Rik Dalton's Esperanto documents

I cannot believe that the untruths in your (?) unpleasant and insulting response to my letter to Update are deliberate, so I can only assume that whoever dictated that response in your name was unable to understand my letter which you dare not let readers see. Perhaps it will help if I write this time in english.

Let us start by denying that I called the administrantoj "privilegiuloj". Why have you made this up? I nowhere nenie neniam kaj neniel referred to them at all. I referred to certain mysterious persons whom YOU called "iuj" and to a reaction which "venis" without mention of a sender which YOU called "neoficiala" and was presumably therefore not from any official source. I think I (and your other readers) have the right to know from whom these two different responses came if only in order to evaluate them.

My query about events of 1904 was merely because I cannot understand why you should consider events of 1999 to be prehistoric but not those of 1904. Items in Update have raised unanswered questions which impinge on the unfortunate state of Esperanto in Britain today. The fact that certain vital matter were kept from members in1999 raises the question of whether this non-constitutional secrecy still continues. As Winston Churchill pointed out "The use of recrimination about the past is to enforce effective action at the present".

Members were informed of the intention to scuttle from London into obscurity but not of Dermod Quirke's offer which has only just been revealed and which would certainly have altered some members' views. This offer contradicts your assertion that "ne ekzistis alia alternativo" After all the desire on the part of some members to leave London was such that the original intention was to get rid of the Holland Park premises for about half the sum (according to you "savilo") which they eventually realised.

You say of the ending of the parliamentary activity that you did not take part but that you do not believe that I have correctly described the situation. Where does your belief come from? In fact I have not given the reason for the ending of this important activity. I have merely asked for the reason; a pertinent query in the light both of the contradictory excuses given and of your suggestion of a proposed resumption.

As you would appear to be a relative newcomer and presume to say "Ne kritiku , faru pli bone", I think it proper to mention some of my own activity.

For well over 60 years I have been active in the movement and have given assistance whenever BEA/EAB has requested it. I have lectured, debated, written articles, letters to many organisations and publication (I was active in the press panel) and even written and published a book. I have broadcast on radio and television. I have served on many committees and in various offices. All of this has been done at my own expense. Even when I persuaded a local authority to inaugurate Esperanto classes and taught when nobody else was available, I donated my salary to the Esperanto movement. I was the first to inaugurate activity in the parliamentary field when I persuaded the Yorkshire Federation to allow me (at my own expense) to send a questionnaire on the teaching of Esperanto to all parliamentary prospective candidates in the county and I obtained press publicity by interviewing the Education Minister.

I particular, I was appointed honorary solicitor to EAB. In connection with this office it is important to note that I was consulted in connection with EAB's responsibility when the parliamentary lobby started, I was never consulted when it was closed down; a strange omission when one of the suggested excuses was an unfounded fear of a libel action.

Over many years I have carried out a study on the organisation of voluntary bodies and have proposed a plan to EAB which, in spite of a promise to consider it, was discarded without discussion.

At some stage, I became one of what the late Will Green called one of the "invisible men"; members who were for some reason ignored by the official movement.

My services (which were, of course, available without payment) were not called for when the London premises were sold, although I was the head of a practice dealing with much larger and more complex commercial conveyancing transactions and was, in addition, the solicitor to a substantial charitable property-owning organisation. I was indeed asked to help when difficulties arose with the Barlaston lease but (for the first time) I refused. My refusal was because the matter was in the hands of another solicitor and , in any case, I was being asked to comment on documents and correspondence which I had not seen.

When you say "Ne kritiku, faru pli bone", I am therefore disposed to respond "Ne prediku knabo al via avo" .

I regret to say that your reponse leaves me no alternative but to ask you to convey to the administrantoj my resignation from EAB.

Sincere via