CRITICISM OR SABOTAGE ?
Snt—In your issue of January 22nd you charge me with injuring our relations with the U.S.S.R. by criticising Sir James Grigg for banning lectures to the troops by various persons well-disposed to that country. Surely your attacks should be directed against the Minister who imposes such a ban rather than against those who criticise him for doing .so. Public opinion in the Soviet Union is more likely to be offended by a decision that the troops are not to listen to those who know and appreciate it than by any criticism of such a decision. I speak and write to the British public ; but I can imagine that people in the Soviet Union dislike such bans—they may even think they are a poor kind of freedom of speech—and are actually pleased to read criticisms of those who impose them.—Yours, &c., D. N. Parrr. 4 Paper Buildings, Temple, E.G. 4.
[Mr. Pritt is as much entitled to criticise Sir James Grigg for banning his lectures as we are to criticise him for banning an ABCA discussion of the Beveridge Report. But when Mr. Pritt chooses to say in a public speech that he does not believe the British War Minister wants the U.S.S.R. to win this war he is simply sowing mistrust and dissension between Allies.—En., The Spectator.]
Previous page
