Sir,—It is clear from Mr. Hope's letter (February 11) on

the Clean-Up TV Campaign that he has been given only a partial, and therefore misleading. account of what happened .1 the recent annual conference of the Catholic Teachers' Federation.
Six members, representing a number of local associations, spoke in favour of a resolution asking the C.T.F. Council to withdraw support from the Clean-Up 'IV Campaign. It was apparent that many other members also supported the resolution. The three speakers who were opposed to it were all members of the C.T.F. Council. which. for reasons best known to themselves, had become heavily committed to support of the Campaign.
The C.T.F. President then declared that a vote for the resolution would be a vote of no-confidence in Council, and I believe that it was this pistolto-the-head technique which ensured the defeat of the resolution.
During the two months before the Conference, there was lengthy and widespread discussion of the Campaign Manifesto among members of my Association; not a single member approved of Council's support for the Campaign—and I do not think Nottingham's Catholic teachers are so very different from those elsewhere.
Catholics will obviously share the Campaign's intention of promoting a Christian way of life in this country, and may well agree with some of the complaints made by Mrs. Mary Whitehouse about specific incidents in B.B.C. programmes. Nevertheless. we do not feel able to support the Campaign. May I quote some statements in the Campaign Manifesto, and some comments by Mrs. Mary Whitehouse published in the CATHOLIC HERALD of December 24, to give some explanation of our attitude?
" . . . We object to the propaganda of diO)elief. , doubt and dirt that the B.B.C. pours. into millions of homes through the television screen." (Campaign Manifesto), The use of the word "propaganda" implies a deliberate attempt to corrupt; the evidence given for this extremely serious accusation is, to say the least, flimsy.
In the CATHOLIC HERALD interview, Mrs. Whitehouse quoted four examples but, when pressed to give more, said, "1 I doestr t matter how many instances there are." The implication is that even one instance is enough to prove the charge.
Other accusations she makes are so obviously unjustified that they can be quoted without further comment "The B.B.C. iv WA' mad(Daily Mirror. 29.1 I .651 and "The B.B.C'. does not give anyone who wants to put the established Christian viewpoint a chance to say anything." (Catholic HERALD, 24.12.65). Mrs. Whitehouse, moreciVer, contradicts herself by saying (in the interview), "the weight of 11.13.C. television is towards the destruction of valuesand, a few minutes later, "Over 50 per cent of what the !?B.C. does is first class."
"Crime, violence. illegitimacy and venereal disease are steadily increasing, yet the B BC (broadcasts) . . . a stream of suggestive and erotic plays which present promiscuity, infidelity and drinking as. normal and inevitable," (Campaign Manifesto). Leaving aside the implication that the plays help to cause the crime. violence, etc. (expert sociologists cannot say with any degree of certainty what the effects of television are). the Campaign appears to be arguing that, regardless of circumstances. motives and manner, it is never permissible to present evil in a play.
Is it really true that a majority of C.T.F. Council members support the Campaign's exaggerated accusations and irrational statements? Or is the explanation that they acted hastily and without due consideration when they first supported the Campaign. and are now unwilling to admit that they made a mistake?
A. P. Higgins,
President, Nottingham Catholic Teachers' Association.
Sir,—It should also be pointed out that Mr. Hope,
despite his past office in the Catholic Teachers' Federation, is only expressing his private view and not that of the C.T.F. The &bat.: he refers to (I believe he was absent from it) did not confirm the Federation's support for the campaign: in fact we were strongly assured by the Secretary that the campaign was a thing of the past and there was no question of still supporting it.
N. D. Wagstaff Nottingham.