It was terribly disappointing to read The Times editorial of August 11 on this subject. Its ambivalence, in conjunction with a smoke-screen of pious caveats, is truly shocking, as it completely ignores the fact that what is really proposed is to turn the precincts of St John into yet another building site.

Should not the position of The Times be that our most important and sacred monument must be totally out of reach of the businessmen, architects and building contractors who have done their worst, over the last 30 years or so, to destroy our once beautiful country? Can anyone in his or her right mind, and with any sense of history and culture, really think that St John's can be improved upon?

The most galling aspect of the editorial is the sanctimonious recommendation that an Environmental Impact Assessment would somehow make a difference.

It is entirely beside the point and a complete red herring. Would such an EIA really take into consideration the sanctity of a holy place, the ancient architecture and archaeology, and the integrity of a monument which as the leader writer said, survived even the depredations of Napoleon.

I smell a rat! Who has drawn up these plans? Are we allowed to know the names of the architects and civil engineers, the planners and the schemers?

Or is this an inside job, not for public debate? Why have we not heard from the proposers of the scheme? Who is behind this mysterious Foundation?

The final insult, which The Times sadly failed to condemn, is the proposed "canteen" on the roof, which a recent correspondent considered "a blasphemy". It is indeed just that. Is St John's about to go into competition with the surrounding cafés? If the "Foundation" is so business-minded, has it not considered the possibility of including a bureau de change somewhere in the new structures? A word of warning to them: recall the money-lenders at the Temple in Jerusalem and what happened to them. The galleys and the gallows may not be good enough!

The above was written yesterday.

This morning (August 13) we are assailed on page three of this respected organ by an image of some sort of concrete bunker reminiscent of a nuclear plant in the Persian desert. And on page 60 a "virtual reality image" of the tapestries as they would look in the lower regions of a bunker, incidentally far too low on the ground.

Shades of the Third Reich! Who is responsible for this fascist nostalgia? The last word in " mala fede" is that the cathedral looks like a "market place". Grand Master La Vallette must be turning in his grave.