The Times - UK (2020-12-02)

30 1GM Wednesday December 2 2020 | the times

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor should be sent to

[email protected] or by post to

1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF

his contemporary monarchs Elizabeth

I or James I. By contrast Elizabeth II

is thankfully very much alive, as are

the members of her close family who

are being traduced by The Crown,

including her husband, who in his

100th year has in effect in season 4

been accused of threatening the life of

Diana, Princess of Wales.

Shakespeare is no excuse for Morgan’s

despicable screenplay.

Andrew Roberts

Author, The House of Windsor

Sir, In the debate about the veracity

of The Crown it is worth looking at

the extent of Shakespeare’s howlers in

the Henry VI plays. In Part One

alone, Warwick says of Richard

Plantagenet, “His grandfather was

Lionel Duke of Clarence / Third son

to the third Edward, King of England”

— every schoolboy knows that Lionel

was Richard’s maternal great-great

grandfather. Richard himself confuses

his own mother with his paternal

grandmother, and a scene is set in

London that historically took place in

Leicester. Talbot is shown being killed

at Bordeaux, when in fact he fell in

1453, some 22 years after what goes

on in the preceding scene. The whole

Joan of Arc plot is an invention, eg

when she says “By fair persuasions

mix’d with sugar’d words / We will

entice the Duke of Burgundy” — in

fact Burgundy did not desert his

English allies until four years after

Joan’s incineration. These, and a heap

of other chronological

rearrangements and imaginative

inventions, render Peter Morgan’s

dramatic licence somewhat tame.

Roger Lewis

Hastings

Sir, Melanie Phillips suggests that the

recent episodes of The Crown are not

drawn from reality. I suspect she

knows as little about what has gone

on behind closed doors during the 68

years of the Queen’s reign as the

producers of the programme. The

Crown is wonderful entertainment,

with high production values, brilliant

writing and acting and we should sit

back and enjoy it for what anybody

with a modicum of common sense

knows it is: fiction.

Keith Robinson

Hoylake, Wirral

Sir, You report (Nov 30) that the

culture secretary has written to

Netflix to request that The Crown

includes a disclaimer to remind

viewers of its fictional nature. Putting

aside that the series has never

professed to be a documentary, I can’t

help thinking that Oliver Dowden’s

time might be better spent on more

pressing matters, such as the

inexplicable and damaging exclusion

of professional musicians from the list

of jobs that qualify for exemptions

from the quarantine restrictions.

Sean Dunn

Redhill, Surrey

Hot stuff

Sir, Dr Ulrich Pfeiffer (letter, Dec 1)

perhaps inadvertently opens up

another can of worms (if that is the

right phrase) in the sausage debate:

which mustard is appropriate as an

accompaniment. However, there is

really no contest. It should be good

English mustard every time,

preferably freshly homemade.

Simon Evers

Weston Turville, Bucks

Meaning of life

Sir, Further to your report
“Deepmind computer solves new
puzzle: life” (News, Dec 1), more
than 40 years ago Douglas Adams, in
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,
wrote that after seven and a half
million years, the supercomputer
Deep Thought had calculated that
“the Answer to the Ultimate
Question of Life, the Universe, and
Everything” was 42.
So not much progress then.
Melvin Haskins
Corrections and Barnet, north London

clarifications

The Times takes
complaints
about editorial
content seriously. We are committed to

abiding by the Independent Press
Standards Organisation (“IPSO”) rules

and regulations and the Editors’ Code of

Practice that IPSO enforces.
Requests for corrections or

clarifications should be sent by email to

[email protected] or by post to
Feedback, The Times, 1 London Bridge

Street, London SE1 9GF

Farming reforms

are welcome

Sir, Further to your report “Brexit will

transform our fields and farms” (Nov

30. I welcome the encouragement of

more environmentally sustainable

farming methods. We and many

others practise these on our farms

today. But the policy announced on

Monday does not address farming’s

core purpose: food production. We

need our farmers to feed the nation.

At present 30 per cent of our food is

imported. That is neither

economically nor environmentally

sustainable. This figure will increase

only if the government fails to ensure

a level playing field for British

farmers, who are competing against

their heavily subsidised international

counterparts.

Farming is a vital national industry.

Future agricultural policy must

encourage and facilitate economically

viable and sustainable food

production.

Sir James Dyson

Malmesbury, Glos

Sir, As a conventional farmer I

welcome measures such as rewilding,

tree planting, organic farming, wind

turbines and solar farms (letters,

Dec 1). After all, every acre taken out

of food production is beneficial for

every acre still being farmed properly;

a shortage of food never does my

business any harm.

Charlie Flindt

Hinton Ampner, Hants

Puritanical PM

Sir, Rachel Sylvester is right to

suggest that the prime minister has

turned to Oliver Cromwell as his

model (“Boris Johnson’s cavalier

instinct has gone puritan”, Comment,

Dec 1). That is a change from

Churchill but perhaps not a

scrupulous one. On November 30 the

Department for Health and Social

Care published the instructions for

how we should behave from

December 2 as if they were law, ie

before parliament had been given the

opportunity to enact them (or not).

Lord Sumption has been warning all

year about this government’s

legislative presumptions.

Furthermore, the Department of

Health’s instructions were, to soften

the pill one presumes, labelled merely

as “guidance”, when the text makes it

clear that they are legal imperatives.

Parliament and the public deserve

more respect.

Tim Ambler

Senior fellow, Adam Smith Institute

Netflix and the truth about The Crown

Sir, Melanie Phillips (Comment, Dec 1)

highlights a serious problem with The

Crown: its lavish production making

its divisive storylines appear to

represent some kind of truth. There is

no attempt to reach the truth. One

device Peter Morgan employs is to

start off with a more or less true

account and then introduce

contradictory fiction — witness the

leadership attack on Margaret

Thatcher, faithfully recounted until,

ludicrously, she demands the

dissolution of parliament to save her

skin. This cannot be justified.

I have been monitoring reaction to

this series worldwide. Its effect has

proved insidious. A presenter on a

programme called ET Canada shouted

that the royal family deserved

everything coming to it for locking up

relations; he clearly believed Morgan’s

malicious misinterpretation of what

happened to those cousins, which had

nothing to do with the royal family.

At the very least there should be a

disclaimer before each episode.

Hugo Vickers

Author, The Crown Dissected

Sir, The argument that because

Shakespeare used real-life kings and

queens in his plays, therefore it is

acceptable for Peter Morgan to do the

same thing in The Crown is flawed.

Macbeth, Richard III, Henry IV and

Henry V were all safely dead when

Shakespeare wrote about them; he

never had the lèse-majesté to portray

Sir, Further to your report

“Antivaxers exploit Oxford turmoil to

push conspiracies” (Nov 28), in 1998,

when I was defence secretary, we

were in an early confrontation with

Saddam Hussein. British troops were

deployed in Kuwait at the Iraqi

border and there was intelligence that

Saddam might use anthrax against

them, as he had used it before. Hence

we ordered anti-anthrax vaccine and I

rigorously examined the data and

cross-examined those who assured us

the vaccine was safe. I was convinced

that it was. However, we believed that

the word of ministers alone would not

persuade our forces that they should

be vaccinated. I concluded that I had

to take the four injections involved

and to do so publicly. Charles

Guthrie, the chief of the defence staff,

and John Reid, the armed forces

minister, also volunteered to have the

vaccine. We were given the vaccine on

Faith in the vaccine

national TV and it had an effect on

those we wanted to take it.

Given the resistance to taking the

coronavirus vaccine among some

members of the public I suggest that

ministers, once the regulators have

approved the vaccine, show by

personal action that they have faith in

the product. I will be taking it.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen

Secretary-general of Nato 1999-2004,

House of Lords

from the times december 2, 1920

WOMEN JPs

AND MEN

COLLEAGUES

Rugby in doldrums

Sir, It was good to see Stuart Barnes

put into print what is obvious to most

spectators: that rugby union has

become unattractive to watch (“My

blueprint to get rugby out of

doldrums”, Sport, Nov 30). Just at a

time when new recruits are most

needed the game has descended into

a tedious forward and defence-

dominated contest with excessive

kicking; creative threequarters are

virtually redundant.

As Stuart suggests, the game must

give greater reward to tries initiated

outside the suffocating five-metre

line; it must reduce timewasting

tactics such as the overcombative

scrums and the infuriating

“caterpillar” at the back of rucks. The

ruck should be over as soon as the

scrum half touches the ball with hand

or foot. More free kicks should be

awarded (instead of penalties), and

they should not be kicked out of play

except from inside the 22. There must

be greater policing of Exocet-like

barging into rucks. Law changes must

be introduced to make rugby once

again a balanced mixture of exciting

running, clever passing and astute

tactical kicking, as well as tough

forward encounters. Otherwise even

obsessional supporters like me will

vote with their (non-kicking) feet.

Peter Swift

Leicester

Sir, I felt totally underwhelmed

watching England play Wales and

agree with Owen Slot (“England a

winning machine in acute need of a

little joy”, Sport, Nov 30). Where has

the flair, creativity and excitement

gone from rugby? We should not

forget that rugby was invented by

William Webb Ellis, who picked up

the ball and ran with it, not hoofing it

in the air at every opportunity.

Penny Chappell

Nether Compton, Dorset

thetimes.co.uk/archive

Puzzling shortage

Sir, One of the problems that we have

faced during the lockdown has been a

lack of free pens. We have been using

the ones we already have for doing

the crosswords and puzzles in The

Times each day but they are running

out. So far this year we have had four

holidays cancelled, so we have had no

chance to replenish our stock.

Pam Bucknall

Horsham, W Sussex

Secret Covid file

Sir, In your leading article (“Dodgy

Dossier”, Dec 1) you report that the

Office for Budget Responsibility

states that Britain suffered a deeper

downturn because we were late into

lockdown compared with other

countries. I agree with this assertion

(though a woefully ill-prepared health

service and multiple strategic errors

did not help). However, much has

changed since the spring: more

effective treatments for Covid-19 are

available, the mortality rate has come

down, the need for intensive care

beds has lessened and testing capacity

has increased dramatically.

To consider that a faster and harder

lockdown is the answer to every

challenge we now face is the surest

way to guarantee that Britain retains

its position as the most damaged

economy, with all the associated

societal and health implications.

Surely the strategy should move to a

shielding of the vulnerable by

frequent testing of carers, relatives

and healthcare workers, alongside

careful social distancing? After all, we

are reassured that our hospitals have

capacity and have been promised that

a vaccine is imminent.

Dr Katie Musgrave, GP

Loddiswell, Devon

Letters to The Times must be exclusive

and may be edited. Please include a full

address and daytime telephone number.

Mrs Creighton, magistrate for the

Spelthorne Division of Middlesex,

presided at the conference of women

magistrates yesterday. She said that

on coming from Tuesday’s session

she felt like the Queen of Sheba —

“My spirit was fresh within me at the

glories I have seen, the glorious

possibilities of the position of women

as magistrates.” They must prepare

the way for younger women, who, in

years to come, would be able to

make the magistracy their life’s work.

Much advice was given them — for

instance, to remember that they

were there to administer the law, not

to reform it. That might be, but

every citizen had the right to work

for reform. But they must not be in a

hurry, or alarm those with whom

they were privileged to work. “If we

have ideas in our heads, let us keep

them hidden, and prepare to work

with men not as women, but as

human beings. We have got to get

away from the idea that we are only

there to deal with women and

children. Many of us are mothers

and have as much to do with sons as

with daughters, and have special

understanding of men.” Dr Morris,

Chief Inspector of Reformatory and

Industrial Schools, addressed the

conference on juvenile delinquency.

Women magistrates, he said, should

set their faces against sending little

boys and girls to reformatories. Boys

of 16 or 18 were sometimes not fit

company for boys of 12. Nearly every

boy should be allowed to go home at

least once a year for a holiday.

Inspection by women magistrates

would help to make institutions what

they should be.

Mr W Clarke-Hall, the Old Street

magistrate, spoke about maintenance

orders. It was very easy, he said, for a

husband to get rid of a wife at

extremely small cost. All he had to

do was to consult a solicitor, and get

the wife to sign an agreement to

separate for, say, £10. She then could

not get a maintenance order, as the

separation was by her consent.

Another hardship was that a woman

had to live away from her husband

before she could apply for a

summons for persistent cruelty. How

could she do that under present

housing conditions? A husband

might “carry on” with other women,

often even taking them into his

home. So long as he did not knock

his wife about she could not apply

for a separation order.