I BEG to differ, Andrew Hall (You Say, December 21). I recently read David Candler's letter (You Say, December 19) - it is certainly not worthy of a response.
However, it is, as you say, highly misleading. David Candler says Phillpott's motives have "long been obvious" and that the article is "a plug for the UK Independence Party".
The only reference made to that party was "the fastest-growing new political party in Britain today is the UK Independence Party. Has no one in Tory High Command noticed this?" - hardly a plug.
Every other major political party got at least a mention. Is it really such a crime to consider alternatives to the three main parties when they have shown themselves so lacking in recent years?
David Candler does not, I assume, oppose the blatant pro-EU bias of the BBC, or that of many local and national newspapers I could mention. If all he demands is fairness, I think he would get the poorer deal.
This is no complaint about bias - columnists are entitled to their own opinions - but a rather pathetic attempt at censorship.
CHARLOTTE SCHOFIELD,
South Yorkshire.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article