I was rather surprised to see no mention of John Reid's speech in the Times either yesterday or today, despite it being front page news in almost every other paper. It would appear that Murdoch has his own agenda.
Letter sent to the editor. Deliberatley kept it polite.
As a soldier who has served in Iraq and as a long-time reader of the Times, I was surprised and disappointed that you made no mention in yesterdayâs edition of John Reidâs excellent speech at Kingâs College. After the furore caused by the News of the World it was heartening to hear the Secretary of State for Defence at last stand up for the armed forces. He made some very valid points which I would have thought that the Times would have seen fit to print and which I hope Martin Samuels has read. I quote two below:
"Soldiers know, the hard way, the lengths we go to conduct ourselves within the law in exceptionally difficult and dangerous circumstances - circumstances which some of their critics will never experience or even begin to understand."
"We expect our people to uphold the highest standards of behaviour, and when they fail we will act, quite rightly. But they also have the right to expect everyone else, whose safety and freedoms are dependent upon them, to consider the environment in which they are operating before we pass judgement from the safety of a television studio, from the green benches of Parliament or from the comfort of an armchair."
I have a long held hatred of the times and particularly it's sister publication - the times on sunday. Why? because of it's obvious bias toward us and what we do? No - because when I was a youngster ( when dino's ruled the earth!) I had a paper round and on a sunday when all the 'big, posh' houses had their times-s it used to nearly kill me picking the bl@@dy bag up!!!! A well rounded and perfectly justified agrument, I feel!!!!!
I used to do my round in a strange order to get rid of 'em first leaving me with a bag that didnt cause my fingers to go numb when riding my bike.................
Must admit to not seeing too much that's upset me in the Times lately and I'm a fairly regular reader. Must add though that I'm surprised they didnt cover it as its a bit of an event and a respected rag with the audience it reaches should really be gettting some column inches devoted to this sort of stuff, wonder why not though??????