MR RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26596, 20 October 1947, Page 6

MR RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Sir,—Your correspondent “ Uncle Joe ’’ appears to have certain of his facts wrong, and the ones he has right do not matter. First, it is not •“ several weeks ago” that I resigned my job as a painter to become a tram conductor, it was exactly a fortnight ago. Secondly, I am not and never have been president of the Communist Party in Dunedin or elsewhere. Thiidly, the correct definition of a “ spiv ” is “ one who is not performing work of social value.” On the basis of that definition tram conductors in Dunedin will, I am sure be annoyed at being called “spivs” by. “Uncle Joe.” Fourth, if I were a “spiv” my brother could in no way be held responsible for my actions any more than say “ Uncle Joe’s " brother could be held responsible for “ Uncle Joe’s ” failure to sign his name to his misinformed diatribe.

And lastly, calling me a “ spiv ” would in no way alter the fact that Randolph Churchill is one.—l am, etc., lan Jamieson.

Sir,—Your correspondent "Arator ” is not acquainted with the facts of the case when he suggests that the local branch of the Communist Party was “ emboldened by the departure of Mr Randolph Churchill.” As in other centres, the Dunedin branch of the Communist Party challenged Mr Churchill to debate on a public platform, a copy of which challenge was sent to the editors of both local daily newspapers.

“Arator ” has challenged us, through Mr Jamieson, to reply to six charges against the Communist Party. To make such charges, however unfounded, requires very little space—to reply to them would require much more than your restriction of 200 words per letter would allow.

We therefore extend to “Arator,” or to any other of your anti-Communist correspondents, the same opportunity offered to Mr Churchill, viz., a challenge to debate on a public platform, any proceeds of such debate to de donated to “Aid for Britain.”—l am, etc.,

J. J. Hannan, Hon. Secretary, Dunedin Branch N.Z. Communist Party,

Sir,—l wish to make an emphatic protest against the publishing of a personal attack on Mr lan Jamieson by an anonymous correspondent. That letter should not have been published unless full name of correspondent was published too. In fact, in full justice to Mr Jamieson, that name should be published even now. The attack was unwarranted, as Mr Jamieson, unlike Randolph Churchill, has not provoked such an attack, and you did an injustice to him by publishing that letter. I would suggest that letters in future be kept to the point instead of allowing them to side-track into personalities.—l am, etc., J, N. Steedman.

Sir.—Preaching ideas contrary to world peace is utterly disgusting when one regards the sufferings of the world about us. Communism is here to stay and Mr Churchill, is pursuing an impossible goal in attempting to destroy It. The acceptance of Communism by peoples of all nations and Russia’s heroic defence is sufficient proof of its merits. Admittedly Mr Churchill is free to speak as he wills, but he is only kicking against a brick wall achieving no results and no good. Russia saved the Allies from defeat, and as an ally she was warmly treated. Quite a comparison to Mr Churchill’s recent ungrateful remarks. Instead of creating hatred, why cannot Mr Churchill use his energy and money in a more worthy and humane cause, viz., cementing friendship and alleviating the miseries of the starving and homeless millions of Europe, who are pitifully crying aloud for help? Let us remember that these people and the millions of Russia especially are the cause of our having a new opportunity in a new world. Let us use this opportunity to further peace and not war. Remember Mr W. Churchill’s words: “In war resolution, in defeat defiance, in victory magnanimity, in peace goodwill.”—l am, etc., Disgusted.