| |
Investment morality
• WHILE I understand Nigel Fletcher’s reservations, he is confusing the pension fund issue on two fronts (Profits from terror war, May 23).
First, Robert Maxwell reduced workers’ benefits by a process of expropriation or theft as it’s otherwise known. Angela Sinclair, Robin Yu and myself have no desire to reduce workers’ benefits to keep our taxes down. We merely disagree with the council’s investment strategy, which can be summarised as “profit, by any means necessary”.
We believe, as anti-slavery and anti-apartheid campaigners have maintained successfully in the past, that there must be moral limits on investments, especially where governments or international law provide none.
Second, council tax-payers do and should have some say over council pension investments. It is through the trustees of the fund, who happen to be our councillors, that we can exercise and voice our concerns and with good reason.
We are liable for any shortfall in the performance of investments made and will have to cover these in that eventuality. Herein lies the crux of the matter. The council maintains that investments in arms are, as investments in companies which profited from apartheid were once argued to be, necessary to keep taxes low.
I disagree. Not only is the cost too great socially and morally, the risk is overstated. Investments in arms companies, though in the millions of pounds, are a small percentage of the council’s total portfolio. These shares should be sold.
Some things should simply not be profited from. I hope most Islington residents and council employees would agree that war and conflict are two such areas.
Michael Johnson
Loraine Road, N7
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
