I see Roger Horsfield is attracting some criticism in the Review these days. This is a shame, as from what I know of the gentleman, he has done a lot of good for the Forest, certainly a lot more than some of the individuals currently ganging up on him.

His efforts to ward off the many threats to the green Forest and its wildlife from inappropriate housing development, quarrying and other ominous proposals over the last few years, together with his support for the long-promised but always-denied "special protection" for the Dean, would, anywhere else but the Forest, surely have earned him widespread public approval.

Something James Smith (who he?) and those whose championing of the infamous Ward Report would have seen the green fields of Severnside buried under 16 new "eco"-towns – the same "eco"-towns many communities elsewhere in the UK are now up in arms against – should perhaps remember.

But here in the Forest, well..! Perhaps it's a measure of how mean-spirited, sniggery and soulless some "Foresters" are becoming these days that Mr Horsfield seems to be collecting brickbats rather than laurels. 

Mr Horsfield is well able to take care of himself, and doesn't need me to stick up for him. But I'll suggest that while the carping has focused on the length of his letters, perhaps it's actually their content that riles some parties?

It would be unwise to suppose that all Foresters care about their area's natural beauty that much, and some may have "vested interests" – profit-driven or political – that would perhaps benefit by Mr Horsfield being embarrassed into silence. It would be a pity if mere commercial concerns or the rise of the political right ever became so over-mighty that open debate on important matters were to be stifled as a result.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the length or substance of Mr Horsfield's letters (I could hardly do so, being an occasional fellow-traveller in that direction myself!). Are we really so dumbed-down and reduced to the attention-span of a gnat that we cannot follow a good argument, well laid out and cogently expressed?

If length were such a problem, surely we'd be skipping over many of the feature pages of the Review also? It doesn't hurt to have a longer contribution from time to time – some readers may well appreciate it even if others don't.

I often don't bother reading many of the letters in the paper myself, if they're yet more additions to the dreary cavalcade of the Tesco tarts/let's-slaughter-the-boar scaremongering/political activists working for the rise of the Fifth Reich/councillors playing the "Remember me, I'm still here, be sure to vote for me" schtick var­iety. Length doesn't come into it, a boring letter is a boring letter.

And I never bother with the sports or motoring columns. Does that mean we should omit them from the paper? Freedom of speech and respect for others' individual tastes and preferences would surely be constrained if we did.

We should give Mr Horsfield a little more respect, I feel. The Forest used to be renowned as a haven for rugged independent-mindedness and nonconformism, and if Mr Horsfield may not be a Forester by birth, he's sure as hell earned his spurs by embodying these very same characteristics and by fighting for its beauty and integrity.  Just as well, because we seem to be rapidly losing all these qualities these days, in preference for sucking-up to corporate big business and "regeneration" at all costs. Not a good prospect, I think.

Finally, I note that one of the aforementioned letter-length moanin' minnies rejoices in the convenient nom-de-plume "Adsum". Signifying, if my schoolboy Latin serves me right, "I am here" or "I am present" – though not so "here" or "present" as to do his sniping out in the open under an honest name, it seems. Well, to demonstrate my own willingness to keep the language of Cicero and Pliny alive, I'll proffer my own advice to Roger Horsfield: Illegitimi non carborundum, Roger. Keep up the good work, and keep those letters coming. If some people don't like what you're saying – bugger 'em. – Andrew Stephens.