Letter: Squalid public
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Polly Toynbee (1 January) has revived the debate about private affluence and public squalor, citing London Underground as an example. Increased government expenditure, we were told, would make travel more pleasant. If only life were that simple.
The network recently introduced some attractive new trains, and of course we could do with more. But greater public expenditure does not compel drivers to turn up for work. Nor does it prevent passengers from scattering the new upholstery and floors with litter, spraying the exteriors with graffiti, causing noise pollution with mobile phones, and travelling in clothes scruffy enough for a Communist republic.
Public squalor is as much a matter of private choices as of public expenditure.
ROLAND PEARSON
Pinner, Middlesex
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments