WHAT incredible feudal arrogance Edmund Thornhill displayed in saying my tenants in your front page article (November 1). The people of Diddington are neighbours, villagers or even friends. But they should never be described at large as my tenants . Th
WHAT incredible feudal arrogance Edmund Thornhill displayed in saying 'my tenants' in your front page article (November 1).
The people of Diddington are neighbours, villagers or even friends. But they should never be described at large as 'my tenants'. There is no possession in tenants.
Tenants is a legal term describing those who hold rights to property and, as such, it should be used only to describe tenants within the bounds of a legal agreement. To do so outside that context is a clear breach of gentlemanly manners.
Personally, I'd rather be run into on the A1 junction than receive this piece of patronising largesse. Perhaps an apology might persuade me not to brake so hard.
Editor's note: This newspaper's normal policy is not to print anonymous letters unless there are compelling reasons, such as a genuine fear of serious reprisal. We make an exception in this case because the author raises an interesting question. Mr Thornhill owns property and lets it out in much the same way as social landlord Luminus lets property to tenants of former council homes. Mr Thornhill implied that one of his objectives in offering money for highway improvements was to help the people who pay rent to him - all of whom he knows personally, because he lives among them. Can readers suggest a better way to describe them than 'tenants' (which is what, in law, they are, as our reader rightly says)?