THE claims by Mr A Walmsley (Letters, January 12) that "dialects and accents are only good for laughs," that such a trait is "a disability," and that speaking anything other than the "Queen's English" predisposes an individual to a low level of intelligence or antisocial behaviour, are utter nonsense.

To write that a beautiful girl is OK until she opens her mouth and is found to speak in a dialect or with an accent, suggests warped logic indeed.

I am neither a linguist nor a statistician, but would hypothesise that by far the majority of the indigenous population of this country will speak with a discernible dialect or accent.

If Mr Walmsley listened, he would find that there are now (and throughout the evolution of our language always have been) any number of "afflicted" persons, from politicians to eminent industrialists, scientists and sporting personalities -- in fact, any walk of life he would care to name. Does their speech belittle them? Has their dialect or accent precluded them from their chosen career? Of course not.

With the written word, however, one's accent or dialect cannot be ascertained and, therefore, provided that the writer uses reasonable grammar, and correct spelling, and has the intelligence to formulate a lucid and valid argument, his writings cannot be used as a tool of the bigot to satisfy preconceived ideas.

Yes, I was one of those "poorer youngsters" but my parents did the best for me they could. I speak with a Blackburn accent, and am proud of it, as that is my heritage.

If I had had the benefit of private education or elocution lessons, I may be speaking differently today, but would that make me a better person?

If Mr Walmsley and his ilk think yes, then I feel sorry for them. Less-charitable, linguistically "disabled" and "afflicted" persons may feel differently.

MR M VALENTINE, Accrington Road, Blackburn.