As you report, the case raises serious questions regarding the leadership of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) at York.
In the past two years, two of my inspectors have found themselves facing criminal charges of assault when they have been called upon to do their duty in dealing with violent individuals who were the worse for drink. One of those inspectors was involved in the case that you report. As public servants, police officers expect that our actions will be closely scrutinised and that if we overstep the law, ultimately we may be liable to trial at court.
However, in both of the cases involving inspectors serving at Sheffield Central, the decisions made by the CPS to prosecute seemed perverse and to almost all involved in the process, had little realistic prospect in either case of resulting in a conviction.
The question remaining then is, "Why waste taxpayers' money and court time in cases such as these?" Perhaps there is a reluctance, at times, to view the evidence against police officers in the same dispassionate way that CPS would review the case against normal members of the public.
Perhaps, as your report suggests, there is occasionally some more worrying reason behind such decisions to prosecute.
What is beyond doubt is the devastating effect that such proceedings have on professional police officers and their families as they undergo the lengthy (two years is the average) process of getting to court knowing that a guilty verdict equates to professional ruin and perhaps imprisonment.
In cases where the evidence for a criminal conviction is so weak, it is not in the interests of the public to pursue a prosecution.
I only hope that those responsible within the CPS for making decisions that result in proceedings like those which collapsed at Sheffield Crown Court, will be asked to justify their actions and decisions in the same way as was required of my two inspectors who can now, thankfully, get on with their lives and their careers in public service.

Keeping your distance is the right way
From: Cliff Thompson, member of the RoSPA, Boating Dyke Way,
Thorne.
I agree with Allan Ramsay ("The real culprits in the motorway lane-hogging row", October 19) about keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front. The signs that we see flashing across our motorways should be reading "Keep your distance, police camera."
I'm looking at the South Carolina Driver's manual, Driving on the Interstate: Know your Lane. Lane one is usually for slower speeds and entering and leaving the interstate. The other lanes are usually for motorists who want to drive and maintain the posted speed limit.
However, if another vehicle wants to overtake you, you should pull over to allow it to pass. To change lanes signal well in advance. The penalty for driving too close to the vehicle in front is six points on your licence.
So it's much the same as it is here, but there isn't much done about driving too close, unless you're involved in an accident and it was the main contributing factor.
I have never considered a two-second gap between myself and the vehicle in front a safe stopping distance other than at 25mph, nor do I think the two-chevron gap is safe; it should be three. Oh, you could stop within these distances and to hell with what goes on behind, but we're talking safe stopping distances.
We should really be thinking about this: of the 954 children injured on the roads of South Yorkshire last year, 341 were motorcar passengers, and the total number injured in motorcar accidents in South Yorkshire was 4,175. Nationally, the highest number of fatalities on Briton's roads are on major roads (motorways, trunk and principal roads). So, getting drivers to think distance can only be beneficial.
Elderly upset over demolition
From: Stan Brackenbury, chairman, 30/52 Residents' Association, Minster Moorgate, Beverley.
Your report (October 20) of the proposed demolition of 12 flats in a sheltered housing complex in Minster Moorgate, Beverley, raises two most important points for the residents concerned.
First, it suggests that one of the reasons being considered in the proposal to be submitted to the cabinet of East Yorkshire Council is that the destruction of their homes "will provide a frontage more in keeping with the character and appearance of the remainder of the street" (Minster Moorgate). Second, the leader of the council, Stephen Parnaby, said he was not aware of the proposal.
The 80 and 90-year-olds involved are very concerned and worried about the possible loss of their very comfortable homes. To be told that one of the reasons is to enhance the appearance of the street in which they stand is a trivial and flippant reason for the demolition. Added to that, the council leader admits to knowing nothing about the proposals just adds more insult.
We are repeatedly told what an excellent council is the ERYC. These 12 elderly residents consider the whole episode totally shameful.
 
Fair and unfair comment
From: John Butler, Elmete Walk, Roundhay, Leeds.
Your Opinion and Analysis page on October 15 contains some of the best and worse examples of journalism I have ever seen.
The best was the candid and thoughtful analysis of the role and ultimate position of the European Union by Patrick Nicholls.
The worst was the complete drivel "Blair the Survivor" by Bill Carmichael. In it he wonders whether he listens to a different version of Prime Minister's Questions.
Well, I think he was on a different planet when he states that "Tony Blair wiped the floor with his opponents." Did he not hear a Labour MP (yes, a Labour MP) Bob Waring tell the PM that in a speech he made in the House of Commons in February. He (Tony Blair) said that: "Saddam could stay in power so far as he was concerned, if only he came clean about his arsenals. He could save his regime."
In reply to this, Blair for once waffled and had no answer. So much for regime change; so much for wiping the floor with his opponents.
Selby closure a sad day
From: Barry Robinson, Galfrid Road, Bilton.
Of course, Andrew Cox in his excellent article "Has King Coal's death come too soon?" (October 25) is right. The proud Selby coalfield was the showpiece of Britain's coal industry, and it grieves me to see it dismantled.
Unfortunately, Dr Cox indicates that dark-green environmentalists, with their urge to have energy from renewable sources, will say "good riddance".
As a dark-green environmentalist, I wish to assure Dr Cox, that is not our reaction. We are not crazy. We do not wish to see imports of inferior Australian brown coal transported thousands of miles to replace our own superior product.
We realise that new technologies, such as coal gasification, would have been the industry's future.
No-one, other than the politicians, would run down the coal industry, before renewable energy could replace coal.
I see wind, solar and tidal power as an eventual replacements.
A wind turbine is a thing of beauty, but I don't want to see our countryside blighted with miles of wind turbines.
Unfortunately, Arthur Scargill took on Margaret Thatcher in a power struggle. He lost, and his power-base had to be destroyed.
Does Dr Cox realise that the latest part of this crazy Government's jigsaw, is "renewable energy" from another resource? You burn household waste in incinerators, instead of exploiting it properly.
Yet another enlightened politician's idea.
Perhaps Dr Cox will support me in this fight, just as I support him?
Shooting foxes way off the mark
From: JW Buckley, Throstle Cottage, Aketon, Pontefract.
Aled Jones (October 15) makes out that the shooting of foxes is effective and humane, and relies on a paper by a learned professor.
I quote from a debate in the House of Lords in 2002.
Lord Willoughby de Brooke: "My noble friend Lady Fookes wheeled out our old friend the crack marksman, who will dispose of foxes so efficiently. Our experience of crack marksmen during the foot-and-mouth epidemic explodes that myth."
The Earl of Erroll: "I stalk and I am therefore well aware of the dangers of shooting animals and birds with rifles, particularly in populated areas. In large tracts of England, it is difficult to find somewhere where one can fire a rifle safely. Shooting is not a realistic method of controlling pests, in populated areas."
Lord Soulsby: "Analysis has been put forward by some 300 veterinary surgeons who have country practices. Those vets would submit that hunting is the method that produces what I would call the 'cleanest' kill."
For me, and I am sure the majority of people, practical experience is better than theory. Hunting is not cruel, and shooting is not best.

Fleeting fame or a lasting reputation?
From: Tim Mickleburgh, Littlefield Lane, Grimsby.
So, in Alan Hollinghurst we have another Booker winner. His offering The Line Of Beauty is described as the first work of gay fiction to win the prize in its 36-year history, and is set during the Thatcher years. But I wonder how many of these modern novelists will having the staying power of the Brontës, Dickens and Elizabeth Gaskell?

UKIP's robust defence against racism allegations
From: Jonathan Arnott (political correspondent to Godfrey Bloom, MEP), Ravenscroft Close, Sheffield.
In his letter "Specifics required" (October 20), Henri Murison asked if MEP Godfrey Bloom could point out which specific aspects of Richard Corbett's 15-page report on UKIP he was trying to deny?
Why not start with the first claim – that "UKIP are openly racist". Richard Corbett's "evidence" is based on hearsay, and relates to just a couple of people in a party of 26,000 members.
Of course, he doesn't want you to know the truth, ie that prospective UKIP officers and candidates must sign a statement saying: "I have never advocated or condoned racist, violent, criminal or anti-democratic activity."
We make no apology for taking a tough line on immigration. But when the Conservatives copied our press statements, I don't think Richard Corbett accused them of extremism. Double standards: throughout the "report" Richard Corbett takes comments made by individual UKIP members and creates the illusion that they are somehow party policy.
He finds one single UKIP member who reckons the threat of global warming is exaggerated: UKIP policy must be to deny global warming, then. How ridiculous.
The report claims UKIP does not believe in equal opportunities for women. Rubbish. We oppose counter-productive employment legislation. It claims we don't believe in equal opportunities "for anyone" because Godfrey Bloom MEP called the Equal Opportunities Commission an "anachronism". Perhaps even Mr Corbett can see the distinction here: we believe in equal opportunities, but are concerned when the system is inherently biased.
Claims over association with the BNP are ridiculous. When UKIP was infiltrated by the BNP, we expelled the offenders from the party. I would have thought that Richard Corbett might have approved of UKIP standing up to extremism. When those unwelcome in UKIP are welcomed by the BNP and stand as candidates, I say that vindicates UKIP's position.
Space doesn't permit me to dissect an entire 15-page report in a single letter, but I hope readers recognise now why Godfrey Bloom MEP described it as "too silly for words".

Points
Dismal view of lighting bridge
From: Donald and Carol Bank, Fulford Grange, Micklefield Lane, Rawdon, Leeds.
The proposal to increase the illumination of the Humber Bridge is absolutely ridiculous. It would be a complete waste of energy and money, especially when we are supposed to be trying to conserve resources. It also completely disregards a need to restrict light pollution. I don't know what effect it will have on wildlife – but it cannot be good. 
Will the expenditure of taxpayers' money be involved? 
Equal rights
From: John Pashley, Westcliffe Avenue, Baildon, Shipley, West Yorkshire.
I applaud the Commission for Racial Equality's campaign to ensure equality for gipsies and travellers, and I assume, of course, that it encompasses equality in the matters of paying income tax, council tax, national insurance and vehicle excise duty?
Rule of law
From: Trevor Walshaw, Millmoor Road, Meltham.
Does Keith Johnston (Letters, October 18) think that our legal system is superior to that on the Continent? We have detention without trial, curfews, and lawyers who are more concerned with scoring cheap debating points than with getting to the root of the matter. What's so great about that?
Calling to account
From: V Platt, Hereford Court, Hereford Road, Harrogate.
THE Europhiles refuse to answer any genuine but uncomfortable questions? For instance, the European Court of Auditors appointed in 1994 has never signed off the accounts, and in November 2002, that of the £63bn budget, 95 per cent could not be properly accounted for. Why?
Explain please, but no waffle, no flannel, just the truth.
Off target
From: Mick Snowden, Manor Farm Bungalow, Amotherby, Malton.
Missiles at Fylingdales? That'll make our tourist industry go with a bang and explode the myth of our insularity.
Travel query
From: Mrs J Layden, Leeds Old Road, Heckmondwike, West Yorkshire.
CAN anyone tell me why it costs £14.80 to travel from Dewsbury to Scarborough on a senior railcard day return but it only costs £13.65 to travel return from Scarborough to Dewsbury?