Yes I understand your position Jamie but I don't agree with it, despite the Royalist analogy. I know attacking individual authors here does not meet with protocol but I think at times it is almost impossible not to (note I say 'almost'). But on the whole I think the supposed delicacy of some literary folk is a cover for hypocrisy (not you - don't mean you) when behind the scenes their manipulation and power brokering is brutal. And before you ask, no, I have no direct evidence of this - just my instinct. There are usually multiple reasons why person A does not publicly give a negative opinion about the work of person B, and one of those reasons can be self-interest. I don't blame people for this, after all it's a pretty normal human thing to do, but I do get annoyed at the double standards.

On 6 Oct 2015, at 13:35, Jamie McKendrick wrote:

Tim, I was taking up with David the issues I have with David, but they were included in a post to you so you would understand why I used the word 'unpleasant' - which you had supposed was directed specifically at you.

It seems to me natural that poets might have an ambivalent attitude towards prizes. There may be many reasons for this ambivalence. On the one hand they can be seen continually to reward work you don't value, on the other hand this goes along with a recognition that, for good or ill, they are a way in which poetry enters the wider culture.
   Another reason which makes me find them dubious is that over the last years I've noticed the huge attention given to prizes in the press goes along with an increased indifference and neglect of any poetry that doesn't get included. I may be wrong about this, but it's what I've observed.
  Even an almost entirely negative one like your own is quite justifiable - what I take to be your anger about them stems no doubt from the fact that the work you admire is almost never included. Still, my point is that if you start attacking individual poems or authors the argument is not furthered in any way. 
  A weird analogy springs to mind. The anti-royalist argument isn't helped by a personal attack on the queen, the argument should be against the institution itself and all that it implies about the state we live in. Does this make my position more clear?
Jamie