per cent premium on public compared to private sector pay should be drilled into all taxpayers’ heads the way Mrs Thatcher used to hit Neil