Reply From Charles Clarke

I got a reply to the email I sent to Charles Clarke on Tuesday. Here’s what he said.

He said that he immediately regretted the exchange with Rachel’s dad and wrote to him that afternoon inviting both him and Rachel to a meeting. He denies receiving any prior contact from Rachel’s dad which is at odds with what Rachel says on her blog.

Regarding what actually happened last Friday, he says this:

As far as the incident itself was concerned, I consider that the Canon was both hectoring and insulting in that he did not permit even a word’s response to his comments about a public enquiry. I did not actually use the words suggested on the website but it is the case that he was insulting without allowing any opportunity for discussion at all.

He closes by saying

Finally I well understand that many people believe that there ought to be a public enquiry, and I respect that view though I don’t agree with it. I have of course considered the matter very carefully and I can tell you that the issues involved have nothing whatsoever to do with personal embarrassment or party-political matters.

Which really isn’t very satisfactory. If he has “considered the matter very carefully” then surely he should be able to give the British public a reasonable reply when they ask why there hasn’t been an enquiry. Hopefully Rachel and her dad will be able to get a better answer when they finally meet him.


  1. Hmm, So Clarke felt that Rachel’s Dad was insulting because he didn’t allow any opportunity for discussion… Wasn’t that what made The Rev so angry in the first place.As for Charles assurances that the denial of a public enquiry have nothing to do with personal embarrassment or party political matters? You know what? I don’t believe him.And as for not using the words suggested on the website – is he saying Rachel’s Dad is a liar?

  2. I rather expected my dad to be painted in a negative light: it is utterly untrue that he ‘did not even permit a word’s response.’My father asked a question.He wanted a response and did not get one. He was dismissed rudely and left!Mr Clarke has now written again to my father, in a much more apologetic style and has said that he is ok about publishing the letter on my blog! He has been reading my blog it seems, and very likely everyone’s links and has seen what legs this story has grown.So as soon as the photocopy of the letter arrives in the post from Dad who recieved it yesterday I shall place it on my blog in full. Hoorah, democracy in action.:-)Thanks Dave and everyone else who was outraged about all this nonsense. Now Dad & I have got a meeting with MR Clarke in our diaries and I shall see what comes out of that.And I shall of course, let you all know!

  3. Why don’t you publish the whole of the letter?Does his response mean that Clarke is still a self-righteous pompous git etc as everyone has said on Rachel’s blog? He has responded after all. Can you imagine a Tory minister of the previous government doing the same?Am not party political, nor do I work for the government, in case you were wondering, I just find this self-righteous anger whipped up absolutely mystifying. Does the government have to apologise in person for every act it makes that offends anyone, ever?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.