SIR,

Quite often I notice that you publish letters from people who wish to remain anonymous.

Once again this week I see another letter where the writer has asked for their identity to be withheld.

The letter in question is a reply to an earlier letter from Stuart Willcock.

I notice that your anonymous correspondent opens  his or her letter with the words: "I must reply to Stuart Willcock's letter."

Imagine if Stuart Willcock had also wished to remain anonymous, then your secretive writer would have to say: " I must reply to your anonymous correspondent", and then sign their  letter, "Yours anonymously."

It makes a mockery of free speech and prompts me to wonder who is behind these views and question why they  haven't got the honesty to put their name to their letters.

This is not Russia, China, Burma or Iraq; this is Britain.

We are all entitled to our views because we live in a democracy (not a dictatorship), and we should be allowed to readily express them without fear of any reprisals.

Also, the letter your correspondent has written is not unreasonable, and I cannot see why they would not wish to put their name beneath it.

I believe that letters should always be signed by the writer and their name published by the newspaper, unless there is some exceptional reason for a name to be withheld.

For example, a person who has been attacked or sexually assaulted may wish to remain anonymous and, likewise, someone who may risk  death or personal injury because of their views clearly needs protection.

But on this occasion your correspondent is expressing a perfectly reasonable argument (whether you agree with it or not), and should not be allowed the luxury of criticising others when they themselves are not prepared to stand behind their own views.

If people are not prepared to identify themselves then I personally don't give a lot of weight to the things they are saying; as if you don't know the source you cannot always trust the content.

Jonathan Cockburn

(Hewelsfield, Gloucestershire)