Letter: The fine art of double standards
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In his letter (10 March) Sir Hugh Leggatt pertinently draws attention to the Government's failure to do anything to discourage sales of works of art donated to public institutions. One wonders whether it has yet understood the fundamental contradiction inherent in its policy of inviting generosity from the present while condoning the betrayal of that of the past.
In a recent report in the Independent on Sunday (28 February) some disquieting obiter dicta were recorded of a leading luminary in the National Heritage Department. It transpired that while the Government was not overtly (my italics) encouraging university sales, it saw no difference between their collections and private ones, and proceeded:
The only way the Government would ever get involved with a university sale is if the art export committee were to delay the granting of a licence.
This could be taken by the unversed to imply that the Government might at any rate take steps to retain in this country the relevant works of art, once sold. However, that remains very far indeed from being the case, because special funds for such purchases would not be made available by the Treasury.
Surely the raison d'etre of the grandly named Department of National Heritage is to be seen to be aware of, and to be attempting seriously to address, the pressing problems of our cultural inheritance - and not being so concerned to avoid them.
Yours faithfully
DENIS MAHON
London, SW1
10 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments