Letter: Lottery as a means to prevent crime

Lord Birkett
Monday 22 March 1993 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Peter Kilfoyle (Letters, 20 March) is a self-confessed member of the Lottery Jeremiahs Club. But he has it wrong about crime prevention. Nobody, I hope, is suggesting that a police department becomes the sixth recipient of lottery funds. What the other five (arts, sports, heritage, charities and the Millennium Fund) are dedicated to providing is already a form of crime prevention.

If that seems naive, please remember that vandalism, to people as well as buildings, is at its most savage when the quality of life is at its lowest. In an age when unemployment and disillusion may be inevitable, what life has to offer must be both varied and of high quality. Hence the 'Quality of life', and hence the Lottery.

As a self-confessed member of the Lottery Promotion Company, I do not believe the lottery should be taxed at all. The expenditure of its untaxed proceeds would bring back to the Treasury, indirectly but measurably, far more than tax could possibly provide. A 12 per cent tax is bad enough, and ought to be reduced, but the idea that it might rise . . . Please, Mr Kilfoyle, not so loud. Somebody might hear you.

Yours faithfully,

BIRKETT

House of Lords

London, SW1

22 March

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in