page 27

Gutter level letter

Refering to an article in last week's Salient titled "we print It".

This absolute rubbish surely should not be allowed to get into print at all. I can partially agree with the points made by the author, but hit article is merely nullified by the absolute filth, in which he finds obvious amusement.

If he professes to criticise your paper, then this I think, is fair comment, but why can't he do it in a sensible and mature manner. Why must he jump on the bandwagon and use the paper merely to assert his chauvinism by grammatical filth.

Surely sir, his educational abilities have presumably provided him with enough intelligence to write a letter of sincere and meaningful criticism. He labels the editor, a pseudo-intellectual, perhaps his may be so, but by his own letter he merely puts himself on a much lower level than that of a pseudo intellectual - he places himself at gutter level - where incidentally his letter belongs.

I find his letter hypocritical and this annoys me and I am sure many others intensely. He talks of a defence of Big Norm who was presumably the protector of the little man, and the upholder of moral integrity. By his immoral and amorous language, he does Norm no credit whatsoever. He only serves to show that this is the type of person that supported Norm.

I for one, respect Norm Kirk, not for what he achieved, for this was very little, but for what he tried to achieve and for what he stood for. I admired his position and stronghold in the Labour Party. I do not speak ill of the dead, and thus I must also disagree with the article you published. I think the majority of people, who do not, and never could support the Labour Party — I for one — realise the obvious inadequacies of Labour's achievements and broken promises while Norm was in office, and they need not speak of it after his death — for really this achieves nothing.

The real tragedy of Norm's death seems to be that it came while he was on the 'crest of the wave'. Many think of him in terms of what he 'may' have achieved in the future and so his death is even more tragic. This however is an inadequate realisation of the situation — to say he was a 'great Man' is a falsity because he did little while he was in office. To be fair however he had impressed more than any other Labour minister for years and people could identify a certain moral and just sincerity in his thoughts — his only real tragedy lies in the fact that people were not able to judge him on what would have happened had he been alive — they certainly fail to judge him on his disaster in office.

I feel sorry for the people who have been genuinely upset as a result of the article you published, but I hope such people have not been represented by the person who wrote this article — who obviously fears his own name. He says to Norm 'God rest his soul' but his letter does not seem very Christian to me — does he go to church?

Surely he can criticise such an action in a correct, mature and forthright manner.

Hugh Buchanan