. THE CASE FOR SUPPRESSION
[To the Editor of TIRE SPECTATOR.]
. .
SIR,—Owing to The Spectator persistently inserting articles
and book reviews, as well as letters from correspondents, of a nature unfit for general family reading, I am reluctantly com- pelled to discontinue purchasing it. This after *thirty' years:
The Spectator used to be admired for its good taste, manners and sound views.
Paragraphs, however, in A Spectator's Notebook " have lately descended to unthinkable vulgarity. . Blatant, hypo- critical and tongue-in-cheek articles, and letters from corre- spondents on matters of sex have made The Spectator a gutter-crawler for sensation.
The letter from Prudence Montagu-Pollock in your issue of the 14th inst. is likely to cost you many thousands of decent- minded contributors. Strange though it may seem to you, to some of the men and women who contribute articles to your pages, and to some of those whose correspondence you have published, there is a vast majority of men who want good clean honest-to-goodness women to be the mothers of their children, just as there is also a vast majority of women who want good clean honest-to-goodness men to be the fathers of their children. These are the worthwhile people who used to read The Spectator with pleasure. It is these same people who are " fed-up " with The Spectator's present policy.
It is with the deepest regret I have to write you in this strain, but I know you must have had many similar letters, the appeal of which you have unwisely ignored.—I am, Sir, &c.,
38 Malpas Road, Wallasey, Cheshire.
- Wm. A. Tnomsom.
[The Spectator's policy in sexual matters is to uphold the principles of continence and monogamy, but it does not con- sider that that is best achieved by suppressing discussion of perhaps the most vital question in life. Frankness and a free interchange of differing views form the best basis for a sound judgement and a healthy outlook. We have had no letters similar to Mr. Thomson's.—En. The Spectator.]
Previous page
