An Open letter on golfer Craig’s performance

MCBT Letters to the editor
MCBT Letters to the editor
0
Have your say

The letters page this week centres around Thame golfer Craig Hinton and his debut at the Open Championships.

Andy Gilbert, Long Crendon

I WAS very disappointed to read the negative front page headline which gleefully trumpeted the failure at the British Open of golfer Craig Hinton (Thame Gazette, July 22).

It’s no easy task to even qualify for this prestigious event and for a lad with aspirations to turn pro, this is hardly the help he needs, or should expect, from his local paper.

I’m no golfer, but as a lifelong sportsman, I know that everyone has a ‘bad day in the office’ from time to time.

The fact that Craig took his disappointment on the chin is to his credit.

I accept that the article itself was balanced, but my main problem is with the headline which seems to be celebrating failure and suggests your paper is mocking a young guy’s high aspirations.

The only fruit of this is to discourage others from having such aspirations.

Editor’s note: Our headline was entirely factual and, as Mr Gilbert accepts, the report was an even-handed account of Craig’s experience.

We, as a newspaper, and particularly the sportsdesk have followed his development as a golfer over the years and share Mr Gilbert’s confidence that he has great potential, but there’s no getting away from the fact that his performance at the Open hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Tell us how our money is spent

Steve Roberts, Thame

IN response to the letter from Cat Young of 21st Century Thame, published on Friday July 15, regarding public funding secured by Thame.

I would like to begin by saying I do not doubt Ms Young’s integrity or her intentions to do good work for Thame. However, I would like to address the points she raised.

I admit that I was unaware that only £50,000 of the £200,000 funding awarded was for the Shop Front Improvement Scheme.

Still, it is £50,000 too much in my opinion, for the reasons I originally outlined in the Gazette (Friday June 10). Perhaps Ms Young could enlighten your readership as to how the other £150,000 will be spent in a future issue?

I’m sure, as taxpayers, your readership would be interested to know how their money is being spent on their behalf by an unelected official. The individual level of funding to shops, or whether it is enjoyable to get involved in the scheme, is neither here nor there. Andy Gilbert, Long Crendon

I WAS very disappointed to read the negative front page headline which gleefully trumpeted the failure at the British Open of golfer Craig Hinton (Thame Gazette, July 22).

It’s no easy task to even qualify for this prestigious event and for a lad with aspirations to turn pro, this is hardly the help he needs, or should expect, from his local paper.

I’m no golfer, but as a lifelong sportsman, I know that everyone has a ‘bad day in the office’ from time to time.

The fact that Craig took his disappointment on the chin is to his credit.

I accept that the article itself was balanced, but my main problem is with the headline which seems to be celebrating failure and suggests your paper is mocking a young guy’s high aspirations.

The only fruit of this is to discourage others from having such aspirations.

Editor’s note: Our headline was entirely factual and, as Mr Gilbert accepts, the report was an even-handed account of Craig’s experience.

We, as a newspaper, and particularly the sportsdesk have followed his development as a golfer over the years and share Mr Gilbert’s confidence that he has great potential, but there’s no getting away from the fact that his performance at the Open hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Tell us how our money is spent

Steve Roberts, Thame

IN response to the letter from Cat Young of 21st Century Thame, published on Friday July 15, regarding public funding secured by Thame.

I would like to begin by saying I do not doubt Ms Young’s integrity or her intentions to do good work for Thame. However, I would like to address the points she raised.

I admit that I was unaware that only £50,000 of the £200,000 funding awarded was for the Shop Front Improvement Scheme.

Still, it is £50,000 too much in my opinion, for the reasons I originally outlined in the Gazette (Friday June 10). Perhaps Ms Young could enlighten your readership as to how the other £150,000 will be spent in a future issue?

I’m sure, as taxpayers, your readership would be interested to know how their money is being spent on their behalf by an unelected official. The individual level of funding to shops, or whether it is enjoyable to get involved in the scheme, is neither here nor there.