Letters - February 14, 2019

editorial image
Have your say

How much do these TV presenters cost?

My happy time has arrived! I love the Six Nations Rugby but I am sorry to say one thing has blighted my pleasure.

It has arrived at the same time as the wrangling over the over-70s free TV licence.

And what highlighted my concern is that we don’t seem able to watch a game of rugby without half the BBC turning up.

I watched France v Wales game recently.

Commentating was that nice Mr Butler, interrupted by two blokes with him.

I suppose he was lonely.

No chance of that in the Inverdale suite, where he had four more with him.

Now I have played a bit of rugby, not well, but I know what’s going on, so why do we need all these people giving us their valuable views?

The biggest culprit is Jonathan Davies, who describes at great length a move we have just seen.

Okay, what I really mean is, how much does it cost to ship these people to a game?

The pay for some, especially in sport, is ridiculous. I admired Gary Lineker as a sportsman.

He is no frontman, but have you seen his pay?

I reckon that, no matter what we say, they will have our money.

What next? The bus pass? Oh well, it keeps these has- beens in work!

When I was young, we listened to sport on the radio.

We couldn’t see a thing, but one good commentator, with the aid of one summariser, did the job.

Still, I suppose those men had talent.

Something you can’t accuse many of today’s crop of having!


via email


Caption was flippant

I take great exception to the cheap throw-away editorial comment printed above my letter ‘Raise limit to realistic level’, which appeared in The Gazette on Saturday (February 9).

The photograph of the Preston New Road fracking site included an unnecessarily flippant caption, written, no doubt, by a junior member of your staff, stating that most letters received are opposed to fracking and thus the staff member feels it necessary to draw readers’ attention to the fact that two positive letters ‘arrive at the same time’. Implying that there was something sinister about such a coincidence.

Your own ‘Readers’ Charter’ states that The Gazette is ‘the only place where you can read and participate in honest debates’ - but where does it say that the Letters Editor/staff can also contribute with such a snide and unwarranted comment.

Firstly I do not think “most letters are opposed to fracking”.

I have contributed many letters over the past six years which have always been supportive of the shale gas industry, not because it is shale gas but because it is a 24-hour supply source of indigenous fuel controlled exclusively by our own country and not at the mercy of foreign sources and governments.

Secondly he/she seems to suggest that there may be some collusion in the fact that there are two positive letters in the same edition.

I want to make it quite clear that I am a retired International Industry Executive and have no connection whatsoever with Cuadrilla or the fracking industry. I have an opinion on what is admittedly a controversial subject, which I would like readers to hear – without the addition of a unnecessary editorial slur.

And I assume that the other contributor, Mr Raynor, is equally annoyed by the silly comment.

Frank McLaughlin


Editor’s note: The picture caption was indeed meant as a throwaway line but one to inject a bit of humour into the page and nothing more serious or sinister than that.


Letter gave me déjà vu feeling

A strange feeling if déjà vu came stealing over me when reading Mr Frank Mclaughlin’s letter (Your Say, February 9) regarding the fracking industry and how there are substantial amounts of shale gas just waiting to be extracted.

I am old enough to recall the euphoria about the discovery of North Sea gas and how it would provide “ a limitless supply of free energy”.

Well, we all know how that ended.

Alan Mather

via e mail