The following has been submitted to the letters editor of the Telegraph:

Dear Sirs,

With reference to the recent article by John Springford, which contained many untruths; and in which the Daily Telegraph failed to point out that the author’s employer, the Centre for European Reform, was routinely receiving operating grants from the EU; I have to question the impartiality of your newspaper where ‘unbiased news’ is concerned.

That such ‘untruths’ are becoming particularly more common every day, by those that would have this nation remain a member of the European Union, is regrettable; especially as he who would have us believe he has our best interests at heart, lays himself open to the charge of having misled those for whom he professes to speak.

When residing in David Cameron’s constituency (prior to my moving to Co. Durham in February this year) I met him on 16th August 2014 and handed him a dossier in which I suggested that he had been economical with the actualité over a number of facts, among which were that Norway is ‘governed by fax’ and requesting the name of the treaty he vetoed together with the date(s) and venues the required convention and IGC for that treaty were held.

In his response dated 6th November 2014 (with apologies for the delay) he totally ignored each and every one of the questions raised, likewise the allegations levied against him of having misled the British people. He stated that he was unable to agree with a number of the points I raised, to which I immediately asked with which did he agree and which did he dispute; questions to which no reply was received.

On 19th December 2014 he replied that as he and I would never agree on ‘Europe’ and that as I remain unhappy with the content of his replies, he now felt it time to draw our correspondence to a close.

When the situation arises wherein an elected representative of a constituent fails, and/or refuses, to converse with him – and refuses to answer charges laid against him – one has to ask a basic question: why later should we listen to him, or believe him, when he professes he will safeguard our interests.

Wherefore democracy – such as it presently is?

Yours faithfully,

David Phipps

(address & telephone number supplied)

There is little hope it will be published, which is why it has also been sent to other media outlets.