Igniting debate on Luddites

Crossley Hill


I was very sad to read Dr John Hargreaves’s long letter (“Luddite link doubt”, Courier, February 1) pointing out what he states are inaccuracies in David Glover’s report on the Luddites (“Mill protesters hanged at York”, Nostalgia, January 18).

Was it really necessary for him to write a whole article. Surely it would have been more courteous to contact Mr Glover directly and give him the opportunity, if necessary, to submit corrections.

For a long time now Mr Glover has been giving readers great pleasure with his contribuitions. Long may they continue.

(Mrs) D Freeborn

Siddal Lane



I read with interest Dr John Hargreaves’s response (“Luddite link doubt”, Courier, February 1) to David Glover’s article on the Luddites.

While there were some errors in the original article, it was both interesting and educational and I am pleased that a public debate about the Luddite’s has been ignited.

I look forward to reading articles written by Mr Glover as they raise awareness of local history and I am sure make people understand our marvellous area in a different way.

Stuart Wilkinson

Baker Fold


Respectfully I write with regard to Dr John Hargreaves’s letter (“Luddite link doubt”, February 1). He comments that “another factual error is the date of April 18 given for the pivotal. . .”

I did not give a date for the attack on Rawfolds Mill in the article I sent to Nostalgia so this is an interpolation and I should like to know why this amendment was allowed.

I am quite capable of making my own mistakes, as are we all. But to be taken to task for something I did not write seems rather harsh.

David Glover

nDavid Glover’s article referred only briefly to the Luddite attack on Rawfolds Mill and the date, as well as the location, near Cleckheaton, were added for clarification. Regrettably the date April 18 was given instead of April 11. – Editor.