Dear editor, The obscene and unnecessary rise in petrol and diesel prices can be cut if this uncaring and inept government lowered the high rate of tax.
If not, the great British public have it in their power to bring the fuel cartels to their knees, in one fell swoop. How?
Week one. Boycott all Esso stations.
Week two. Boycott all Shell stations.
Week three. Boycott all BP stations.
And so on. After a week of no sales, the suits at head office in London will have to call on the government to reduce fuel tax, and at the same time put pressure on 0pec to release more crude into the system and as an added bonus cut the retail price at the pumps.
The Americans used this system of passive civil pressure to reduce the price of fuel and it worked.
The boycotting of rural petrol stations will inevitably cause some hardships to small communities, where stations are few and far between.
The point of no-return has been reached, and the groundswell of resentment and anger that is being felt will, I believe, spill over sooner or later into direct violent action against faceless government and the fuels corporations.
I fear that a petrol station will be destroyed, and violent anti government street action will commence you only have to look back at the poll tax riots, which got rid of Mrs Thatcher.
The great British public are, on the whole, a complacent nation, and the government knows this.
Do you think that, for one minute, the French would have stood for the horrendous hike in fuel prices?
Whatever you think of our Gallic cousins, they do not stand around waiting for leadership. They get on the streets and make their presence known.
Now is the time for all good men to stand firm, and declare "I am mad as hell, and won't take it any more".
If you are happy to stand in the background and let the system walk all over you, then fine.
If not, do something about it, and let's start with Esso on Monday, April 12, by boycotting all their petrol outlets, and the following Monday turn our attention to Shell, and so on. Then watch their multi-million-pound profits fall.
BBC out of tune with reality
Dear Editor, Who at the BBC is dishing out such generous contracts and salaries, so irresponsibly, to individual presenters of talk shows and sports programmes? If other channels want 'em, let 'em 'ave 'em!
Programmes produced by the BBC these days are generally of very low standard. Is this why it has so much money, our money, to slush around? A million pounds seems nothing to them.
Let's take football a sport they are unable to broadcast live and only have the highlight rights as an example. A line-up of four or even five presenters and critics is the ultimate of mismanagement.
The broadcasters happily pay £1 million for a talk show host of questionable taste and talent, and the latest reported payment of £5 million to Alan Hansen, a person who is difficult to understand and the most boring, must epitomise my criticism of the BBC management.
The fee to the BBC is compulsory by law for all of us, which means that the BBC is assured of its revenue, good or bad, while in the real world we are able to pay our money and take our choice. Not so with the BBC it's take it or leave it!
Is it easier for the BBC management to pay out these outrageous salaries to individuals, to take up broadcasting time rather than make programmes of substance, programmes we can enjoy and remember for years to come? I am not amused that the Government and the Culture Minister are just standing by and watching all of this happen.
Is it because the BBC is such a good friend of 10 Downing Street these days? Who is making these outrageous salary decisions and is he/she being questioned/supervised by the BBC board of directors?
DOUGLAS J WATHEN
Will Whitby rethink on elected mayors?
Dear Editor, So Boris "the buffoon" Johnson has become not only the most powerful man in London but one of the country's most powerful politicians.
As his detractors rub their hands in glee in anticipation of his first major gaffe as mayor, it's worth bearing in mind that, whatever we might think of them, the citizens of the capital are not complete imbeciles. They knew the mayoral choices in front of them and they decided they didn't want Ken any more and they didn't fancy Mr Paddick.
The public image of the bumbling Boris camouflages, I would hazard a guess, a sharp mind and intellect that combined with his ability to delegate and choose the right people (as he has proved with a very successful tenure as editor of The Spectator magazine) will serve him and the capital well.
And if it doesn't prove to be the complete and utter disaster that the harbingers of doom would have, what chances Mike Whitby will change his mind on the option of an elected Mayor for Birmingham?