Why we must all avoid sweeping generalisations about different sections of society - Yorkshire Post Letters

It’s a rare day indeed when I find myself in even partial agreement with Sarah Todd, and I certainly take issue with her suggestion (The YP, September 13) that “Labour seems to be made up of either the metropolitan vegan elite or those who have had it hard who simply sneer at anybody who is lucky enough to have been dealt a bit of a better hand in life” - a little research should set her straight on that score.

But I do agree that making sweeping assumptions about farmers as "hunting, shooting, Range Rover-driving toffs” is unfair and wrong. Perhaps Ms Todd would, in similar vein, care to reconsider the sweeping (and frankly unpleasant) assumptions she made in her column the previous week, in which she took a swipe at those on a low income.

Referring to a report claiming that 60 per cent of pupils in receipt of free school meals do not enjoy reading in their spare time, Ms Todd states this is a disgrace when "parents (and grandparents) seem to be able to find money for tattoos, scratch cards, piercings, smoking, vaping, mobile phones and television streaming packages” instead of buying children’s books.

It serves no-one to make these wildly judgemental comments, whether about farmers or the less well-off. It’s sad that, as a nation, kindness and understanding seem to be in short supply, with people too quick to condemn, en bloc, specific sections of society, and particularly sad when such unsubstantiated harshness is printed in a Yorkshire newspaper (and, to be fair, Ms Todd is not the only culprit here).

A little thought before dismissively condemning others in this way would be nice. To paraphrase Socrates, “is it true, is it kind, is it necessary?"