Your Letters
16:00 UK time, Tuesday, 21 August 2007
It’s all well and good deciding () to "attack with unmitigated ferocity" but how many people who make such a decision would have the first clue what to actually do? Jeremy’s suggestion that he would hit the thug with a book implies that he, for one, certainly wouldn't.
Keith, Loughborough
Regarding Noel of Norfolk in his response to Jeremy Vine's of 20 August. Each one of us should have the right to be comfortable and at ease on any form of public transport and not be pestered verbally or otherwise by other users. It is not rude to ignore unwarranted attempts to engage in conversation. It is inappropriate, impolite and indecent of anyone to force any form of attention, especially if not encouraged upon another.
Verrol Crichton, Watford, Herts
Paper Monitor (pot) is a little harsh on the Daily Mail (kettle) for using the Jeremy Vine story. No mention was made on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ site about the original article appearing in the Telegraph six months ago.
David, Aussie in Surrey
Why do you bother with letters about stories about Pete Doherty? Nobody really cares that people no longer care what he's been arrested for.
Ian, Winchester
Would someone like to look up the word 'near' in the dictionary? - according to the article the object is 250 to 1,000 light-years away...
Russell Jacques, Liverpool
A great example of how a headline can start really well, but lose my interest by the end:
Robin, Glasgow (formerly Edinburgh)
Re Tuesday Letters: Would Nigel Molesworth of St Custards (an obvious Sue Denim as any fule no) care to join me in my campaign to banish the insidious "we" from ALL ´óÏó´«Ã½ output. I'm heartily fed up with phrases like "What do we know about this incident" or "10 things we didn't know last week" which seem to imply that the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s collective body of knowledge must, of necessity, mirror that of its listeners. If it's merely a "turn of phrase" then it's a poor one and unworthy of the expected journalistic standards of the corporation.
Paul Clare,
Re Nigel Molesworth's letter, in fairness the item is titled "things WE didn't know last week", so presumably the "we" refers only to the MM staff and not us educated readers.
Rich, Titchfield, UK
I've had an epiphany. Someone out there must know who MM and PM are/is (smug wife, husband, lover). I suggest we all rally together and offer a reward for evidence. The truth is within sight. But this will never get published anyway, so I should really forget about it...
Lola, Chesterfield
The 
