This response was incorrect and condescending!

Hereford's Elgar statue stands in the Cathedral Close <i>(Image: Jon Simpson)</i>
Hereford's Elgar statue stands in the Cathedral Close (Image: Jon Simpson)

I FOUND it disingenuous that Garth Lawson aimed to protect Alfred Watkins’ Ley Lines theory by claiming I was being disingenuous (Letters, November 23) in my letter (Letters, November 9).

Here, he was both incorrect and condescending! My letter correctly sought to inform that Alfred Watkins’ theory of ley lines was, in itself, an example of both pseudo-architecture and pseudo-science. However, this theory had been put forward by David Parry as one reason why Watkins should have Elgar’s Hereford statue spot! (Letters, October 26).

What are your thoughts?

You can send a letter to the editor to have your say by clicking here.

Letters should not exceed 250 words and local issues take precedence.

In my draft letter of reply to Parry, I gave Wikipedia as a reference which is clear that Watkins’ ideas were pseudo but, also, were later taken up by other, even more questionable, movements. Clearly, I never sought to subsume these, later, ideas with Watkins’ thesis, as Lawson alludes. Unfortunately, the letters editor expertly reduced my over-long draft but my Wiki reference was also omitted.

I now wonder what former neighbours and friends Elgar and Watkins would have made of such current bickering?

Perhaps Elgar would have been glad he was, first and foremost, a Worcester man! Case closed!


Much Cowarne