Published in the Times on 26 July 2013:
Sir
Many arguments have been raised by your recent correspondents concerning Alan Turing, but the nub of the case can be stated simply. Turing was not wrongly convicted because he was a genius; he was wrongly convicted because his actions should never have been a crime in the first place. His conviction would have been equally unjust had he been a drunken layabout instead of a national hero.
There is no need for a retrospective pardon, because Parliament has already made clear that Turing and others should not have been convicted, by repealing the relevant offence, and by the passage of various equality laws in recent years.
Showing posts with label Times letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Times letters. Show all posts
Monday, 29 July 2013
Friday, 1 March 2013
Executive Pay
Published in the Times on 26 February 2013. It was the lead letter for the day.
Dear Sir,
Jane O’Nions (letter, 25 February) gives but one example of executive pay being out of all proportion to any results achieved, a trend confirmed by a report in 2011 by the High Pay Commission.
One of the chief problems is that English corporate law was largely developed in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, when companies had far smaller numbers of shareholders. Accordingly, the latter were able to provide a check on executive performance. When the largest individual shareholder of a company holds less than 1% of the shares, as is common with large multinationals today, it will be all but impossible for the shareholders to act as a group.
Successive governments have always been reluctant to act by imposing higher taxes, partly because economists dispute whether they would lead to increased revenues, and partly because executives can either find loopholes or threaten to move business offshore. Moreover, many politicians will have one eye on directorships for themselves – a consideration which also puts paid to other forms of restraining pay besides tax. This effectively leaves it to executives themselves to set the level of their own pay [and it is not hard to guess the result of placing the design of the chicken coop in the hands of the foxes].
A second blight has been the attempts of local government and other public sector bosses trying to pay themselves in line with the private sector, leading to the absurd situation of many council chiefs earning considerably more than the Prime Minister. This is something the Government should deal with[, perhaps by starting with a sealed bid procedure for senior public sector roles].
Words in square brackets omitted.
Dear Sir,
Jane O’Nions (letter, 25 February) gives but one example of executive pay being out of all proportion to any results achieved, a trend confirmed by a report in 2011 by the High Pay Commission.
One of the chief problems is that English corporate law was largely developed in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, when companies had far smaller numbers of shareholders. Accordingly, the latter were able to provide a check on executive performance. When the largest individual shareholder of a company holds less than 1% of the shares, as is common with large multinationals today, it will be all but impossible for the shareholders to act as a group.
Successive governments have always been reluctant to act by imposing higher taxes, partly because economists dispute whether they would lead to increased revenues, and partly because executives can either find loopholes or threaten to move business offshore. Moreover, many politicians will have one eye on directorships for themselves – a consideration which also puts paid to other forms of restraining pay besides tax. This effectively leaves it to executives themselves to set the level of their own pay [and it is not hard to guess the result of placing the design of the chicken coop in the hands of the foxes].
A second blight has been the attempts of local government and other public sector bosses trying to pay themselves in line with the private sector, leading to the absurd situation of many council chiefs earning considerably more than the Prime Minister. This is something the Government should deal with[, perhaps by starting with a sealed bid procedure for senior public sector roles].
Words in square brackets omitted.
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Parker's Pen
Latest letter in the Times (17 December 2012):
Dear Sir,
Tony Phillips (letter, 14 December) decries the influence of Robert Parker on the fortunes of wine makers, pointing out that he only provides the opinion of one man (it is in fact often two, since Parker's former assistant, Pierre-Antoine Rovani, has written a number of important entries in Parker's guide books).
Ironically, Parker himself downplays the rise of "Parkerization" amongst vineyards trying to create wine to suit him as opposed to anyone else. In terms of tasting he stresses that "there can never be any substitute for your own palate nor any better education than tasting the wine yourself".
As one who is happy to do so Parkerization suits me well: having found my tastes differ from his, I find a lot of excellent wine is much cheaper than it might otherwise be.
Saturday, 20 October 2012
What makes a good argument
When I was at university, a common argument raised during tutorials was that someone could be ignored if they did not fit some demographic category thought to be relevant to the debate. Thus, someone from overseas might be told they could not comment on indigenous rights issues, while others were told they were the wrong race, gender, class or age, and so on it went.
This annoyed me at the time, and it continues to do so whenever I see someone trying it on now. It might be the case that someone's characteristics lends them some extra insight to a particular question, but it does not render them automatically right on the issue, nor anyone else automatically wrong.
By way of illustration, suppose we are debating the minimum level of income on which it is possible to survive in present-day Britain. Someone whose parents were billionaires and who has since inherited the family fortune is not exactly in a position to speak on the issue from personal experience. But it does not axiomatically mean that they have no hope of a valid contribution to the debate. They might for instance be highly intelligent and have absorbed vast amounts of relevant data and other evidence on the subject, and thereby have a very informed view.
We saw an argument along similar lines recently in respect of Michael Pinto-Duschinsky’s resignation from the Commission on a Bill of Rights. He wrote an article in the Daily Mail arguing that because he and his family escaped the Nazis, he had a special perspective on human rights, and would not be lectured by others on the subject. A good response was published on the UK Human Rights Blog here.
As observed in the comments thread under the UKHR post, Pinto-Duschinksy was arguing a sort of variation on Godwin's law - the rule that says the longer an internet forum discussion goes on, the greater the chance someone will offer "but that's what Hitler thought". At that point it is a safe bet the discussion will have run its useful course. The short answer to the point was given by the philosopher Jamie Whyte, who observed that it is not even as though Hitler was wrong about everything. Hitler thought that Berlin was in Germany, for example, and no sane person would disagree just because Hitler might have said it.
Another variation again is Mr Whyte calls the “motive fallacy”, by which someone’s argument is purportedly discounted because they happen to have a personal reason to make it. For example, I might have a reason to tell my friends that a restaurant is the best of its kind in the area because it is the most convenient to me. But to disregard my choice for that reason alone would be fallacious, since my chosen restaurant might indeed be the best (leaving aside the subjective nature of the term). In short, the fact that I do (or for that matter do not) have a motive for making a claim does not affect the truth of the claim.
Mr Whyte observes that barristers are the ultimate example, since they have not simply a financial incentive but a professional obligation to make an argument favouring their client. Yet the guilt or innocence of a defendant is a question independent of their barrister’s motivation – otherwise we could simply compare brief fees to determine which barrister has the greatest motivation and award the case to the opposing side.
All of the above is not to say that the motivation of a speaker is wholly irrelevant, but at most it should serve as a good reason to treat the claim with scepticism, and thus to examine the evidence and arguments offered in support much more carefully – but not to dismiss it out of hand.
Equally, if someone is arguing against their own interests, then that may certainly be a reason to look twice at their argument, though it is still not necessarily conclusive. Hence the old saying that if the Archbishop of Canterbury says he believes in God he is simply doing his job; but on the other hand if he says he does not believe in God then we should sit up and pay attention. But whether God exists or not is independent of the Archbishop's personal belief (unless there is something he is not telling us ...).
Ultimately, arguments have to be assesssed independently of those who hold them - logic, reason and evidence is what should matter in public debate.
I say all this by way of introduction to my latest letter in the Times, published on 19 October 2012, reproduced below:
Dear Sir,
Emma-Clare Richmond (letter, 17 October) says that abortion has to be a woman’s issue, as men will “never experience the first hand pain of such a dreadfully upsetting dilemma”.
This is true, but it is also the case that only front line soldiers will ever experience the terror of combat and its dilemma of kill or be killed, and only the terminally ill face the tragic dilemma of assisted suicide. For the rest of us such issues will (hopefully) only ever be theoretical. Yet I do not think we should thereby be precluded from discussing Britain’s wars or the lawfulness of assisted suicide.
Experience of any form of human condition may give someone a better insight but it does not prevent others from forming valid and principled opinions – otherwise public debate would be considerably reduced, to say the least.
Readers should note, for the avoidance of doubt, that I have expressed no view on abortion itself – only on the concept of valid argument in a theoretical sense and of general application.
For those interested in the concept of valid argument, I would recommend an introductory series of articles written a few years ago by an old friend of mine, Dr Simon Clarke, which may be found online here. (Note the motive fallacy may be levelled against me in recommending Dr Clarke!)
This annoyed me at the time, and it continues to do so whenever I see someone trying it on now. It might be the case that someone's characteristics lends them some extra insight to a particular question, but it does not render them automatically right on the issue, nor anyone else automatically wrong.
By way of illustration, suppose we are debating the minimum level of income on which it is possible to survive in present-day Britain. Someone whose parents were billionaires and who has since inherited the family fortune is not exactly in a position to speak on the issue from personal experience. But it does not axiomatically mean that they have no hope of a valid contribution to the debate. They might for instance be highly intelligent and have absorbed vast amounts of relevant data and other evidence on the subject, and thereby have a very informed view.
We saw an argument along similar lines recently in respect of Michael Pinto-Duschinsky’s resignation from the Commission on a Bill of Rights. He wrote an article in the Daily Mail arguing that because he and his family escaped the Nazis, he had a special perspective on human rights, and would not be lectured by others on the subject. A good response was published on the UK Human Rights Blog here.
As observed in the comments thread under the UKHR post, Pinto-Duschinksy was arguing a sort of variation on Godwin's law - the rule that says the longer an internet forum discussion goes on, the greater the chance someone will offer "but that's what Hitler thought". At that point it is a safe bet the discussion will have run its useful course. The short answer to the point was given by the philosopher Jamie Whyte, who observed that it is not even as though Hitler was wrong about everything. Hitler thought that Berlin was in Germany, for example, and no sane person would disagree just because Hitler might have said it.
Another variation again is Mr Whyte calls the “motive fallacy”, by which someone’s argument is purportedly discounted because they happen to have a personal reason to make it. For example, I might have a reason to tell my friends that a restaurant is the best of its kind in the area because it is the most convenient to me. But to disregard my choice for that reason alone would be fallacious, since my chosen restaurant might indeed be the best (leaving aside the subjective nature of the term). In short, the fact that I do (or for that matter do not) have a motive for making a claim does not affect the truth of the claim.
Mr Whyte observes that barristers are the ultimate example, since they have not simply a financial incentive but a professional obligation to make an argument favouring their client. Yet the guilt or innocence of a defendant is a question independent of their barrister’s motivation – otherwise we could simply compare brief fees to determine which barrister has the greatest motivation and award the case to the opposing side.
All of the above is not to say that the motivation of a speaker is wholly irrelevant, but at most it should serve as a good reason to treat the claim with scepticism, and thus to examine the evidence and arguments offered in support much more carefully – but not to dismiss it out of hand.
Equally, if someone is arguing against their own interests, then that may certainly be a reason to look twice at their argument, though it is still not necessarily conclusive. Hence the old saying that if the Archbishop of Canterbury says he believes in God he is simply doing his job; but on the other hand if he says he does not believe in God then we should sit up and pay attention. But whether God exists or not is independent of the Archbishop's personal belief (unless there is something he is not telling us ...).
Ultimately, arguments have to be assesssed independently of those who hold them - logic, reason and evidence is what should matter in public debate.
I say all this by way of introduction to my latest letter in the Times, published on 19 October 2012, reproduced below:
Dear Sir,
Emma-Clare Richmond (letter, 17 October) says that abortion has to be a woman’s issue, as men will “never experience the first hand pain of such a dreadfully upsetting dilemma”.
This is true, but it is also the case that only front line soldiers will ever experience the terror of combat and its dilemma of kill or be killed, and only the terminally ill face the tragic dilemma of assisted suicide. For the rest of us such issues will (hopefully) only ever be theoretical. Yet I do not think we should thereby be precluded from discussing Britain’s wars or the lawfulness of assisted suicide.
Experience of any form of human condition may give someone a better insight but it does not prevent others from forming valid and principled opinions – otherwise public debate would be considerably reduced, to say the least.
Readers should note, for the avoidance of doubt, that I have expressed no view on abortion itself – only on the concept of valid argument in a theoretical sense and of general application.
For those interested in the concept of valid argument, I would recommend an introductory series of articles written a few years ago by an old friend of mine, Dr Simon Clarke, which may be found online here. (Note the motive fallacy may be levelled against me in recommending Dr Clarke!)
Sunday, 23 September 2012
Armed Forces and policies on defence
Published in the Times, 22 September 2012. It was the lead letter for the day.
Dear Sir
George Webster correctly applauds Paul Flynn MP’s defence of the generals of the Great War against the common misconception of “Lions led by Donkeys” (letter, Sept 20). Contrary to popular belief, the phrase did not originate in that conflict. More to the point, had British generals been hopelessly incompetent it is unlikely that they would have finished on the winning side, never mind with the victories of the “hundred days” in 1918 behind them. In fact, 1918 was probably the only time in its entire history that the British army could claim to be the most powerful field army in the world.
There, is, however, one point on which I would take issue with Mr Flynn. It is true that few ministers have covered themselves in glory with respect to defence in recent years, whether in terms of short-term procurement, long-view White Papers or, most importantly, starting and conducting foreign wars. But it is another matter to exculpate today’s generals for any of those issues. Where is the evidence that any senior officers advised the government in 2003 that the British army was wholly unsuited in terms of training, equipment and rules of engagement for the reconstruction and counter-insurgency that would have to follow any successful invasion of Iraq? How many officers have had their careers halted by the subsequent events in that country or Afghanistan?
Instead the armed forces have successfully inferred that it has all been the fault of politicians, without mentioning who advises those politicians. This is no more honourable than those former members of Mr Blair’s cabinet who claimed in their later memoirs that they did not really support the Iraq War and had doubts about the PM’s judgement, despite not voting against the invasion or resigning their posts at the time.
Monday, 10 September 2012
Lord Chancellor in the Times
I have been published in the Times this morning, on the subject of the appointment of Chris Grayling as Lord Chancellor. One correspondent observed last week that the Constitutional Reform Act requires a prospective candidate to be someone who "appears to the Prime Minister to be qualified by experience", and since Grayling has no legal experience at all, his appointment must be void. I added (with thanks to Alex Horne):
Your correspondents (07 September) are correct that Mr Chris Grayling lacks the qualifications required for the post of Lord Chancellor. In its initial press release announcing Mr Grayling’s appointment as Justice Secretary (http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/features/new-secretary-of-state-announced), the Ministry of Justice did not even mention that he also held the post of Lord Chancellor. Perhaps Mr Cameron was not so much badly advised, as not advised at all.
Your correspondents (07 September) are correct that Mr Chris Grayling lacks the qualifications required for the post of Lord Chancellor. In its initial press release announcing Mr Grayling’s appointment as Justice Secretary (http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/features/new-secretary-of-state-announced), the Ministry of Justice did not even mention that he also held the post of Lord Chancellor. Perhaps Mr Cameron was not so much badly advised, as not advised at all.
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
King and I
Published in the Times, 19 June 2012
Dear Sir
As a cricket fan I wish I could agree with Lord Desai (letter, June 18) that the reason Sir Mervyn King followed rules scrupulously is that he is a cricketer, rather than a footballer happy to indulge in professional fouls.
If there ever truly was a cricketing "golden age" which justifying the saying that something unsporting was "not cricket" I am not sure when it was. Certainly not that of Clive Lloyd's bullying West Indians or Ian Chappell's bullying Australians, and much less still Douglas Jardine's win-at-all-costs Englishmen.
Perhaps Lord Desai has in mind the Victorian era, though I doubt it: the greatest Victorian cricketer was W.G. Grace - the amateur who made a fortune from the game, and who once nonchalantly replaced the bails after being bowled and took guard again. [In response to the umpire's umbrage he casually offered "They've come to see me bat, not you umpire".]
Words in square brackets omitted - rather a shame as they constituted the punchline.
Dear Sir
As a cricket fan I wish I could agree with Lord Desai (letter, June 18) that the reason Sir Mervyn King followed rules scrupulously is that he is a cricketer, rather than a footballer happy to indulge in professional fouls.
If there ever truly was a cricketing "golden age" which justifying the saying that something unsporting was "not cricket" I am not sure when it was. Certainly not that of Clive Lloyd's bullying West Indians or Ian Chappell's bullying Australians, and much less still Douglas Jardine's win-at-all-costs Englishmen.
Perhaps Lord Desai has in mind the Victorian era, though I doubt it: the greatest Victorian cricketer was W.G. Grace - the amateur who made a fortune from the game, and who once nonchalantly replaced the bails after being bowled and took guard again. [In response to the umpire's umbrage he casually offered "They've come to see me bat, not you umpire".]
Words in square brackets omitted - rather a shame as they constituted the punchline.
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Religion and the law in France
Hypocrite that I am, I renegged on my promise not to write to the Times anymore. This letter was published on 9 January 2012
Mr Edward Carey (letter, 6 January) criticises France’s integration policy, and offers the burka ban as example of its flaws. It might be said that the problem in France is not the policy as such, but the failure to implement it. A glance at the ethnic ghettos in France and lack of minority representation amongst the French great and the good suggests that France might demand that immigrants become French but too often declines to treat them as such.
The burka ban was implemented not simply as part of a policy towards the immigrant community but rather the French concept of laïcité, or separation of church and state. I do not think the ban was a necessary consequence of laïcité, but nonetheless that concept if implemented consistently would apply equally to immigrants and indigenous alike, and would have avoided many of the disputes in Britain of the past few years about religious exemptions for minorities.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Class players
Letter 15
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7094798.ece
(They managed to get my name wrong, but at least it is correct in the paper version)
Sir, Morgan Rees (letter, April 9) rightly points out that not all amateur rugby union players were middle class. As well as the 1905 Welsh team that defeated the All Blacks, he might have cited the New Zealanders themselves.
In 1987 they won the World Cup on a Saturday afternoon. On the Monday morning Craig Green waited outside his house, packed lunch in hand, for his mates to pick him up on the way to work on a building site, while Zinzan Brooke went back to work as a roofer in a working-class suburb of Auckland.
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7094798.ece
(They managed to get my name wrong, but at least it is correct in the paper version)
Sir, Morgan Rees (letter, April 9) rightly points out that not all amateur rugby union players were middle class. As well as the 1905 Welsh team that defeated the All Blacks, he might have cited the New Zealanders themselves.
In 1987 they won the World Cup on a Saturday afternoon. On the Monday morning Craig Green waited outside his house, packed lunch in hand, for his mates to pick him up on the way to work on a building site, while Zinzan Brooke went back to work as a roofer in a working-class suburb of Auckland.
Monday, 29 March 2010
Natural ability scores every time
Letter 14
Ironically, I don't actually like football. But I can't let them get away with illogical arguments ...
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7077859.ece
Sir, Patrick Coffey (letter, Mar 24) objects to Diego Maradona being placed above Pelé in the greatest football player rankings on the ground, among others, that Pelé played in more successful teams and scored more goals. With respect, that is a reflection of the quality of their respective team-mates rather than their individual talents. Without Maradona the Argentine sides of his era would have been a footnote; without Pelé it is unlikely that Brazil would have been anything less than a great side.
Certainly Pelé’s conduct both on and off the pitch has been more commendable; but there is the old saying that nice guys finish last. The likes of Mike Tyson, George Best and Alex Higgins, for example, indulged in a fair bit of questionable conduct over the years, but their sporting greatness has not been downgraded as a result. If anything, Maradona’s astonishing natural ability is highlighted by the fact that his lifestyle was less than conducive to international sport.
Ironically, I don't actually like football. But I can't let them get away with illogical arguments ...
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7077859.ece
Sir, Patrick Coffey (letter, Mar 24) objects to Diego Maradona being placed above Pelé in the greatest football player rankings on the ground, among others, that Pelé played in more successful teams and scored more goals. With respect, that is a reflection of the quality of their respective team-mates rather than their individual talents. Without Maradona the Argentine sides of his era would have been a footnote; without Pelé it is unlikely that Brazil would have been anything less than a great side.
Certainly Pelé’s conduct both on and off the pitch has been more commendable; but there is the old saying that nice guys finish last. The likes of Mike Tyson, George Best and Alex Higgins, for example, indulged in a fair bit of questionable conduct over the years, but their sporting greatness has not been downgraded as a result. If anything, Maradona’s astonishing natural ability is highlighted by the fact that his lifestyle was less than conducive to international sport.
Monday, 22 February 2010
British emerald green
Letter 13:
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6995535.ece
January 20, 2010
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6995535.ece
January 20, 2010
Sir, Gareth Tarr (letter, Jan 19) writes about the origin of the term “Silver Arrows”, supposedly the result of the Mercedes F1 team removing all paint before a Grand Prix in 1934 to meet the weight regulations. The story is almost certainly apocryphal: there is no contemporary source, and it first appeared in the autobiography of a former team manager, Alfred Neubauer, in 1958. Further, the name “Silver Arrows” had been used in a radio broadcast as early as 1932 in reference to a German racing car.
British racing green was adopted for the Gordon Bennett Cup because the usual British colours of red, white and blue had already been taken; green was chosen out of respect for the Irish hosts of the 1902 event. This decision had the approbation of the manufacturer of the British entrant, Napier, as it had used the colour previously (albeit olive green). The first instances of British racing green were, therefore, emerald green, rather than the darker hue of later years.
Cricketing honours
Letter 12:
From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6978152.ece
January 07, 2010
From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6978152.ece
January 07, 2010
Sir, The criticisms of the New Year Honours system (letters, Jan 5) are all valid, but nothing new. The system has long been no more than a mixture of tokenism, a substitute for paying civil servants a competitive wage and a means for the incumbent government to signify it is in touch with popular sentiment.
The decision to award all of the men’s cricket team MBEs in 2005 is a good example of the last, rather than simply bias against women. Geraint Jones received an MBE for his services as wicketkeeper in the 2005 Ashes. By contrast, both Alan Knott and Bob Taylor, whom one might respectfully suggest had rather more distinguished careers as English wicketkeepers, never received an honour between them. Paul Collingwood’s award was on the basis of a single appearance in the fifth Test, in which he contributed an important 10 in the second innings; Graham Thorpe did not receive an MBE until he had played 100 tests and Mark Butcher, who played 71 tests, has never received a thing.
Perhaps it is better to recognise that the system, like that of MPs’ expenses, is fundamentally flawed rather than simply flawed in execution, and do away with it accordingly.
Defence priorities
Letter 11:
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6843406.ece
September 22, 2009
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6843406.ece
September 22, 2009
Sir, The first and last consideration in defence procurement (letters, Sept 18) should be obtaining the best quality equipment for our Forces given the resources available, not in providing a substitute for unemployment benefit for the incumbent government’s marginal constituencies. I would far rather have to inform a factory worker that he or she is being made redundant than have to explain to a soldier’s parents that their child has been killed because of inadequate equipment. That it has taken four decades to produce a worthy partly British-built combat jet is an argument against, not for, attempting any such folly in future.
The only actual combat role that it is possible to conceive the Eurofighter undertaking is that of supporting ground troops against insurgents. Such a role can be carried out more effectively — and cheaply — by drones and attack helicopters.
Strategic bombing would be more effective, cheaper, and far less risky to personnel if undertaken by cruise missiles (or stealth aircraft, which the Eurofighter is not) rather than by conventional fast jets.
The US military budget exceeds the next largest by a factor virtually unprecedented in history, and the cost-effectiveness of purchasing American equipment often corresponds. Further, there is no chance of Britain undertaking significant combat operations without at least some American equipment and assistance or — it might as well be conceded — political approbation.
Vulcan's Victory
Letter 09:
(from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1744259.ece)Sir, Ian Mitchell (letter, May 3) argues that the significance of the Vulcan attacks on Port Stanley has been overrated. Roland White, in his book Vulcan 607 (Corgi, 2006), contends that there were three direct results of the Vulcan raid: Any remaining plans for fast-jet operations by the Argentinians from Stanley were cancelled; the Mirage jets were removed to the north of Argentina to defend targets that were not on the British list; and, most significantly, the Argentine Navy put to sea because it thought that the Black Buck raids were a prelude to invasion. That led to the Belgrano sinking and the consequent withdrawal of the entire Argentine Navy.
Hugh Bucheno’s Razor’s Edge: The Unofficial History of the Falklands War (Phoenix, 2007) points out the effect of the raids on Argentine morale and that, although the Royal Navy and the RAF could have lost the war had they failed in their roles, only the troops on the ground could actually win it. One of the most important lessons of this war is that inter-Service rivalry may jeopardise an entire operation.
Wine as art
Letter 08:
Sir, Professor Ian Fells (letter, April 13 ) complains about the price of a Château Pétrus, claiming that it is “a triumph of branding and salesmanship and very little to do with quality”.
With respect, Professor Fells misses the point. Fine wine is like art or music. The prices commanded by works by, say, Picasso and Van Gogh over countless others may have little to do with superior skill of the artist, still less the intrinsic value of the materials used, and everything to do with the preferences of the buyer.
While there might be broad agreement over what constitutes technical skill in winemaking, music and art, the value placed on individual examples by the market involves many more intangible factors, some perhaps quite irrational. Ultimately a bottle of wine is worth whatever anyone is prepared to pay for it, no more, no less.
Gender neutrality
Letter 06:
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article759305.ece
December 21, 2006
Personable
Sir, In seeking a name for his androgynous snowman, Robert Vincent is not the only one to struggle with gender-neutral language (letter, Dec 20). Some years ago in Auckland there was a lawyer by the name of Guy Chapman. In order to avoid offending his colleagues, it was suggested he might be known instead as Person Personperson.
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article759305.ece
December 21, 2006
Personable
Sir, In seeking a name for his androgynous snowman, Robert Vincent is not the only one to struggle with gender-neutral language (letter, Dec 20). Some years ago in Auckland there was a lawyer by the name of Guy Chapman. In order to avoid offending his colleagues, it was suggested he might be known instead as Person Personperson.
Plain English legislation
Letter 05:
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article675605.ece
June 17, 2006
Plain English can find a place in legislation
Sir, The Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman seems to have forgotten that legislation is complex because human activity, which it seeks to regulate, is also complex, and as a result law is a specialist subject, just as with architecture or medicine. The only way that a paper on new heart transplant techniques could be rendered intelligible would be if the reader had studied the subject — and was hence no longer a member of “the public” — or if the paper were simplified to the point where it was more or less completely unhelpful to a surgeon.
The example you give of an apparently plain English provision bears this out. You report that the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 states: “It is an offence to cause a riot.”
Perfectly plain, until someone is charged under the section and it has to be determined what “caused” and “riot” mean in context.
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article675605.ece
June 17, 2006
Plain English can find a place in legislation
Sir, The Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman seems to have forgotten that legislation is complex because human activity, which it seeks to regulate, is also complex, and as a result law is a specialist subject, just as with architecture or medicine. The only way that a paper on new heart transplant techniques could be rendered intelligible would be if the reader had studied the subject — and was hence no longer a member of “the public” — or if the paper were simplified to the point where it was more or less completely unhelpful to a surgeon.
The example you give of an apparently plain English provision bears this out. You report that the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 states: “It is an offence to cause a riot.”
Perfectly plain, until someone is charged under the section and it has to be determined what “caused” and “riot” mean in context.
Passing judgement
Letter 04:
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article704083.ece
April 11, 2006
We should not pass judgment
Sir, Trevor Harvey (letter, Apr 7) is right to infer that we should not attempt to pass judgment on events in our distant past, such as the execution of Harry Farr. Already the case has taken up valuable judicial resources, as indeed have other recent reviews of long ago cases such as those of Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis and James Hanratty. In all of these cases judicial proceedings only came about because the deceased had living relatives. We should not expend public resources on cases which turn on that happenstance.
Debating whether the likes of Private Farr suffered shell-shock is a matter of interest for medical historians, but we should hesitate before proposing to pass judgment on events as far removed as the Great War. It is fashionable to dismiss the generals of the day as “donkeys” and to rail against the supposed brutality of shooting for deserters. But it should also be recalled that of all the armies involved in the war from the outset, only the British did not suffer a collapse of morale at any point, as well, of course, as emerging victorious.
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article704083.ece
April 11, 2006
We should not pass judgment
Sir, Trevor Harvey (letter, Apr 7) is right to infer that we should not attempt to pass judgment on events in our distant past, such as the execution of Harry Farr. Already the case has taken up valuable judicial resources, as indeed have other recent reviews of long ago cases such as those of Derek Bentley, Ruth Ellis and James Hanratty. In all of these cases judicial proceedings only came about because the deceased had living relatives. We should not expend public resources on cases which turn on that happenstance.
Debating whether the likes of Private Farr suffered shell-shock is a matter of interest for medical historians, but we should hesitate before proposing to pass judgment on events as far removed as the Great War. It is fashionable to dismiss the generals of the day as “donkeys” and to rail against the supposed brutality of shooting for deserters. But it should also be recalled that of all the armies involved in the war from the outset, only the British did not suffer a collapse of morale at any point, as well, of course, as emerging victorious.
Cricket and terrorism
Letter 03:
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article544416.ece
July 16, 2005
The joys of cricket
From Mr James Wilson
Sir, William Rees-Mogg asks of his enjoyment of a county cricket match two days after the London bombs: “What right did we have to be so happy, so exceptionally happy, at such a time?” The answer is: every right. Not to continue with our way of life is to hand victory to the terrorists.
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article544416.ece
July 16, 2005
The joys of cricket
From Mr James Wilson
Sir, William Rees-Mogg asks of his enjoyment of a county cricket match two days after the London bombs: “What right did we have to be so happy, so exceptionally happy, at such a time?” The answer is: every right. Not to continue with our way of life is to hand victory to the terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)