Dear Editor,
Last month I submitted a piece in response to John Samuel’s November article. The online edition of en was able to capture my apology that I had misunderstood one aspect of John’s article: he did not himself supply the headline and framing which was part of what had attracted so much critique. I really should have checked with John earlier and I apologise publicly here as I have done privately to John. Though I still stand by my basic critique (see my corrected online version), I deeply regret this failure of basic courtesy and good journalistic practice and I am grateful for John’s good grace and kindness.
Yours sincerely,
Glen Scrivener Eastbourne
