YOUR front page article and comment (Yorkshire Post, May 15) on the subject of Peter Sutcliffe, produced a mixture
of emotions.

Shock initially, at the thought that such a monster could entertain any thought of being released back into a society which he ravaged so many
years ago.

Shock, also, at the thought that any members of that same society should be prepared to facilitate such a release in the name of law, albeit for financial gain. What manner of humans are these? No wonder that so much of the legal profession is despised when their total lack of concern for the feelings of the many families of this creature's killings, is so well demonstrated by their concern over Sutcliffe's human rights. What of their own wives and daughters?

Your comments are, if anything, on the mild side. Most people in this country would happily have had Sutcliffe executed, rather than be a very expensive drain on resources.

The other despised lot, the politicians, in their wisdom decree otherwise, so much for listening and having a finger on the pulse.

However, all talk of "tariffs" for such as Sutcliffe is utter nonsense, as no Home Secretary would dare countenance his release in view of the great anger it would bring. As you rightly point out, this abuse of Human Rights legislation is wrong and if persisted in by the legal profession, must be dealt with.

So, I would suggest that the "worthy" lawyers reconsider and forgo this opportunity to further devalue the Human Rights legislation and with it, any gains which would of a certainty be ill-gotten. I doubt they will listen.

From: Peter Lansdell, Cyprus Drive, Thackley, Bradford.

FOLLOWING your Editorial Comment (Yorkshire Post, May 13) regarding rights of victims, it is obvious to me that those low lifes claiming human rights are being advised by lawyers to keep their cases going.

Who is paying the lawyer? No doubt we are via the legal aid schemes. So it is in lawyers' and barristers' best interest to keep cases going as long as possible to further line their silk pockets.


Puzzled about claims on Territorials and Army service

From: RD Crowther, Main Street, Shadwell, Leeds.

WHILE I appreciate what Bernard Dineen says in his article (Yorkshire Post, May 12) about Territorial Army personnel being used in war zones, I was given to understand that they had to volunteer for these postings, which does put a different slant on the situation.

Reservists are always liable to be recalled, they do get paid (not as much) on reserve and it is part of their contract.

I read that our forces are badly underpaid. Naturally, they always quote the youngest, least experienced and lowest rank. Yet it said that a private of 18 with few or no qualifications after six months training has a take home pay of £16,700pa.

They obviously ignore the fact that they also get free food, accommodation, clothing and sports facilities, plus a good pension scheme and excellent leave entitlements. This is 180 times more than national servicemen received, and allowing for inflation, three times more.

It is also worth pointing out that although we were known as peacetime soldiers, 50 or 60 years ago, many national servicemen were killed or injured in action in Malaya, Korea, Palestine, Suez etc, the casualty numbers being far in excess of the current campaigns, although in my view one casualty is always one too many.

Everything is relative. Seven per cent of our Armed Forces or 12-15per cent of our Army being involved in active service does not amount to overstretch in my opinion. If we pay our lowest rank in the Army, usually 18-20 year-olds, £20,000pa, when all factors are taken into consideration it does not seem unfair to me.

Will someone explain to me the flaws in my reasoning and that I am just a grumpy old man?


Stakeholder status

From: Robert Bottamley, Thorn Road, Hedon.

THANKS for Simon Bristow's report "People 'misled' over
plea for incinerator" (Yorkshire Post, May 13).

The article explained how a letter from the East Riding Council misinformed
residents by implying that
the Waste Recycling Group
had withdrawn proposals to build a waste-burner at
Saltend.

Unfortunately, Huw Roberts (the authority's customer services director) provided a statement which "misled" readers further.

Thus, Mr Roberts stated: "The letter informed residents that WRG was withdrawing a redundant planning application. It's part of our process of
keeping informed all stakeholders; that is, those who have expressed interest in the application."

In fact, the letter made no reference at all to a
"redundant" application: it simply stated that "the above application" had been withdrawn.

I note that the customer services director considers objectors to be "stakeholders". And yet, (in a letter to this page), Coun Symon Fraser (ERYC portfolio holder for the environment) described
anyone who objected to the incinerator as a "ranting NIMBY"?

When did the local authority reclassify us – or are we simply misled again?

Inflated opinion

From: JW Buckley, Throstle Cottage, Aketon, Pontefract.

WHAT I read about the
memoirs of Cherie Blair and John Prescott showed how much our leaders have an inflated opinion of themselves, and
how they think their views should prevail.

Being a good leader is not about forcing the team to
follow their particular whim,
but to bring out the best in their team, and the public.

We have been badly served of late, and everyone knows it.