I read about a man caught putting a brick through a newspaper office window. A swanky broadsheet newspaper, like The Herald. Do you know what The Herald will set you back? £1.30.
Good for him. I reckon the mindless, pointless vandalism was OK because he didn’t much like Catriona Stewart’s column on Friday. All self-evident nonsense; except Ms Stewart’s column, which was only partly nonsense. Her central point – inspired by the case of a man accused of vandalising an expensive car, apparently just because it was an expensive car – was that rich people spending money on pointlessly expensive items was immoral. That’s a defensible, possibly a popular, position. I’ll come to why I don’t share it in a moment, but I understand it. The vulgar rich, and their ostentatious purchases, often are horrible. Ms Stewart didn’t want to generalise, but generalised: “You can’t spend more than a house worth on a car and claim the moral high ground.”
Sounds reasonable, but she then praises the Fiat 500, and in July you could have bought two houses (count ’em) in Tonypandy, south Wales, for less than one of those costs. So it depends on the price of the house, and car. Which means it’s not a moral absolute, surely? A moral absolute is that attacking someone else’s property out of disapproval, envy, or even high-minded Corbynite class spite, is wrong. All right-thinking people agree that only a fool with more money than sense would buy a solid gold Apple watch with an Hermes strap, for example. But that doesn’t give us the right to smash theirs up with a hammer. Besides, lots of people apart from the rich spend in ways that seem bizarre. What if you live like a pauper to buy haute couture, or first editions, or Star Wars memorabilia, or expensive wine? I think those daft priorities, but that doesn’t create a moral right to tell people, even horrible rich people, what they can spend their money on. In a free society, anyone has the right to regard other people’s priorities as selfish, obscene or foolish. They haven’t the right to appropriate or attack their possessions, and shouldn’t draw a conclusion about the moral priorities of their owners.

By all means take the view that owners of expensive cars, as a class, are repulsive. It’s a demonstratively stupid stance – like thinking all Nationalists are racist, all Tories callous, all Liberal Democrats unprincipled, or all Labour supporters economically illiterate – but it’s your right to hold it, and to express
it. That’s as far as your rights go, though. It’s also the right of people to spend their money on what they want. As it happens, sometimes even apparently pointless ostentatious expenditure has its place: without expensive cars, there would be less research on modest cars and, without couture, no high street. But even if it didn’t have a place, even if it offends you, it doesn’t legitimise theft or vandalism. Feel free to be offended, no matter how daft your taking offence may be, as long as you also remember there’s no right not to be offended.

CATRIONA Stewart tells of how she had read of a man, Gary Brissett, awaiting his sentencing date next week for vandalism, namely, criminal damage (“keying”) to an Aston Martin motor vehicle causing £7,741 worth of damage (“Joys of pootling along in the car”, The Herald, September 11). However, rather than asking why this man felt it appropriate to damage another’s property, Ms Stewart uses her column to metaphorically slap Mr Bissett on the back for damaging the other person’s vehicle and implore us to feel pity for him and his son as he faces the possibility of a custodial sentence for his actions. Ms Stewart tells us the owner of this vehicle deserved such treatment because he (or she) must be part of the bourgeois establishment to own such a vehicle. Such statements are ill informed, ill researched, incorrect and verging on incitement. Regardless of morality or who’s richer than whom, the £7,741 worth of damage will not be paid by the owner of the Aston Martin, but his insurance company who will, in turn, pass this on to you and me with increased premiums so this hurts us all. The last time I looked, encouraging people to break the law was held in very low regard by our lawmakers but that is what, effectively, Ms Stewart has done. The owners deserve it because of their wealth. Does this mean it is OK to throw a brick through the window of a house that is out of one’s price bracket or pour paint over someone’s Armani suit or Dior dress? Of course it does not. Publishing such an article is not appropriate for a “quality” newspaper and Ms Stewart as a senior reporter should know far better. She has an ill-understood outlook on morality.
John Stevens

CATRIONA Stewart thinks a man who vandalised a car deserves a medal, simply because the car was an expensive one. The morality of this is doubtful, to say the least. Either vandalism is wrong or it isn’t but Ms Stewart should remember that wealth is a relative concept. If she owns a car (and the article suggests she does) that makes her by definition wealthier than someone who cannot afford a car. If a non-car owner were to vandalise Ms Stewart’s vehicle, this person would therefore also be entitled to a medal, by her argument. I rather suspect, though, that she would not agree with this even though it is consistent with her own position. A crime is a crime,whether the victim is wealthy or not.
Alan Jenkins,
111 Helensburgh Drive, Glasgow.

CATRIONA Stewart supports blatant, premeditated vandalism on a car. The fact it was a “swanky high performance car” (which is irrelevant) was her justification, even support, for the vandalism. I wonder how she would feel if someone vandalised something she had worked hard for and was her pride a joy because that person did not like people who had something they thought swanky.
Douglas Jardine,
20 Buchlyvie Gardens,
Bishopbriggs.