More beef please	15 February 2010
Dear Mr Nye I was pleased to see in the February issue a strong if somewhat uneven readers’ response to your New Year invitation to write more letters to you. Whilst I quite appreciate that the business model of glossy publications such as yours depends heavily on its revenues from advertising, can we now look forward to a bit more intellectual beef in a very commercial sandwich? In the February issue, I calculated that 76 of the 98 pages consisted of advertisements, or of editorial that did little more than promote products or services offered by your advertisers. Could I also ask for a shift in the content of the typical article towards something more substantial? Your advertisers know that your readers are amongst the most affluent in the area, which (rightly or wrongly) means that they are also likely to be highly educated, eloquent and opinionated. Let’s hear more from them, whether it’s in controversial, literary or popular-scientific articles or even in grumpy readers’ letters. That would further differentiate your magazine from its more lightweight, shopping-oriented competitors. Yours faithfully Martin Cross Continued... Letter by Martin Cross

Flinty	04 February 2010
Hi Ed Get a life! Why do you keep harping on about Flinty (or is it Finty)? We all make the occasional error but in my opinion journalists make more than most. Trouble is though when they get found out they get all defensive. It's all very well brandishing that mighty pen about, but when someone takes a swipe back you should be man enough to take it. And your pompous reply to that poor fledgling hack doesn't curry any favours either! Just let him have his say and accept it! Yeah, you publish a good magazine but you weaken it by going over the top about Flinty and continuing with your defensiveness. Anyway who the Dickens cares whether its spelt with an "l" or not! PS What did the Evening Standard say about your blunder? Don't know if it caught your expert eye but your cutting on the letters page is impossible to read! Dan Templeton Barnes Continued... Letter by Dan Templeton

Finty Williams	29 January 2010
We have become accustomed, over the years, to some amusing howlers in The Richmond Magazine, however, the publication excelled itself in your article on the actress, Finty Williams. Ms. Williams could be forgiven for feeling 'flinty' after you had referred to her as such no less than nine times (including on the front cover, in the list of contents, the sub-title and on the photograph). She might be even less delighted to read that she "chirps" and "squeals" and "exclaims gleefully" within a forest of exclamation marks. Continued... Letter by Heather Hacking

Classic Clangers	29 January 2010
Dear Richard We look forward to the arrival of The Richmond Magazine and always enjoy reading it, so don't take the following the wrong way! However, having just received the November issue, I have to ask whether anyone in your office actually read the review of Don Fernandos restaurant (which, by the way, may or may not take an apostrophe in its name – the review provides both options throughout)? It's fair to say that the restaurant owners could display the review on a wall and use it as a form of after-dinner entertainment for diners who are sober enough to be able to read properly. Apparently, the starter set a president for the dishes to follow and a refreshing dessert cleansed the pallet. In another paragraph, we have a stones throw followed by busy chef's, thereby depriving us of an apostrophe when we needed one and throwing another in as a bonus when we didn't. Obviously, we all make typos and spelling mistakes, but this review is full of classic clangers that don't belong in your lovely magazine. I could have put up with some of the missing hyphens and slightly confused phrasing, but these abominations were just too much to stomach! On the positive side, anything written by yourself continues to be a joy to read and this month's article on Rosslyn Park rugby club was fascinating. Obviously, we assume you were on holiday when the restaurant reviews were placed! Continued... Letter by Sharon Meyer

By Dickens that was quite an editor's letter!	29 January 2010
Dear Richard I just had to send a quick email to say 'good on you!' for delivering such a wonderful sermon on the power of praise, as opposed to the weakness of criticism! I certainly hope there is no more of this flinty abuse flying in your direction from now on! Looking forward to the next edition of The Richmond Magazine – hopefully brimming with letters to the editor valuing the LOCAL glossy. Continued... Letter by Alex Chai

Fur Better or Worse	29 January 2010
The January article Fur Better or Worse was misleading to your readers in many ways. Fashion Editor Han Na did not examine the controversial issue in depth at all, as she failed to explore the other shocking side of the fur industry. The photographs of the models wearing fur incorrectly portrayed fur coats as a symbol of elegance. But your pictures failed to show how the original owners of these coats met their gruesome deaths. Millions of fur-bearing animals including foxes, raccoons, mink, coyotes, bobcats, lynxes, opossums, nutria, beavers, muskrats, otters and others are killed each year on fur farms by electrocution, or being skinned alive, and in the wild by drowning, trapping or beating. I strongly advise Han Na to explore alternative fashion trends that do not involve the unnecessary suffering of innocent animals. Han Na claims that fur is more environmentally friendly than cotton and polyester. But there is nothing 'natural' about clothing made from animals’ skin or fur. In addition to causing the suffering and deaths of millions of animals each year, the production of wool, fur and leather contributes to global warming, land devastation, pollution and water contamination. Eighty-five percent of the fur industry's skins comes from animals on fur factory farms. These farms can house thousands of animals and, as with other factory farms, they are designed to maximize profits – with little regard for the environment or animals’ wellbeing. Each mink skinned by fur farmers produces about 44 pounds of faeces in his or her lifetime. That adds up to 1 million pounds of faeces produced annually by US mink farms alone. One dangerous component of this waste is nearly 1,000 tons of phosphorus, which wreaks havoc on rivers and streams. For instance, when a Washington State mink farm was charged with polluting a nearby creek, the faecal coliform levels measured in the water were as much as 5,000 times in excess of the legal limit. According to Sandy Parker Reports, a fur industry publication: “Tougher anti-pollution rules and stricter enforcement by government agencies are causing increasing problems for fur farmers in parts of the US…. Nitrates, phosphates and other substances running off with rainwater or seeping into aquifers and polluting local water supplies are increasingly coming to the attention of environmental protection agencies, and they are clamping down hard.” Raising animals for their fur also pollutes the air. In Denmark, where more than 2 million mink each year are killed for their fur, more than 8,000 pounds of ammonia is released annually into the atmosphere. Fur is only natural when it’s on the animal born with it. Once an animal has been slaughtered and skinned, his or her fur is treated with a soup of toxic chemicals to convert the putrefactive raw skin into a durable material (ie to keep it from rotting in the buyer’s closet). Various salts – along with ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide and other chromates and bleaching agents – are used to preserve and dye fur. Much of the world's fur is processed in China, where environmental regulations are often ignored. According to Professor Cheng Fengxia of Shaanxi University of Science and Technology: “Pollution caused by inappropriate processing, especially colouring the fur, has become a headache.” Fur farm pollution is further compounded when all aspects of farmed-fur production are considered. Fur processing requires transporting feed to animals; removing animals’ waste; providing electricity for housing facilities, the slaughter process and other operations; using pesticides, vaccines and antibiotics; transporting carcasses; transporting pelts to auction; transporting them to a fur tannery, which involves sorting, soaking, fleshing, tanning, wringing, drying, cleaning, trimming, buffing and finishing; and transporting tanned pelts to a garment maker, a wholesaler and so on. When all these processes are taken into account, a fur garment takes more than 15 times more energy to produce than a faux-fur equivalent. No federal humane slaughter law protects animals on fur factory farms, and killing methods are gruesome. For more information on the intolerable suffering that animals are subjected to, please visit: <i>ShedYourSkin.com</i> and see the factsheets on the fur-farming and trapping industries. Han Na further claims that, as individuals, we have <i>"different preferences and tolerances and the right to live thereby"</i>. The key consideration, however, is whether an animal is sentient and can therefore suffer pain or experience pleasure. This point was emphasized by the founder of modern utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, who wrote of animals: “The question is not: 'Can they reason?'. Nor is it: 'Can they talk?' It is: 'Can they suffer?'” Given that animals <i>can</i> suffer, argues the philosopher Peter Singer, humans have a moral obligation to minimize or avoid causing such suffering, just as they have an obligation to minimize or avoid causing suffering to other humans. Animals have basic moral rights because they possess the same advanced cognitive abilities that justify the attribution of basic moral rights to humans. By virtue of these abilities, these animals have not just instrumental, but <i>inherent</i> value. In the words of another philosopher, Tom Regan, they are <i>“the subject of a life”</i>. Continued... Letter by Rebecca Hubbard

Fur Better or Worse	29 January 2010
I enjoy reading your magazine when it comes through the door every month, but following the January fashion column I now feel reluctant to look at any future issues, in case there are more upsetting/offensive articles. I really think that the writer should have considered his/her readers' feelings/opinions on such a controversial subject before writing such a piece. What I was most upset by was that the pictures for this article were purely fashion and thus could influence people to buy fur products. I feel very strongly that, as the article had references to native people in their countries wearing fur, there should have been pictures of this, rather than purely fashion ones!! No serious fashionista these days would wear such horrifically offensive garments. I think it would have made the article easier to digest if there had been native Canadians wearing their fur, as it would have made people think a bit more and actually take in what they were reading, rather than be grossly repulsed by the picture content. I understand that the magazine does not censor articles, but on such a strongly divided subject, more care could have been taken to get the balance right. These pictures make your magazine look as if it does not take the killing of defenceless animals for fashion purposes seriously at all!! There was also the titling for this article – it was on the FRONT COVER of your magazine and was billed ‘Fur in Fashion’. I am completely speechless that that would be the title of this article, rather than something more articulate, and I am shocked that it was put on the front cover. Does your magazine not see how influential these things can be ? Continued... Letter by Alex Merryweather

Fur In Fashion	29 January 2010
I was shocked to read your article Fur in fashion in the January edition. The fact that you give cover space to this writer, as well as featuring her article, suggests that your magazine is in agreement with her views. I myself would not wear fur because of the cruelty involved for the animals in its mass production. However, I think there is a difference between people in very cold countries wearing fur to keep warm and the frivolous use of fur as a fashion item. It seems to me that the writer is trying to be provocative when she talks about people having the right to “different preferences and tolerances”, when her own tolerance seems not to take into account the unnecessary suffering of animals. Continued... Letter by Patricia Gracey

Thanks for A Richmond Carol!	29 January 2010
Dear Mr Nye I have been meaning to write and thank you for your delightful and witty 'A Richmond Carol'. Tomorrow is Christmas Eve, and so, like the three ghosts, I want to meet the deadline! I thought you caught Dickens's style so well. I read out the last column to my mother and sister after supper one evening and they loved it too. This will make its way into my copy of A Christmas Carol for safekeeping. All the best for 2010! Continued... Letter by Catherine Paver

Football Chavs	27 July 2009
Until the 'practice' of hawking and spitting in the street became regarded as a 'vile' practice, tuberculosis was rife in many countries including the UK With the emergence of the 'modern footballer icon' hawking and spitting anywhere one chooses again seems to be 'the thing to do' - so is it any wonder that Flu, as any other virus, spreads like 'wildfire' ? Remind our stupid overpaid football icons that they still have the physical capability to "Swallow" - as witnessed by their capacity to drink themselves silly - and it is time they grew up and ceased setting appalling examples of behavior and dangerous habits ! In this age of disposable everything, there is no excuse for not carrying handkerchiefs to cough and sneeze into - USE THEM !! ( But DON'T just then drop them on the ground !! ) Does EVERYTHING have to be spelled out to people these days - where is their COMMONSENSE and DECENCY ??? Continued... Letter by anonymous

Page 1 of 3    1 2 3 Next>