Letters: April 21, 2016

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters. Please note, the Adver will not be printing letters on local political subjects until after the elections in May.

The Great Unwashed

I READ with a great deal of interest the letter from Sherry Waldon on April 13 with reference to Mr Cameron’s allowance of £9,830 for clothes to wear to work.

I, like thousands of others, have to wear a shirt, tie and suit to work.

We have to attend meetings, meet clients and instil confidence in them by looking smart.

We cannot go to work looking scruffy, we need to get new contracts keep the work coming in, so we can keep our workforce employed. If we don’t win new contracts we all lose.

This is where Mr Cameron and all the other MPs who are given a clothes allowance differ from me. I, like everyone else in my position in my occupation, have to provide all my own clothing for work - that’s any new suits, shirts, ties and even shoes.

I have to pay this out of my own pocket. Why is my work clothing any different to that of Mr Cameron and co?

I expect that the hundreds of MPs on all sides of the house who attend Westminster are all on £9,830 a year for clothes - that’s another tidy sum coming out of my negative tax code.

Exactly the same as me, Mr Cameron has a company car. Does his personal tax code reflect that? I don’t think so.

Again, it’s double standards. The rich get richer, the rest of us keep getting knocked back.

Oh one last thing, apparently I can claim £60 a year for dry cleaning and keeping my working clothes up together.

Once that’s converted to tax gobbledegook I get six whole points on my tax code, which may cover three shirts’ worth of value.

Maybe I should not have mentioned that as, knowing this lot, that’s another way of getting more tax out of the great unwashed.

JOHN L CROOK

Haydon Wick, Swindon

....

EU scaremongering

THOSE campaigning for the UK to remain inside the European Union tell us if we left, but still wanted access to the EU market, we would have to accept the free movement of labour.

This is just not true.

At present the EU has trade agreements with 140 countries of which only four - the EFTA countries - have a clause involving free movement.

Even of those four, Liechtenstein has a derogation and Switzerland has already torn up its free movement clause as it found it unworkable.

This leaves just two countries, Norway and Iceland, with a trade agreement with freedom of movement.

Hopefully as the campaign progresses we will see an end to this type of scaremongering.

After all, the electorate deserves to be given accurate information to help them make an informed decision on June 23.

WILLIAM DARTMOUTH

UKIP MEP South West

Whiteways, Exeter

....

EU and influence

I HAVE received a copy of the Government’s leaflet which informs me of the ‘staying in’ side of the EU referendum debate.

However, I have not received a leaflet from the Government giving the ‘leaving’ argument.

It is not a true statement that ‘the Government believes’ to stay is the best decision since many members of Parliament, who make up the Government, support leaving the EU.

Therefore, I look forward to the Government using an equal amount of taxpayers’ money to produce a leaflet to give me the alternative view.

Personally speaking, those in the Government who have taken this step have made me less likely to listen to their argument and I signed the online petition to protest at this biased and unfair use of taxpayers’ money.

It seems to me that the rules surrounding referenda need to be clarified and tightened up as this leaflet appears more like the partisan campaigning that we usually experience at elections.

In fact, much of both sides’ views is relevant as it is conjecture since noone knows what would happen if Britain stays in or leaves the EU.

I am old enough to remember that there was life before the EU and, while both options, in or out, have their advantages and disadvantages, I believe the spirit of a referendum should be for the Government as a whole to take a responsible attitude and not try to influence the public to one side of the argument.

SUSAN WHITE

Swindon

....

‘Leave’ leaflet funding

THERE have been a lot of complaints recently from Vote Leave campaigners about the Government using taxpayers’ money to fund a leaflet on the EU referendum.

This seems a tad hypocritical to me when the Vote Leave campaign is funded by the likes of the Monaco-based tax avoider Peter Cruddas, the Labour donor who avoided £1.5m in taxes, John Mills and the international professional gambler and UKIP donor Stuart Wheeler.

You could almost say that the Vote Leave campaign itself was entirely funded by the taxpayer!

ALEX HEGENBARTH

Head of Britain Stronger In Europe campaign Swindon

Use your heads

IT WAS good to read so many letters from the heart in the Swindon Advertiser on Thursday 14/04.

I did like J Adams talking about the super rich and tax avoidance.

We must remember, ‘tax avoidance’ is not illegal - but, we could ask, who makes the law, the poor or the rich?

I am a little lost reading Axmed’s letter, yes I would agree, most people want to make things better for the next generation.

I would think this applies in every country; sadly in every country there are those who only think of themselves, hence tax avoidance by the super rich.

The letter which I found most difficult was from AG Lansdown.

Again we read a ‘vote to leave the EU’ written purely from the heart, not one word of why, or what they expect to happen outside the EU.

What would happen if England and Wales leave while Scotland remains, can we see Border controls at Berwick?

There are so many questions that the Outers will not, or cannot, answer.

I am over 70 and, in my experience, it is easier to change a ‘club’ as a member than trying to renegotiate a relationship from outside.

Apart from the obvious advantages of being a member of a large organisation I have one question for those who want to leave, and it’s this: Why has Boris Johnson bought two water cannons for London?

They cannot be used to water the grass outside Parliament, they are designed for riot control. What is he planning and where is he expecting to use them?

And, I would add, the Home Secretary has told Boris he cannot use them in the UK.

My comment to Outers is use your head, think before you blink to find Boris as PM and all your hard-won social safeguards (Red Tape to Boris) have gone like the big yellow taxi.

MIKE SPRY

Mayfield Close, Nythe, Swindon

....

Lack of principle

AS THE Government’s propaganda machine goes into overdrive and sworn enemies unite to ‘sell the EU and sell out the UK’ it surely should come as no surprise that Mr Cameron and his pro-EU civil servants have quietly slipped out a report in which the degree to which our national sovereignty is laid bare.

To avoid any misunderstanding the EU document makes it clear that ‘directives set out a legal framework that the member states have to follow’ and that once agreed (a majority will suffice) all member states have an obligation to make national laws that give it effect.’

Many will recall how Ted Heath claimed there would be ‘no erosion of our sovereignty’ and this was repeated by Harold Wilson.

How sad but predictable that David Cameron, a man with a pocketful of principles made to

suit every occasion, should make such an absurd claim to have negotiated a good deal for the UK when in fact he has displayed naivety and an inability to secure any meaningful changes to the EU juggernaut.

As for Jeremy Corbyn, his about turn from being a lifelong euro-sceptic to its main cheerleader is embarrassing to witness.

I am prepared to believe he is a devotee of Marx – Grouch not Karl – who said “These are my principles and if you don’t like them I have some more.”

The lack of principle in our politicians is one reason why they are simply not trusted by an ever-more disgruntled electorate.

One only wonders why they are so surprised.

DES MORGAN

Caraway Drive, Swindon

....

School run angst

I USE the road through Lydiard Millicent on weekday afternoons at the time parents are picking their children up from school.

Parents berate other motorists about anything that might pose a threat to their offspring and yet these parents park their cars on a blind bend contrary to Highway Code Rules 242 and 243.

This practice poses a danger and inconvenience to other users of the highway who are attempting to go about their legitimate business.

Contravening Rule 242 is, I believe a traffic offence under RTA 1988 Section 22.

Evidently the Highway Code was written with everyone else in mind except parents picking children up from school.

Just have a look at the grass verges and you will see the damage that is being done, which I have no doubt the good folk of Lydiard Millicent will have to pay for eventually.

KEVAN WILDY

Laburnum Drive

Royal Wootton Bassett

....

What equal rights?

RE MARY Ratcliffe’s gushing outburst re one Mrs Windsor. Adver. 15/4/16

Could she explain what she means by ‘your sacrifice prevail’ and she has ‘embraced equal rights for all’? What sacrifice? And what ‘equal rights for all?’

This is a woman who used to impersonate Queen Victoria. It seems some of it has rubbed off on her and she believes she’s somehow related to the present monarch.

JEFF ADAMS

Bloomsbury, Swindon