PETER Luff's letter (You Say, March 7) suggesting that the Swan Theatre is ready for an obituary shows an arrogance and ignorance that is beyond belief.

If the Swan Theatre Board was willing to show a little goodwill and stop dragging its feet and give the lease back to the people of Worcester, the theatre could be up and running again in next to no time.

Has Mr Luff ever been to see one of the amateur drama groups that use the Swan Theatre? He not only has contempt for them but, also, by implication, all the splendid touring professional companies that use the theatre.

We hope they will continue to come here and replace the five in-house productions a year of the Worcester Theatre Company.

Though the Worcester Theatre Company did some sterling work, we have all seen professional productions at the Swan that could be described as "second or third best".

Similarly, one can say the same about amateur work, but more often than not, the professionals found the amateur work embarrassingly good.

Though you wouldn't think so, from the sort of profile it's been getting in the theatre's brochure, the Swan Theatre has had its own resident amateur company - The Swan Theatre company, for the last 37 years.

Until February 1 this year, it was producing 14 shows a year and spending more than £20,000 a year there and is waiting for the Swan Board to give its 100 members their home back.

They have already had to cancel two Saturday morning Children's Theatre shows and one Studio show and are waiting to begin rehearsing their May Children's Theatre show and their June production of Outside Edge.

It was the forerunning of the amateur Swan Theatre Company that gave Worcester the impetus to build a theatre in the first place.

One of Mr Luff's problems is that he assumes that, because someone is being paid for what they do, they suddenly gain some extra talent and competence.

If he bothered to see the amateur theatrical work done by the people of Worcester, he would realise that there is a great deal of talent and competence there, too.

It has always been played down by successive professional managements because very often the public could not tell the difference between amateur and professional work.

The main difference was the amount of money available for the professional to spend on sets and costumes. No one would deny that the work of their carpenter Dave Dewhurst, their designers Dawn Alsop and Keith Baker and their costumier, Bridgette Pimm, will be missed.

Everyone starts off as an amateur, but so many so-called professionals seem to forget it very quickly.

The way the profession is organised today, has often, unfortunately, got very little to do with talent.

Anyone seems to be able to get into a drama school, if they happen to have enough money and there was always a Catch-22 situation keeping people out of the unions, unless one made friends with a tame director and exploited that.

Some amateur actors have more talent in their little fingers than many of the so-called professional thespians who seem to spend much of their lives on the dole.

W F WELBOURNE,

Claines, Worcester.