MAY I take this opportunity to commend your obvious stance on the restriction of the use of certain words which appear among the title and the characters of the latest Austin Powers movie.

Unfortunately Richard Lewis has undermined that sensible and decent approach to the subject by ensuring that words you correctly felt inappropriate in a family newspaper were introduced in his article by using them in a totally different context, thereby compromising the respect which your publication as a whole commands.

I am also surprised that he should describe some of his readership as "small-minded cretins". That hardly seems designed to increase circulation figures!

What Richard needs to be aware of is the nature of the publication for which he is writing. This is not a laddish magazine, it is a newspaper founded approximately 140 years ago and sustained largely by a family who would have supported your ideals and not his.

I note also that Peter Doherty, while having the good grace to maintain the spirit of your editorial direction (albeit that he lapses into the juvenile small-minded act of over-emphasis) has nevertheless produced a totally flawed argument that seeks to indicate that if violence is to be abhorred (which it is), then inappropriate language must be accepted. This is not an either/or question, as they are both unacceptable.

Both Mr Lewis and Mr Doherty clearly have a problem with your laudable standards and take exception to your restrictions on certain words appearing in the Bury Times. What I would like to ask both these gentlemen is this: if they find these words acceptable in this particular context, then which words would they deem as unacceptable?

ROBERT BROOKS,

Avon Drive, Bury.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.