While waiting for a friend to have a scan at St Vincent's Hospital, I was confronted by a perfect example of this.

An impatient young man abused the radiographer with four-letter words that can't be printed without the use of asterisks, simply because his partner's appointment was about 10 minutes late.

His ensuing conversation was peppered with expletives, which, when uttered aloud, contain no asterisks to soften the effect on the ears of the listener.

My challenge of his rudeness exacerbated the situation of course, and I then copped an earful.

There was no consideration of the other people in the small waiting room, nor recognition that there was anything wrong with his offensive behaviour.

I was disappointed that no-one else spoke in support of me, though I did receive a couple of subtle nods indicating agreement.

Were they afraid or apathetic? Collectively, we may have achieved something. Verbal bullying shouldn't be tolerated by anyone.

Val Clarke, Kings Meadows.

THE Bob Brown Foundation have had a protest blockade camp to stop a logging road in the Sumac since December last year.

They conducted four workplace invasion protests between February and May 2018, shutting down operations in a legal workplace. Last month, the BBF held a workshop at the Fern Tree Tavern teaching the art of peaceful protesting.

On their website, the BBF list a campaign to 'protect your right to protest' with a link to donate. Yet when a group of passionate pensioners from the north-west, staged a protest against the BBF and its campaign to lock up 495,000 hectares of their beloved Arthur Pieman as a National Park, the BBF are suddenly outraged. Bob Brown and Jenny Weber both condemned the protest, intimating they are considering legal action against the pensioners.

If the BBF is no longer supporting a person's right to protest, are they soliciting for donations under false pretences?

The BBF should immediately clarify their position to the public and their donors.

Kelly Wilton - Support Tassie's Timber People, Invermay.

INTERESTING the fallout about the vegan's protests, disrupting businesses, pictures of them being carried away etc. I agree that every human has free choice and today that was not taken into consideration at all. Some folks are true vegans and some still will eat and drink eggs or milk. Some vegans will only partake of meals with roots, vegetables and perhaps some fish. I saw some of the pictures today and they were disturbing only as the one picture showing a tattoo proudly behind the person's right ear stating vegan. I wonder if that person asked their tattooist if the ink used was vegan? It is a known fact some tattoo inks are actually made with animal products. Non-vegan varieties may contain bone char, glycerine from animal fat, gelatine from hooves, or shellac from beetles. If so, well I guess his disruption of people's livelihood should be reinvestigated and his passion re-evaluated.

Felicity O'Neill, Westbury.

IT'S self-evident that the refunding of large franking credits to high net worth individuals does not make sense on an equity basis for the Australian community.

However, this goal does not justify a poorly constructed and discriminatory policy.

The policy has the following issues:

It discriminates against any taxpayer who chooses to use a self-managed superannuation fund

It continues to allow large refunds of franking credits to high net worth individuals.

It creates a new tax bracket of 30 per cent for any taxpayer who receives a franked dividend and has income less than $20,000.

It breaches the fundamental tenant of tax policy that people with similar circumstances will be treated the same.

It is unlikely to achieve the $5 billion in revenue given its structural flaws.

The real issue is the large tax-free status of superannuation implemented by the Howard Costello government.

It does not address this issue. Let's fix the right problem. The introduction of the policy from July 1, 2019 is unfair as it does not give taxpayers sufficient time to take considered action. Leadership is about listening and adjusting to get the best outcome for the community. Lisa Singh, Julie Collins, Justine Keay, Ross Hart and Brian Mitchell - you have an opportunity to show leadership.

Timothy Lane, West Hobart.​

THE truth about the franking credit is that it gives a tax refund to an individual in respect of profits on which they paid no tax, zero. It's actually not a refund at all but a gratuity, and the way it operates now is far removed from the original intention of the government that introduced it in 1987. Then, the company tax rate was 49 per cent.

So, if a company had, say, a profit of $100 it would pay company tax of $49.

When the remaining $51 went to shareholders, many were taxed at the top personal tax rate of 60 per cent. In consequence, $80 of $100 profit was paid in tax, whether company or personal. The credit put a ceiling on the tax payable on company profits.

In 2019, however, company and personal tax rates are significantly lower, and the system has been inverted.

It has gone from an investment incentive to a luxury that largely benefits well-to-do people which the country cannot justify given critical shortfalls in health and education.

Dr Justin Harding BA (Hons) PhD, Invermay.