PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to info@conservativewoman.co.uk and mark them ‘for possible publication’. We need your name and if possible, a county address, eg Yorkshire or London. We will include biographical details if you volunteer them. Letters may be shortened.
***
Letters to the Editor is taking a summer break and will return on Sunday September 3. In the meantime, have your say on our daily Readers’ Forum.
***
The King’s pay rise
Dear Editor
When debates occur on pay rises for NHS consultants, nurses, teachers and all those on low incomes, keep in mind the reported 45 per cent pay rise for King Charles. The Guardian says his £86million annual sovereign grant is to be increased to £125million.
In addition to his personal income from the Crown Estate, which includes offshore wind turbines and salt and mineral recovery from coastal waters, he receives this stipend from us, the long-suffering taxpayers.
Malcolm Naylor
Ilkley
***
Creating money from thin air
Dear Editor
Recent news of people being unbanked reminds me of the Irish bank strikes of the 1960s and 1970s, the longest of which was for six months in 1970. People overcame the lack of real money and banking facilities by issuing cheques to each other in payment for essential daily goods and services, and then endorsing these in favour of other people and businesses.
Eventually there were thousands of cheques in circulation, each with dozens of signatures on the back. They would be put together to add up to whatever sum was needed for a purchase, and any change would be given the same way. The people had created a private currency that replaced bank money.
The backing for this of course was the knowledge that each cheque would be honoured by a bank when eventually presented for payment. But in fact there was no need for that, and the process could have been continued. The cheques had become a currency, and indeed people could have issued cheques in excess of their deposit at their own particular bank. They would then have been doing for themselves what the banks now actually do as a business – creating and lending money from thin air.
This was an example of how an internal currency could be created with the backing of central guarantor, and I believe such a system is often considered for countries seeking independence.
But back to the 1970s, and to stop this happening again, all the banks – not just the Irish – disallowed the process of endorsing a cheque to another party, and started the ‘A/C Payee Only’ rule for cheques, wary as ever of any scheme that could exclude them from making money!
Malcolm Parkin
***
Raising the age of criminal responsibility is contemptuous
Dear Editor
The proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland from 12 to 18 screams contempt.
Contempt for victims of crime, such as Alesha MacPhail who was only six years old when she was raped and murdered by a 16-year-old.
Contempt for the families and friends of victims of crime.
Contempt for democracy and the views of the general public, who want murders, rapists and other serious criminals to be severely punished.
Contempt for the safety of innocent people. Without any criminal sanctions, there will be nothing to deter young people becoming gang members and professional criminals before they reach 18. Brazil, where the age of criminal responsibility is 18 already and the police enter favelas in armoured vehicles accompanied by armed marines, is not a country we should copy.
Contempt for Western values which start with the fundamental Judeo-Christian idea that people are moral agents who are capable of choosing between right and wrong.
Otto Inglis
Fife
***
If it’s consensus, it’s not science; if it’s science it’s not consensus
Dear Editor
Climate alarmists find it inexplicable that the contradictory views of climate realists continue to question what they persistently believe to be the undeniable levels of scientific fact and information relating to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). They are clearly the unquestioning disciples of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that supports the ‘97 per cent scientific consensus’ claim that human activities are the prime drivers of our changing climate. It is unfortunate that these people refuse to deviate from their views in spite of robust contradictory evidence. Predictably, they would mistakenly assert that the World Climate Declaration from CLINTEL (Climate Intelligence) which states that there is no climate emergency, has vested interests which render its 1,577 signatories worthless. These are in fact respected scientists who to their annoyance and dismay have found themselves included in the 97 per cent figure. A recent report has revealed that the study behind this claim employed deeply flawed methodology and that the true figure supporting AGW fails to reach double digits.
Alarmists would do well to step back from the media hype and engage in rational debate about the facts behind the headlines. It is worth reflecting on just a handful of the dozens of failed consensuses/predictions through the decades since the 1970s. The North Pole would be not only ice-free by 2013 but polar bears would all but disappear. The penguin populations in the Antarctic would be decimated. By 2000 sea level rises would inundate coastal cities and Pacific islands, resulting in millions of climate refugees. A new Ice Age would be upon us by 2000. Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one, and the IPCC is essentially a politically driven organiaation. The words of the 11th century Iraqui mathamatician and astronomer Ibn al-Haytham echo through the ages with a profundity that is as true today as it was a thousand years ago. He said: ‘The seeker after truth does not place his faith in mere consensus, however venerable or widespread. Instead he subjects what he has learned of it to enquiry, inspection and investigation The road to truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must take.’ Or as the late distinguished novelist Michael Crichton wisely concluded: ‘If it’s consensus, it’s not science; if it’s science it’s not consensus.’
Neil J Bryce
Kelso
***
Give it a rest!
Dear Editor
The BBC seems to think we are all excited about the Women’s World Cup.
We aren’t. Who will tell them?
Michael Macmillan
***
Nuclear war is the threat we should be worried about
Dear Editor
One must wonder at the mentality of politicians and climate alarmists. The Russians destroyed the Kakhovka dam in Ukraine. Now there are worries that the Russians could blow up the Ukrainian Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which is under Russian occupation, and release radioactivity. North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile, its most powerful nuclear weapon, after threatening ‘shocking’ consequences to protest over what it called provocative US reconnaissance near its territory. Kim Jong Un vowed to further bolster his country’s nuclear fighting abilities. China sent navy ships and a large group of warplanes, including fighter jets and bombers, towards Taiwan. China has fired missiles over the island. All these are immediate and real threats to mankind yet the green apostles with their climate change fixation still go on about global warming which may or may not happen by 2050 or even 2100. Eco-warriors should link up with the anti-nuclear protesters and all go and demonstrate in China, Russia and North Korea. If they succeed, they will be treated as heroes. If they fail, at least our roads, motorways, museums and sports and music venues will be demonstration and paint free.
Clark Cross
Linlithgow
***
The perfect enemy
Dear Editor
As is amply illustrated by the gargantuan scam that is Net Zero, the perfect is the enemy not only of the good, but of the possible.
Anthony Stimson
USA
