Hannah Barnes makes a brave attempt to achieve a balanced view of grooming gangs and sexual abuse (Out of the Ordinary, 10 January). In the 1980s I was involved with a project carried out by a special-needs school. Reasoning that children with learning difficulties were at particular risk of abuse, it decided to work with parents in an effort to protect their children. There was anxiety that the parents of children of Pakistani heritage would not engage. They did, though, particularly mothers. If we are to get to the truth we must do two things. First, talk to women in the communities accused of presenting a disproportionate risk. Second, not have a further inquiry but instead ensure that necessary research is done while recognising that, though it may be distressing to acknowledge, this is an issue that cannot be wholly resolved in the short term.
Dr Richard Crombie, Hutton Roof, Cumbria
Back to school
I suspect one reason for the reticence of the government (Andrew Marr, Politics, 10 January) is the realisation that an adult life spent closeted in trade unions, left-leaning local councils and academia is not adequate preparation for running a country. So many fundamental decisions appear to be being taken while wearing ideological blinkers unfit for today’s social, economic and cultural landscape. Hence the Prime Minister’s difficulty, for example, in defining the phrase “working people”.
The worst culprit is Bridget Phillipson, with her attack on the academies – offering no evidence that her ideologically driven alternatives would improve outcomes. Also, the disgraceful shrug of her shoulders that more than 30,000 children will be necessary casualties of making our country the only one in Europe to tax the education of children. This is not the sort of socialism or social democracy that most people voted for to replace the Conservative shambles.
Ian Cooling, Wye, Ashford, Kent
Those of us readers with a passionate interest in education have a clear answer to Andrew Marr. He asks where, apart from Ed Miliband and Wes Streeting, “are the rest of the top team?” Our answer is: in the north-east, and in the educational world more generally. Bridget Phillipson is a forthright, genuinely socialist secretary of state who is re-establishing a respectful dialogue with the teaching profession, facing down a self-serving independent-school lobby, and taking on the prerogatives of over-mighty and over-lauded multi-academy CEOs.
Colin Richards, Spark Bridge, Cumbria
Going global
George Monaghan, signposting an online article by Freddie Hayward in the Saturday Read (11 January), remarked that Trump’s recent “turn to expansionism, after almost single-handedly reviving isolationism, might appear like his greatest head-scratcher yet”. However, these threads are not mutually incompatible. Trump’s instinct does seem to be isolationist. His musings on Greenland, the Panama Canal and Canada simply indicate what he regards as being a “greater America”: geo-strategic boundary-drawing in order to secure and sustain the US as a great world power.
Michael Haskell, Broughton, Flintshire
A lingering Musk
I very much enjoyed Will Dunn’s article (Newsmaker, 10 January) and endorse his suggestion that we in general – and the BBC in particular – should pay far less attention to the ludicrous provocations of the man-child Elon Musk. I also enjoyed the subsequent article by Andrew Marr on Musk. And references to Musk in Kevin Maguire and Robert D Kaplan’s pieces. There was an interesting passage about Musk in the “The world in 2025” symposium, and it was good to see Musk pop up in the books section. There was, however, at least one Musk-free section of last week’s magazine – the letters page.
David Edmonds, New Statesman philosophy columnist
[David might also enjoy this week’s cover story — Ed]
Parfit for the course
When Sophie McBain states that “Morgan writes of Parfit’s concept of moral luck” (The Critics, 10 January), she misses that this concept should instead be attributed to Bernard Williams. Parfit admired Williams as a philosopher, even though he disagreed; he refers to Williams frequently in Reasons and Persons (1984).
David Howard, Church Stretton, Shropshire
Female solidarity
Verity Howorth’s letter (Correspondence, 10 January) in response to Pippa Bailey’s column (Deleted Scenes, 6 December) hit me like a lightning bolt. It made me feel understood in a way I was not aware I needed and reduced me to tears.
The sense that, as a woman who has chosen not to procreate, you are in some kind of stasis is intellectually easy to repute but takes greater force to shift emotionally. I have always been convinced on some level that I am selfish, and lesser, for choosing not to have children. I was unwittingly “stuck” in the feeling that I was not fulfilling my potential by not having children. Having someone articulate that I, too, have grown and changed, and continue to do so, has been profoundly moving, and has led me to realise something emotionally that I knew intellectually, but had never felt.
I would also add: Pippa, please remember we are here, we are well, we are still profoundly connected to those around us, and we are living fulfilling lives both with and without our own children. It takes a community to raise a child, they say, and communities need people without children as well as those with. You’re going to be OK. More than OK. Whatever you decide.
Marie Donnelly, Newcastle upon Tyne
Lock, farmstock and barrel
Simon Armitage’s description of Boxing Day walks (Nature, 10 January) was an amusing insight into his family’s annual event. His final paragraph, though, shows a lack of understanding regarding farming: “Most fields are more than capable of hosting a few footpaths without any noticeable damage or disturbance.” Really? Does he mean the fields shut up for hay or silage, or those growing winter wheat, or spring barley, or recently ploughed ground?
Many do so with dogs, whose foul causes disease in young livestock. Dogs can also attack and kill sheep and lambs, and chase cattle, causing lameness. Some “walkers” cut the barbed wire erected to contain livestock, or leave gates open.
So Simon, how about that “unspoken agreement”. Respect for farmers, please, and try not to blame them for everything!
Carol Hughes, North Tawton, Devon
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
This article appears in the 15 Jan 2025 issue of the New Statesman, The Disruptors