LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32235, 2 March 1970, Page 12

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

(1) Letters to be cunsiaered for( this column must not ex ceed 150 words They should be on only one side of the' paper, preferably typewrit | ten otherwise clearlv writ ten in ink; and amplei margins and space between lines should be left for convenience in sub editing 1(2) A legible signature and full address—not a P.O box .number are required, whether these are to beprinted or not 63) The correspondent must; sav whether the letter has l been or is to be submitted! i elsewhere ! | (4) The editor cannot return or{ keep any letter not accep • ted for priming, nor ne undertake to acknow ' ledge or enter into corres *| po nde nee concerning letters although an acknowledge i. meni will be made where! this seems to be necessarv or helpful I 65) As a general rule corres pondence on news items in other publications. or ! carried on radio and tele. I vision is not acceptable Pat.—See reply to L. Blyth on Saturday. Anita Ritchie. Winston Sharp.— We have space for only one critic. Margaret Quantock. —No space now for this hardy perennial. Perplexed Applicant.—-A proof, of your letter was referred to the underwriters for comment. We’ll give them a reminder. ■M. A. Mundy.—lt would be rather embarrassing for the person you mention. His i good work has been widely I recognised Country Neighbourliness A Farce.—As you acknowledge, it is hardly fair to drawl general conclusions from a' particular case.