The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

The following letter was written by a Bowmanville High School teacher and we quote it verbatum as published in Oshawa This Week. After its publication a number of complaints were received. They will be published in future columns. (The writer is no relation to this reporter.) Reader Complains of Bank Rip-Off Dear Sir: Have you ever been charged 10291.35 percent for a small loan? I have - by a branch of the Royal Bank. Mind you, it was quite a while before I found out about it. Not only that, the loan (or overdraft) didn't really exist at all. If you're puzzled, no wonder. So was I. Let me explain. ? .On my March statement I noticed that $1.50, designated as 'interest' had been extracted. As my account is usually in credit, I enquired the reason. Here it is: On 24th January the computer had noted an overdraft of $5.32. The bank's minimum interest bite is $1.50. By Monday 27th January, my account was in 7 credit again, so'if you work it out, I had been charge - 4 or gouged - at an annual interest rate of 10291.35 2 percent. x But hold it! On Friday 24th I had made an ample 1 deposit. Why the interest charge? Well, the deposit was made after 3 p.m. and deposits made after 3 p.m. are somehow dated Monday.... 2.59 p.m. Friday is Friday; 3.01 p.m. Friday is Monday. Get it? When do most people do their banking? Answer: after work. Who is getting ripped off? Answer : the public, by means of phoney bank charges. The bank manager wrings his hands and says that nothing can be done. I say that it is high time that something is done. The banks already charge 16 cents for every entry on your statement (including those that ' are the result of their own mistakes, as, for example, when a cheque debit is reversed). And, while they are quick to attach your cash in respect of any overdrafts (including the fictitious ones produced by their own internal accounting system) they pay not a penny of interest on your daily credit balance. How many other people have run into the same kind of problem? Perhaps it's time that we brought the great bank rip-off to the attention of our federal M.P as Cr ANE ry NC a a EN BR es ns Ad in RA g Gl 2 tele pens Kelly orner | LIBERAL GRISLY STORIES To the Editor: Since the appearance of my letter a number of people have called with grisly tales of their dealings with banks. Here are two: -- A girl started her first chequing account with a bank. Her account was always in credit. Into that account she deposited on Friday a cheque which was returned on Monday marked N.S.F. Her account was in credit before and after the transaction and she made no withdrawal. The bank, however, deducted a dollar from her account (in addition to 16 cénts twice). Why? She can't find out, nor does she know how to get her $1 back. . Another couple (dealing with the same bank) were in overdraft to the extent of $6. The bank took a 'minimum' $2 bite - and then another $2 bite. Why? They haven't found out yet; they haven't got any of the charges reversed yet, either. : Ihave also heard of a nightmarish tale of how a man decided to pay off a car loan by means of 'easy' automatic computer deductions. So far he has paid $10 on overdrafts which are strictly the results of computer mistakes. The bank takes no responsibility because his agreement is with the loan company. The loan company tells him that it is very sorry, and that his is an exceptional case (but does nothing). The lonly loser is the innocent who signed up in the first place. oT I think people should start asking questions. One question they might ask is: how much competition is there among banks? Tuey all use the same computeriz- ed facilities. Another is: how much do the banks make out of these tiny minimus charges which crop up all over your statement like measles? My impression is, so far, that the chief sufferers are small depositors and women. I will respect the confidence of anyone who wants to send me a bank grisly story. Michael J. Kelly 236 Harmony Rd. N. Oshawa Cher of the Sunny & Cher TV show has been ordered by the network to stop showing her navel. "It's just too much for the family hour" said the network. What else can a poor girl do that's not well endowed? Even Canada's former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and others were stars of a best-seller -- titled "Now show me your belly-button." Did you hear about the couple who are drifting apart ever since they got their water bed. There's no justice--if you make out your income tax correctly, you go to the poorhouse. If you don't you go to jail. Behind Closed Doors From all appearances it looks like the federal people (Penitentiary Service Department of Works) are going to let us in on their little secret and tell us 'just where the institutibn is going to be located. Their new approach to the project has changed from the original one. We, in Scugog, remember when the issue was before us in open sessions of council.- There was the kind of "grass roots consultation'! that all governments profess to encour- age, plenty of discussion, argument and invest- igation. From the example the federal government has set now, however, we get a different interpretation to "local input'. Seems they've learned from the example put to them in Scugog, and are doing most of their discussions behind closed doors these days. EY Seems local input is a good' thing only as long as it doesn't amount to much...at least not in opposition. It's not that we oppose what the federal govern- ment had...or has planned for the township. Anyone reading this editorial page for the past year must certainly know that we seen such an institution here not only as an acceptance of our responsibilities, but also a way of getting much-needed jobs and revenue. (With very recent developments, this should be even ® more self-explanatory). What we object to, however, is the change in the -above-board approach that was so clearly the case originally, to the point now where most everything is behind closed doors. We should remind the officials that despite all the heated debate and emotionalism that threatened to embroil this community, the forces of reason emerg- ed in the end. This, surely, points to the ability of the public to reason logically and further strengthens wo their right to know. - So why was the public kept out at a recent meeting of Scugog and Uxbridge councils with the local member of parliament? There was another meeting planned some weeks ago with Uxbridge council, then mysteriously cancelled. It's not that the meetings dealt with specific land sides, we understand. The need to keep such + information under wraps is self-evidently in the public interest. Ly ~ Instead, such meetings were supposed to have dealt with the project in general, updating local councillors about the progress in attempts to find a suitable site. So, why can't such meetings be held in the light of day? : We don't for a minute think there is a conscientious effort being made to deceive the public. Instead, the idea probably is to avoid all the rumours, emotion- alism and public reaction that created all the problem in the first place. . To us, the new approach has the potential of creating more problem than it avoids. A closed meeting plays into the hands of the fellow who saw the 'pen' in every back yard, and had premonitions of murderers and rapists cavorting about the streets. Highway Murder One hundred and forty-three people were murdered & in Ontario in 1973 (the last year for which statistics are available) and the cry of "hang the murderers' reverberates throughout the land. But perhaps the most dangerous murderer of all goes about its deadly business in the country's towns, cities and highways accompanied by a lack of concern and an air of fatalism that is appalling. In 1973 in Ontario alone, more than 917 alcohol- related deaths were recorded...the ratio between these 'ahd deaths by murder speaks for itself. < The Ontario government this year begins to reduce highway speed limits and make the use of seat belts compulsory. For this it is to be commended even though energy shortages as much as human lives may have been the motivation. However we suggest that the latest campaign showing smashed up cars on television, 1.D. cards for minors and far-reaching powers to detain drivers who may be impaired is a punitive approach, one *® which is far less likely to work and which gives even greater powers of arrest to police. When our governments recognize that alcohol abuse has reached epidemic proportions in this country and are prepared to tackle it with the same zeal that might go into eradicating any other disease then a major step will have been taken. Then we can have new and searching programs to understand the problem and provide broad public education to get at the root causes.