Mike Priestley: Who's Counting?

Others, though, cannot. None of us can say which category we would fall into if we have never been in that position.

Some commentators have suggested that the British prisoners-of-war who have been pursuing their 50-year fight for justice from the Japanese are obsessed and embittered and should instead forgive (if not forget) and get on with making the most of the rest of their lives.

That, though, is a glib assessment of their situation. It's in the nature of some people to forgive. They are able somehow to overcome their hurt and make their peace with those who caused them to suffer.

But others carry their pain inside them for the rest of their lives, convinced that the only things which will ease it are a sort of token justice in the form of an apology and compensation.

The former PoWs who the other day were so badly let down by Japanese justice weren't after the money for its own sake. What's £13,500 compared with four or five years of torment and a lifetime of impaired physical and mental health?

To have had that claim accepted and met would have been symbolic. It would have meant that the Japanese were saying that they had done wrong things, were truly sorry, and were trying to make amends in some small way. Then, perhaps, those PoWs could have begun to make peace with their past.

But the Japanese court didn't do that. It dismissed their claim and even went so far as to imply that the former prisoners' stories of their suffering were not necessarily true.

Small wonder Arthur Titheringon spat on the steps of the courthouse.

I have talked to men who had the terrible misfortune to be taken prisoner by the Japanese and used by them as slave labour. I have worked with them in years gone by. I interviewed others for a T&A supplement to commemorate the 50th anniversary of VE Day.

I know that what these people told me about their experiences was the truth. Often they told me with initial reluctance, sometimes fighting back the tears as they forced themselves to re-live what they had endured. They were treated abominably, and this rejection of their claim and implication that they are liars is a gross insult.

The Japanese are said to be a nation who set high store on honour. But as far as the British prisoners of war are concerned, their behaviour has been dishonourable and despicable.

I Don't Believe It!

There are quite a few people - myself, Mrs Mildew and Mike Priestley among them - who are avid listeners to Radio 2. In fact, Mike wrote a piece the other week on this page singing its praises.

That brought a broadside moan to me from regular reader Ray Hazlett, 55, who reckons that Radio 2 is deserting the over-50s.

"I've been listening to the station for about 30 years, but not any more apart from a few selected programmes," he writes. "There have been big changes at Radio 2 this year, all of them aimed at catching the ears of the 25-40 age group. New 'hip' presenters like Johnny Walker and fast-talking Richard Allinson.

"Of course it's not the presenters/DJs who choose the records to be played. It's the producers, and I'll bet not one of them on Radio 2 is over 35. You rarely hear any record earlier than 1970. Let's face it, Radio 2 now regards even 1970 as almost back in the last century.

"If you like Boyzone, Lighthouse Family, M. People, Spice Girls and that kind of garbage, then Radio 2 is for you. Real oldies are considered to be Phil Collins, Billy Joel, Cher, Neil Diamond, Carpenters, etc. All this rubbish should be on Radio 1.

"What happened to the easy-listening nostalgia that Radio 2 used to provide? It just isn't there any more apart from a few specialist programmes. When did you last hear Fats Waller, the Andrews Sisters, Ella Mae Morse (Cow-Cow Boogie, Blacksmith Blues, etc), Perry Como, Jo Stafford, Frankie Laine, Johnnie Ray (pictured left), Dinah Shaw....Radio 2 just doesn't play this kind of singer any more, so it seems radio is just going to let them die."

Ray's letter prompted me to listen more closely to Radio 2 rather than just have it burbling along in the background. And do you know, he's right. Sunday afternoon seems to be the only slot featuring the sort of singers he writes about. Apart from that the station does seem to be aiming at younger listeners.

And this week I read confirmation of that in the Daily Telegraph. Apparently there's something called an "internal strategy document" circulating at the BBC. It says that "a major opportunity exists to reposition Radio 2 to serve the 35-to-54-year-old audience".

So what of us seniors? The document adds: "The aim will be to move Radio 2's older listeners to Radio 3 for classical music and Radio 4 for speech."

Charming! As though we're a load of cattle to be shunted around the air waves. Well, I for three (because I'm speaking for Mrs Mildew and Mike Priestley, too) don't consider Radio 3 and Radio 4 to be any sort of substitutes for the Radio 2 we used to know. And neither does Ray Hazlett. If you agree with us, write to the Head of BBC Radio at Broadcasting House and make your feelings known.

Readers have their say on the matter of the impending loss of tax refunds on pensioners' share dividends, raised in Hector Mildew's column the other week.

Dear Mr Mildew - Geoff Holmes was not quite right when he connected the abolition of Advance Corporation Tax with the intended ending of the ability to recover tax deducted at source on dividends.

When taxation at source was introduced in the middle of the war in the form of PAYE on earnings and taking of tax on dividends before the payee got it, the idea of Corporation Tax was years in the future.

At the time one showed one's income on one's return and indicated whether tax had been deducted. The tax gatherer assessed you and what you had to pay was adjusted accordingly.

The intended change does not only affect pensioners and is not necessarily to the tune of only a few pounds. Some of us, or more usually our wives, can have put a lot of their capital into stocks or shares or unit trusts simply so they could reclaim tax taken over their liability rather than put it in building societies or the like where tax deducted at a composite rate could not be recovered.

A few years ago, about the time that separate taxation of wives was introduced, building society and bank interest was made so that tax could be reclaimed. So now the government is putting the clock back on dividends to what bank interest was subject to only a few years back.

It can be, and often is, hundreds of pounds that will no longer be recoverable.

W J Scott, Harecroft, Wilsden.

l Dear Mr Mildew - I brought this up with my MP in July and received a reply from Dawn Primarolo at the Treasury on November 5, and all I got was "As you may be aware, the issue was raised in Parliament during debates on this year's Finance Act and my colleague Geoffrey Robinson said he would look into the matter and would be giving further consideration to the position of non-taxpayers."

I also raised the con-trick perpetrated on taxpayers whereby the married couple's allowance was restricted to 15 per cent relief, and soon to be ten per cent (when there is no such rate of tax) and not 20 or 23 per cent.

I did not receive a satisfactory reply but one crumb of comfort: "The restriction of 10 per cent from 1999/2000 will not affect taxpayers receiving age-related married couple's allowance."

So there!

G E Jebson, Beechwood Avenue, Bradford 6.

l If you have a gripe about anything, drop a line to me, Hector Mildew, c/o Newsroom, T&A, Hall Ings, Bradford BD1 1JR, email me or leave any messages for me with Mike Priestley on (44) 0 1274 729511.

Yours Expectantly,

Hector Mildew

Enjoy Mike Priestley's Yorkshire Walks

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.