Sir: Paul Johnson informs your readers that I am 'oleaginous',
in which case he is a pussy-cat. Should they wish to judge the accuracy of the rest of his piece, they might like to know that far from 'doing the trick' with the 'shadowy bureaucrats' of Westmin- ster archdiocese by justifying them in pro- ceeding in 'their furtive manner', my article in the Daily Telegraph reported (and there- fore followed) their public statement that the priest in question had been officially placed on administrative leave, pending the investigation of serious allegations against him. He has the sequence of events in exactly the wrong order.
What else should they have done? Know- ing what was in their statement, what else should I have done? And in what way would a privacy law, which Mr Johnson advocates on the basis of all this, have made any difference to anything?
Clifford Longley
c/o The Daily Telegraph, 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14
Paul Johnson writes: Readers will see from these letters why I called the News of the World evil and Mr Longley oleaginous. The editor of the first is obviously quite inca- pable of grasping the harm his publication does and takes refuge in mendacious blus- ter. Mr Longley is unrepentant about his disgusting role in the affair and disguises his close links with the Westminster diocese authorities. I feel sorry for them both.
Previous page
