[Nightedge]

Situation:

Oxford University Chancellor Chris Patten says that some rich people in the city have got foreign passports and become thoughtless about those who have deprived of their rights. Those slated by the chancellor have sent a letter to the prime minister to defend themseleves and criticize Mr Patten; part of the letter says:

-The attack on them and the reference to having foreign passports in their back pockets were both inappropriate and divisive.

Is it correct to use the simple past? My friend says the remark by Mr Patten is inappropriate now, then were is wrong and only are is correct. But in English very often we hear

-Tom was right. (=Tom was right when he said...)

Using the simple past just tells us that the remark was made in the past, not whether the remark is true or not. What do native speakers think?

[susan53]

It's fine - both are possible. When you are reporting a remark made in the past, you have the choice of leaving the verb in it's original form or "backshifting" it. So eg

The weather forecast said it's going to be hot tomorrow.
The weather forecast said it was going to be hot tomorrow.

are both possible

Here are a few taken from a concordancer :

a) without backshift

Of these, 376 SAID they make no extra charge for strapping in standard units...
Louis H. Grenier, clerk of the board, SAID that the appeals will be reviewed in December


b) with backshift

House Republican Leader Charles Halleck [Ind.] SAID the message did not persuade them to change their opposition
...and SAID that she felt that they understood one another perfectly
...and SAID he would arrange the things Rector requested.
The old man came from the front of the plane and SAID he wanted four volunteers to go to Cuba
The board SAID it thought it had gone as far as instructed so far

Have a look at the link. You'll find a lot more examples with backshift than without, so that's proabably the most common form.

All these examples use a reporting verb (said) but it's exacrtly the same in your example where the report is implicit - or maybe has been given previously? If you'd given the full context it would have been easier to see.

[Nightedge]

Thank you for the detailed answer. But, without the context, do you think

--The attack on them and the reference to having foreign passports in their back pockets were both inappropriate and divisive.

, the verb in the past tense, could still convey the meaning that the attack etc. are still inappropriate and divisive now.

[susan53]

Yes - as I said above, the meaning doesn't change. it's just a choice of grammatical form.

[Nightedge]

Thank you.