I stand amazed at your magnanimity as editors. Do you not think that printing a letter critical of your comrade and mine. H.T. Lee, is too great a concession to the liberal (a dirty word) principles of free speech? Also, is leaving the signature in its original form not a 'de facto' concession to the forces of reaction, despite it demonstrating your remarkable self-control in resisting temptation.

However it is reassuring to see that in your reply you exercise your critical judgement, governed, of course, by sound revolutionary principles, and refuse to print the 'hypocritical snivelling' of a member of the Socialist Action League. We can't have too much criticism of our colleagues — can we!!

I thought it was very considerate of you to print the reply in heavy type as it is obviously more significant than anything else on the page, in fact a truly creditable summary of the whole situation.

I was wondering however, if you don't find it somewhat incongruous that H.T.Lee's actions towards P. Rotherham are described as 'the courage to state his opinions openly and boldly' whereas similar actions by Colonel Lowe towards Mr Alex Shaw, at last year's P.B.E.C. conference, were not regarded in the same light. Or is this what is called journalistic licence? I'm sure you will come up with some sort of an answer.