Letters

Lord Denning's distinction

Sir: I do not know of Christine Verity's qualifications for writing about Lord Denning (27 January). I do know that, as a practising solicitor, I had some fun from her statement, 'without certainty how can anyone put in the position of going to law know what to expect.'

With 'certainty' there would be no need for litigation. At least, with Denning, there is a chance of justice. The 'vagaries' in that justice which your writer claims to find seemed to me to be no more than a rare and noble Whig consistency. Given the choice between a trespasser (now called squatter) and protecting property rights, the Whig would choose the latter; so too with the choice between repatriating foreign visitors (Hosenball and Agee) here on sufferance and a possible breach of national security. There is also a somewhat unresearched suggestion that Denning has not seen much of the criminal law. When in the Lords for five years he cast much light into corners previously dark. Has your writer read Bratty's case recently ?

Finally, if doubts existed about his intellectual capacity, which I would deny. they must be dispelled by his new work The Discipline of Law. This book is necessary reading to those, like me, who feel privileged to have seen so great a judge at work. It is also necessary to those like Miss Verity who do not understand.

Hugh J. Simmonds Jaysim House, 5 Stratton Road, Beaconsfield, Bucks

Identity cards

Sir: Mr Martin-Smith writes a letter (20 January) on the carrying of identity cards with which it would be hard to disagree. But should he not have mentioned that this undignified practice is obligatory and necessary for poor trade union members? Michael Player Boharm House, Mulben, Keith, Ban ffshi re

Not anarchists

Sir: For Patrick Marnham's information (`Letter from Iberia' 20 January), the POUM was never anarchist. Has he actually read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia which he mentions in passing? I find that difficult to believe as Orwell goes to great lengths to attempt to clarify for English readers the maze of initials of Spanish parties, unions and organisations and what they stand for. POUM were revolutionary marxists; that is state socialists, the antithesis of anarchists. They were forced into a semi-formal antiStalinist alliance with the anarchist CNT and FAI by peculiar circumstances: 1936-7 saw Stalin's internal and external purges reaching their respective peaks. Any potential opponent, especially to the left was ruthlessly eradicated, even though thousands of miles from Moscow.

So though POUM and the anarchists had for a certain period a common enemy, the Spanish Communists as well as Franco, they were most certainly not identical.

Mark Nelson 5 Dam Head, Holm bridge, Huddersfield.

The Chopin Society

Sir: I have only just seen the article 'Storm in a Polish teacup', and as a representative of the Chopin Society, I wish to say that we did not find it amusing, as it was written at the expense of organisations and personalities. Poking fun is all very well, but not when inaccurate, and likely to cause distress.

I would like to say that the Chopin Society had nothing to do with the organising of the Chopin commemorative concert at the Guildhall on 20 November, although our name was used. We are indeed sorry that so many people were inconvenienced at that event. By now, all have been re-imbursed. Lucie Swiatek Founder Organiser of the Chopin Society, 42 Beechcroft Gardens, Wembley Park, Middlesex

Prophet

Sir: In your issue of 23 December, 1960, you published an article by your then Tehran correspondent (me) entitled 'Stains on the Carpet'. It began: 'Few people in Iran really believe that Prince Reza, born to such a sickening and irrelevant chorus from the world's press a few weeks ago, will ever become Shah.' Of the possibility of revolution, I wrote: 'Autocratic government, an extreme class difference between miserably poor and flamboyantly rich, rigged elec tions, corruption, press censorship — all the classic ingredients are there.'

The fact that it has taken eighteen years for this prophecy to approach fulfilment does not, in my view, disqualify us from engaging in mutual congratulation: to me for my insight in writing the article and to the Spectator for its perspicacity in printing It.

Michael Leapman New York Correspondent, The Times (London)

Life in Algeria

Sir: I would like to compliment Alistair Home on his thoughtful article in the Spectator of 6 January on Boumedienne. I believe he has got it exactly right, and I'm glad he decided not to patronise this struggling and valiant little Third World country.

Here is an interesting point for you to digest: the top official salaries here are about 15,000 DA (Dinars) per month, giving a gross income equivalent to £22,000 per annum. The top rate of tax is 17 per cent. This in an avowedly socialist country. The cost of living here is slightly higher than ours, there is an acute shortage of luxury consumer goods, and travel abroad is limited with stringent currency controls. Nonetheless you can actually save money; indeed, my secretary's take home pay after all deductions is about £5,400 p.a. It makes me wonder about our own curious brand of socialism, and acknowledge the fact that somewhere along the line our country has become truly poor.

Chris Esson 14 Rue Mohamed Missoum, Belcourt, Alger, Algeria

Telling the people

Sir: Auberon Waugh suggested in one of his recent columns that the Official Secrets Act encourages the expansion of government because it stultifies the criticism and public obloquy which would be sufficient, in the normal course of events, to curb the growth of government.

Unfortunately, the American experience has time and again shown that with no OSA and unrivalled access to information about government, the press somehow still manages to urge government `to do more and more.' The bureaucratic technique is to argue that government programmes don't work properly because they are inadequately funded. The press reliably trumpets this interpretation back into the ears of the legislators, who dutifully respond with more money, more programmes, more government. The problem is that most journalists like government to be as big as possible. Why this should be I don't know. It is one of the great mysteries of our time. Tom Bethel!

Washington, D.C.