Madam –
I was “this” close to falling off my (new, and very comfortable) office chair through utter disbelief last Tuesday when I read your Editorial (“I’m on the pavement, thinking about government”). Your paper implied that I, like many others, had over promised in last year’s SU elections during my campaign, which, by the way, I won by a thumping margin, being graced with around double the votes that my runny, Brown opposition could muster. But credit where is it due; at least he fared better than the third candidate, who was petrified out of the race on the first day of campaigning upon realising the Wetz campaign machine would not be stopped by a streaky rash of Bacon.
I had 57 Policies (not promises), of which, to date, I have delivered (or bettered) 39 and two halves i.e. 40. If I continue at this rate, I will in fact deliver more policies than I could think of at the time of the election last year.
As with many articles in your paper, I don’t know where the Beaver got its evidence from, particularly to make such a bold attack on my credibility (although I assume it is more derived by a fictional mind than a factual matter). After all, this year my policies have been stuck to my office wall in the vain hope that a deep-throat Beaver investigative reporter might – just might – recognise my contributions. Alas, a reporter’s intuition does not stretch so far at this fine institution.
The danger is, of course, that poorly researched and unproven power will, in time, corrupt itself for the holder.
Yours, in anticipation of the impending Executive Editor election,
George Wetz
LSE Students’ Union Treasurer
Madam –
As you are presumably aware, the Comment section of 16th February edition contained the phrase “…be they Catholic, Jew or Christian”. Could the Beaver’s next edition perhaps highlight the reason why Catholics are not to be considered “Christian” and are to be defined separately from other denominations, before continuing to promote this interesting distinction?
Regards,
Dominic Baldwin
Related posts:
- Letters to the Editor – MT10
- Letters to the Editor – MT5
- Letters to the Editor – 1
- Letters to the Editor – 2
- Letters to the Editor – 5
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 9th, 2010 at 06:02 and is filed under Comment.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Letters to the Editor – 09/03/10
on 9 Mar 2010 in Comment
Madam –
I was “this” close to falling off my (new, and very comfortable) office chair through utter disbelief last Tuesday when I read your Editorial (“I’m on the pavement, thinking about government”). Your paper implied that I, like many others, had over promised in last year’s SU elections during my campaign, which, by the way, I won by a thumping margin, being graced with around double the votes that my runny, Brown opposition could muster. But credit where is it due; at least he fared better than the third candidate, who was petrified out of the race on the first day of campaigning upon realising the Wetz campaign machine would not be stopped by a streaky rash of Bacon.
I had 57 Policies (not promises), of which, to date, I have delivered (or bettered) 39 and two halves i.e. 40. If I continue at this rate, I will in fact deliver more policies than I could think of at the time of the election last year.
As with many articles in your paper, I don’t know where the Beaver got its evidence from, particularly to make such a bold attack on my credibility (although I assume it is more derived by a fictional mind than a factual matter). After all, this year my policies have been stuck to my office wall in the vain hope that a deep-throat Beaver investigative reporter might – just might – recognise my contributions. Alas, a reporter’s intuition does not stretch so far at this fine institution.
The danger is, of course, that poorly researched and unproven power will, in time, corrupt itself for the holder.
Yours, in anticipation of the impending Executive Editor election,
George Wetz
LSE Students’ Union Treasurer
Madam –
As you are presumably aware, the Comment section of 16th February edition contained the phrase “…be they Catholic, Jew or Christian”. Could the Beaver’s next edition perhaps highlight the reason why Catholics are not to be considered “Christian” and are to be defined separately from other denominations, before continuing to promote this interesting distinction?
Regards,
Dominic Baldwin
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 9th, 2010 at 06:02 and is filed under Comment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.