Letter to the I: Royal Exploitation of Charities

Mary Hopkins' letter completely missed the point with regards to Prince Harry's apparent advocacy of the cause of treating mental illnesses.  She takes it for granted that the Royal's relationships with charities are one way supportive relationships.  It is not since Royals need the charities more than the charities need them.  Royal support often does not go beyond a visit to the charities, which imposes a cost on them, and brief supportive mentions and photo opportunities.  Would it be too much to ask for Royals instead of collecting charities, to actually sustain support in terms of time and  money into one of them?  Would it also be asking too much for Prince Harry to consider what credibility he has in talking about strained public services, while he lives a taxpayer funded lavish lifestyle?

Regards

Zachary Barker

Bristol

Letter to the I: Style Over Substance

With regards to Geoff Chapman's letter regarding differences in rhetoric styles between Jacob Rees Mogg MP and David Lammy MP I refer him to the words of late PM Margaret Thatcher.  She implored the political opposition to not listen to how she said something but what she said.  David Lammy often speaks with the power of an extremist, but his position is clear, truthful and frankly courageous given the political climate.  Jacob Rees Mogg on the other hand is cool, calculated and uses complex language to further his questionable cause.  This cause is especially questionable since he has presented false research and has made statements that contradict each other to further it.  Presentation is one thing, but a truthful message is what is important.

Regards

Zachary Barker

Bristol