Our readers from across the county give their weekly take on the biggest issues impacting Kent and beyond.

Some letters refer to past correspondence which can be found by clicking here. Join the debate by emailing letters@thekmgroup.co.uk

Scrapping NI would be backward step

I am concerned at the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimating the end of National Insurance.

The full significance of this has escaped the understanding of our politicians.

National Insurance is what it states, a form of insurance to meet the needs of the members of the nation.

It is not a tax. It is part of the welfare state. A means of giving people a stake in that provision.

It is through one’s ‘stamp’ that one is entitled to pensions, sick pay and other benefits. It is because many women either stayed at home to bring up children (for which the law said they should be credited, but which law has been ignored) or paid a reduced stamp, that the pensions of these women is at such a low rate.

National Insurance is largely symbolic as the money for the benefits associated with it largely comes from taxation but symbols are an important aspect of life.

Removing NI indicates that the government views the provision of these things as charity, that people have no inherent right to education, health, security in old age.

The view of our rulers is that such things should only be available to the rich who can afford them and to others only so far as the economy requires.

The generation that fought in the war was determined that conditions should not return to prewar standards, hence the major changes, including the welfare state, brought in in 1945.

We are witnessing the final end of those changes and a return to the appalling pre-war situation.

Ralph A. Tebbutt

We must look past our divisions

I found myself agreeing with the main contention in Chris Britcher’s article titled ‘Honour our war heroes by finding a better future’.

In it he argued that it is time for Britain to move away from commemorating past wars and concentrate on those things in which we can be proud and thereby healing the division in our society and suggested that, for example, we hold days to celebrate our diversity.

It is certainly true that we have many divisions: Remain versus Leave; left versus right; rich versus poor; North versus South; town versus countryside; woke versus anti-woke.

However, in 2020 the research group ‘More in Common’ interviewed 10,000 of us and the findings revealed that we share more of what keeps us together than tears us apart.

In addition to our pride in Britain becoming a more tolerant, equal and diverse nation, the majority of us believe that our communities became more caring, connected and kinder during the pandemic. We look out for each other more and we feel it’s not just everyone for themselves and feel we are part of caring communities; we continue to be proud of our NHS; we value our countryside and also our volunteer traditions; we are proud of our advances in gender equality.

We also share a deep concern over the need to close the gap between the haves and have-nots, demonstrated by the way people responded to Marcus Rashford’s campaign to help children in poverty. We also have a surprising amount of common ground as to how to go about change, starting with bringing back the British values of common sense and compromise into politics and society.

We don’t need to look into the future but should celebrate those things we already have and can be proud of today.

John Cooper

Worrying trend of degrading women

In response to Chris Britcher’s suggestion that perhaps we should celebrate diversity instead of past events from the war years, much as I would like to agree with him, I am writing this on International Women’s Day, when no doubt there will be many events celebrating the female gender, staged right across the globe.

The reality of what is occurring to millions of women every day, year after year, is very different. Even putting aside what is going on in some countries, where women and girls are treated as second class citizens; in Africa and the Middle East and Afghanistan for example, what should be of greater concern is the gradual degradation of women in so-called democratic countries, as we like to claim we are here in the UK.

In this country, women have more reason to be fearful now than has ever been known in modern times. At least two women are being killed every week by men who lived with them or with whom they were in a relationship. In England and Wales, yearly rape allegations recorded by police up to September 2023 were just under 68,000; yet they resulted in the appallingly low number of charges - under 2.5%. The figure for convictions is even worse.

There is also a wider agenda on social and broadcast media to degrade women as a gender. What made it even more disturbing was that the three major stars of the Harry Potter films, whom she made into multi-millionaires, disassociated themselves from what she said. They should be ashamed.

Actresses now insist on being referred to as actors, thus allowing men to dictate the narrative, as demonstrated by the Screen Actors Guild Awards where actresses are now being presented with ‘female actor’ awards. It’s nonsense that is threatening to consign actresses to history. They just don’t get that the majority of us out here, outside of the world of fame, think it is absolute rubbish.

Famous actresses are in the unique position of wielding tremendous influence, which they are allowing to be diminished by some perverse notion that calling themselves actors gives them equality. What it is doing is degrading their status as women. They should be shouting ‘vive la difference’ from the rooftops but instead they seem content to follow the male-dominated agenda.

It has taken decades for women to reach some degree of equality with men and they are not there yet, particularly in employment.

This trend of degrading the gender and status of women has to be addressed and reversed, because if it is allowed to continue, celebrations such as International Women’s Day will be pointless token gestures that will achieve nothing.

C. Aichgy

Don’t lose more farmland to housing

The latest letters page was full of positive comments and views. I am happy that there are so many of your readers making common sense remarks.

It’s such a great pity that our thoughts and comments are not taken on board by our MPs.

Kent is being swamped with the wrong type of houses. We have just got to stop the present growth in population and building on farmland.

Also there must be more care and thought into where and what type of structure is built.

l recently contacted my MP and told her to quit her present party and form the Common Sense Party.

So far I have had no reply.

So come on all you readers of the letters pages; there is a general election coming up, so make sure they hear your common sense remarks in the hope no more farmland can be lost and slow the growth in population.

Richard Mummery

Language course cuts are short-sighted

I'm deeply concerned about the proposals to cut Modern Foreign Language degrees at the University of Kent. This move, along with major cuts to other degrees, will leave both the university and the south east intellectually and culturally poorer.

Taking a foreign language degree brings countless skills that enhance human capital and graduates' potential in the job market. Cultural awareness, adaptability, critical evaluation and analytical skills, and confident and effective communication skills are all highly sought after by employers. My fellow language graduates have gone on to take jobs across a variety of sectors including translation, the civil service, journalism, business development, publishing, community engagement, teaching and NHS. Learning not just the language, but the politics, history and literature of other target countries, we graduated with a confidence and wider outlook.

Closing the language provision at Kent also goes against the UK's future prospects. As the UK government seeks to reset its global economic relationships, language graduates will become even more crucial to the UK's ability to trade internationally. The ability of graduates to not just speak a foreign language but to use their cultural understanding, flexibility and communication skills has huge potential for companies.

Beyond employment, we know the benefit of language learning enhances our cultural and social capital. The provision at Kent also extended to beginner courses for students on other degrees, therefore bringing people together from other walks of life. The strength of the programme and expertise of the staff at Kent has transformed countless generations of young people into graduates who have made untold cultural, economic and social contributions to the UK and beyond.

That strikes me as a pretty good mission for a university.

Chris Paul

What did our soldiers fight for?

Most nations go to war only when attacked, or to gain territory but the UK chose war in 1914 and 1939 ostensibly for altruistic reasons. Colin Bullen must be very naive indeed if he thinks other countries would do the same for us if the roles were reversed.

I wonder what those soldiers who died in both world wars would say if they could see the state of this country today. I bet they would wonder what they were fighting for and who the real enemy was. They were also told they were fighting for 'freedom and democracy', only to find instead a semi-totalitarian state which imprisons and persecutes its own people simply for expressing different viewpoints.

Regarding Mr Bullen's points about Belgium and Poland: Pre WW1, the UK had a secret military agreement to support France and Britain would have gone to war whether Belgium was invaded or not. The Polish guarantee was the ultimate blank cheque that bounced. There was no way Britain - a maritime power - could guarantee Polish independence. Poland was jointly invaded by the Soviets and the Nazis (but we didn't declare war on the USSR).

If WW2 was waged to free Poland then it failed miserably, since that country did not gain independence until 1989.

John Helm

Becoming slaves to tech giants

The mantra of the day is go online. This means that every individual wishing to go online and every organization providing online services has to have some kind of technology enabling online activity.

Who benefits? The tech and telecom companies. Who is policing, regulating these faceless companies?

AI may not lead to mass human unemployment as the Governor of the Bank of England said in a recent statement but it certainly influences the way we work. But then we are a mere commodity are we not, to be referred to as ‘human workers’?

To what end are we being taught to engage with this technology? According to the governor there is great potential with AI and "businesses expect to see the benefits of productivity soon".

Someone tell me what is being produced by these faceless businesses. Enslavement to the tech giants maybe?

For myself I don't care, I'm an old woman verging on being a very old woman, but I do care for the generations to come and the quality of life they will lead.

My source for the quotes above was Teletext 102 business section, available for all to read for a few days...

A. Bacon

We could have picked a better National Anthem

One can only wonder why we Brits have suffered for so long the drab and uninspiring National Anthem.

Alas, tradition won't be challenged or overturned because an anthem doesn't suit the subjects of the realm.

The patriotic song was first performed publicly in London in 1745, although anthems by Handel were played at the coronation of George II in 1727. It was at the beginning of the 19th century that it became known as the National Anthem.

It would have been better to have chosen something more grandeur and uplifting like, for instance, Jerusalem or Land of Hope and Glory.

M. Smith