COMMITTEE OF 100-PLUS
SIR,—Bernard Levm is of course completely right in his strictures on the Secretary of the Scots Corn. mittee of 100. Most of its members would lose their crusading zeal at once if the Scots Committee of 100 were to become party politically or ideologically shackled in its approach to nuclear disarmament It may not be obvious from the letter the editor re- ceived, or from the scraps which Bernard Levin quoted, that this same secretary expressed himself equally strongly against the Soviet 67-megaton test.
If Bernard Levin really does absolve the Committee of 100 movement from the views expressed by the Scots secretary then why did he make the matter public? Why did he not address himself privately to the secretary, or to the officials of his movement in London? As it is one gets the impression that Bernard Levin enjoys showing off his fairmindedness and is willing to exploit any situation on either side of the bounds of confidence, even if the result of such fairmindedness is anything but fair to the vast majority of the membership of the Committee of 100 and least of all to its distinguished president. For when all is said and done: Is this not just an- other stick to beat us with?
D. ',V. PEETL 6 Howe Street, Edinburgh, 3 [Bernard Levin writes: 'The letter was sent for publication. It was written on Committee of 100 notepaper, and signed "Alan Jackson, Secretary, Scottish Committee of 100." I don't know how much more officially representative of the organisation's views it could have appeared, nor why, if it was meant to convey only Mr. Jackson's views, it was not sent from his private address and signed only with his name. It certainly did not contain any condemnation of the Soviet tests, or indeed any mention of them. And I am still waiting for any statement from the Committee of 100 that they don't share these views.'—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
