[iranu]

Originally Posted by schmunk

Having finally read page one of this thread from home, rather than at work where I can't see the scan of David Clelland's letter, I now struggle to see what all the fuss is about. I would have written a similarly annoyed letter if confronted by a Daily Mail style rant attacking me personally. Other than the final sentence, which in itself is hardly shocking, the letter is a well-written defense of a very reasonable position and I would argue that it shows less arrogance than the letter to which it replied.

I think that one of the subtleties that is now prevalent, and highlighted with this case, is that, the meaning of correspondence between individuals, whether private or in this case now within the public domain, is determined by those that read the original transcripts and it's important that the individual has access to these and can make their own mind up. Spin is spin no matter the side.

As for your reply then yep maybe we would all do the same but have you considered a real world, commercial equivalent?

You can take offence at anything. However, as I've pointed out before, some occupations warrant the exposure to certain non-niceties and it's upto the individual in that position to take that onboard and act according. I've occasionally read parts of the Daily Mail as I enjoyed a rather good fish supper, however, if I found myself on the barb of a pointed attack, as an MP, I would feel duty bound to give a reasonable relply regardless of how I view the individual constituent as construed via their correspondence. Argue the point not the delivery method or the messenger. (Yes, sometimes this is difficult but that is what secretaries and your expenses are for).

er it's late sorry the old punctuation is suffering.