Put decency before malice and nastiness

I HAVE been particularly saddened – though I also have to admit not surprised – by the outpouring of vitriol in connection with Baroness Thatcher’s death and the demonstrated lack of decency that has accompanied it.

Whether people liked or disliked Margaret Thatcher, as a person or as a Prime Minister common decency – which is clearly far from common these days – dictates that if you haven’t got anything good to say about someone (especially someone who has died) then you keep your opinions to yourself.

All the nastiness and malice that we have seen and heard in the days leading up to her funeral had no effect whatsoever on Mrs Thatcher herself, so what was the point?

The right to freedom of speech is all very well, but with it must come the discernment and maturity to recognise the appropriateness of exercising that right and exactly how it should be exercised.

I suspect that we have allowed a sad and unrepresentative minority do great, even irreparable, damage to how we are perceived as a nation by those looking at us from the outside.

From: Raymond Shaw, Hullen Edge Road, Elland, West Yorkshire.

A GOOD number of your correspondents have voiced their opinion of the late Mrs Thatcher with an excellent, quite true contribution from Mr Malcolm Barker (Yorkshire Post, April 13).

Those who criticise her treatment of the miners forget that those very people were themselves divided. It was the sector led by Mr Arthur Scargill who made the largest contribution to their unfortunate demise.

As one who suffered from the dockers’ sector of the trade union movement, I can only praise her contribution to the reduction of their power.

With regard to poll tax, I would support such a tax, an example being: a family I know where two well pensioned adults, plus four in the family working with an income of around £100,000 per annum pay less than a third of my own contribution.

Is this fair? Not to mention that anyone finding difficulty paying rent or rates are eligible for a rebate from their local authorities.

From: John Parkin, Hellaby Business Centre, Bramley Way, Hellaby, Rotherham.

I WRITE, not to be involved 
in the death of the former 
Prime Minister, that has again brought back issues of 30 
years ago.

The country is still divided as Yorkshire was in the 1970s over the Geoff Boycott issue; you either loved or hated the guy and the views of those who still remember remain.

I write remembering the union-controlled Labour Party of the 1970s through which high earners paid top rate tax on earned income of 83 per cent in the pound, plus 15 per cent surcharge on investment income, ie 98 per cent in the pound, on rental and savings income.

Also legislation that forced distributions of profits from private limited companies to be taxed as income of the shareholders at the abortive tax rates.

Margaret Thatcher or any government had to change this policy to hopefully bring back to the UK all those that had left by their policies and encourage successful earners to stay. This she and her government did.

From: Malcolm Hanson, Gwendolen Court, Southolme Walk, Boroughbridge.

HAVING watched Lady Thatcher’s funeral and then the BBC news, I was amazed that the people protesting and blaming her for destroying the coal industry conveniently forget that it was the miners’ own leader, in the form of Arthur Scargill, who called the miners out on strike without any ballot,

From: Allan Davies, Heathfield Court, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire.

THE article by Alex Wild (Yorkshire Post, April 16) has reminded me that in a long 
list of letters, and in a very full 
and balanced exchange on Baroness Thatcher’s funeral, three has not been one from 
the Taxpayers’ Alliance complaining of the cost to the taxpayer.

Financial instruments

From: Michael Swaby, Hainton Avenue, Grimsby.

ALED Jones is spot on, in stressing the significance of the Bank of England’s money-printing operations in the 
 current situation (Yorkshire Post, April 15).

While the Bank is supposedly independent, its mandated two per cent inflation target, which is rarely achieved, was set with government agreement. Inflation is a stealthy, silent transfer of wealth, without any specific enabling legislation having been passed.

I have previously noted that, although the widespread problems are often referred to as a “debt crisis”, as there are two sides to every balance sheet, it is appropriate to ask just why so many assets held by big institutions are so persistently weak.

A recent example would be Cypriot banks, whose insolvency became a near-certainty, once they dcided to buy Greek government debt in large quantities.

Aled Jones has probably noticed that, with quantitative easing, the Bank of England now holds an astonishing 31 per cent of our own government debt.

What happens if and when, 
for whatever reason, interest 
rates rise?