A CALL FOR HEALTHY DEBATE

People I know who in recent times have visited New York all agree that they felt perfectly safe walking the town. Something like two decades ago this was not the case, and it took the efforts of mayorRudyGiulianiandhisZero Tolerance programme to bring about the change.

Of course, in those days he was severely criticised by what we call “garantistas” for his attitude, but the end result proved him right. And the civil liberties of the citizens were perfectly upheld throughout.

The Times would seem to have a somewhat Chamberlain-esque attitude regarding the measures our present government wishes to take to improve our security, whereas this reader feels that a Churchillean approach is what is really needed. The criticism regarding Security Minister Patricia Bullrich’s plans to confront criminality of all sorts is similar to what Giuliani had to endure in his time.

Yet I understand that valid reasons exist to underpin both positions, and I believe that the Rea

ders Write section could be a good forum for a healthy debate on this issue. So I’m throwing down the glove! Harry Ingham City

Editor’s note: While I wouldn’t exactly describe the Times’ position on security and the Chocobar case as “Chamberlainesque” (and I would take issue with crediting Mr Giuliani solely with New York’s drop in crime too) there is a crucial point in Mr Ingham’s – his call for this section to be a forum for healthy debate. I would like to second Harry’s appeal and call on our readerstosendustheirthoughts. Don’t be afraid dear reader, pick up Harry’s glove! - JG