David Harcourt and Simon Arnold reply:

A Point made in our editorial has been overlooked. This was that inevitably conflicts of rights will arise in a democratic society and there is an obvious need for a body to resolve these conflicts. The Security Service, which at present carries out this function, has discerning and incompetent..

The service was established at the request of the Americans, to of attitude which might be appropriate here—with its suggestions of counter-espionage, Smersh and cloak-and-dagger methods—is incompatible with the critical faculty necessary to resolve conflicts of rights.

This greater responsibility should be borne by a judicial body. We feel that in the conflict of rights which arises when a member of the Security Service is active in any way on campus—and thereby inhibits the freedom of speech of students-might be resolved by subordination of the Security Service members' rights to attend university.