I WISH to take issue with the comments (Evening News, Monday, January 6) made by Worcester City Council leader Councillor Stephen Inman and columnist John Phillpott.

Coun Inman, having resolutely refused to discuss any proposals with the board of the Swan Theatre, now hints it may not be the end for the theatre. He is having talks with people in the theatre world.

I wonder if a forthcoming election and 13,000 disgruntled voters has anything to do with his comments?

Both Coun Inman and Mr Phillpott say new management is the answer.

Have either of them actually read the MacKinnon Report? That report was not prepared by the Swan management but by one of the funders and it commented very favourably on the management.

There has been a lot of talk about a "temporary" grant top-up, and that it was limited to three years.

I challenge Mr Phillpott to produce hard evidence to support that assertion, as I have seen none yet.

And, for all the bleating of the council, it should also be remembered that, even with that top-up, the Swan Theatre received the lowest amount of grant aid of any similar theatre in the country.

Look at that another way. The theatre raised more revenue from ticket sales and the like than any other theatre in the country.

Do Coun Inman's theatre friends think they can do better? I don't want to take anything away from Chris Jaeger, who has done absolutely sterling work at the Huntingdon, but I think it will take more than passing a hat round and interval raffles to keep a theatre going.

Receiving houses

And, the Huntingdon Hall is a tiny venue to fill, but it's hardly "one of the top concert halls in the Midlands".

The Malvern Theatres are receiving houses, but even they struggle to stay afloat.

I don't know to what extent the council taxpayers of Malvern subsidised the venue, but still they play safe with big names and standard plays.

You're not going to fill the theatre with amateur productions. Except for friends and relatives of the actors, there aren't many people who are going to pay good money to watch amateurs.

And being a receiving house denies the local people any input. There will be no plays written by local people about local issues, and nowhere for young people to develop their skills.

Mr Phillpott says there's a need for a complete shake-up of artistic provision in Worcester.

Well, that won't be difficult as there's no provision to shake up.

Mr Jaeger runs one venue and a Board of Trustees runs the other until the end of the month. A case of "then there was one".

Anyway, doesn't the city council employ an Arts Development Officer? I have no idea what he does to justify his salary.

AEILEISH WATTS,

St John's, Worcester.