Thursday's Letters: Give Huntley the money then charge him for being in jail

However, in the case of Ian Huntley, or anyone else for that matter, I suggest that the powers-that-be award him the 100,000 he is claiming without going to court.

By this means, we can avoid the considerable expense incurred by the legal representatives of both sides which could easily run into millions of pounds.

Once he has got the money, we then apply the same principles to him as is applied to any pensioner who has saved up a few bob and has to go

into residential care and who is then required to pay towards this

care.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it costs upwards of 25,000 per year to keep a prisoner in a high security jail so it wouldn't

take very long to get all the money back from any award to Huntley.

From: Gordon Bray, Grange Road, Golcar, Huddersfield.

From: Alec Denton, Oxford Avenue, Guiseley.

SOHAM murderer Ian Huntley's crime was unimaginably horrendous and a proper trial found him guilty beyond doubt.

Because of the nature of his crime, it is a fact that it will never be safe to either release him or to allow him to mix fully with other offenders and his quality of life will always be poor. He will die in prison and if common sense and logic had any place, he would have been executed.

Unfortunately, that is not the case, but the only way to protect him fully is to put him under 24-hour guard. This is both prohibitively expensive and socially unacceptable. He will, therefore, always be at risk because of the crime he committed and so long as the inquiry into the attack on him concluded that a reasonable level of protection was provided, the fault is his and not that of the prison.

Claims for compensation should not be allowable and our money should

not be wasted on offensive legal proceedings.

From: Roger M Dobson, Ash Street, Cross Hills, Keighley.

SO, Ian Huntley believes he is due compensation for someone in prison having tried to cut his throat.

Surely, there is not a judge in the land who would be so silly as to

grant him compensation from the public purse.

However, if there is a judge who would do so, he or she should be

forcibly retired. Should Huntley be given compensation, then there

must be a condition that any award be split equally between the

families of the two girls he murdered.

From: Brian A Jones, Clinton Street, Brooklyn, New York.

WHEN the Yorkshire Ripper was sentenced he was not given a death

sentence (it has been abolished), nor was he given a life sentence

without the possibility of parole.

Your correspondents may disagree with both of those decisions, but they are facts; they represent decisions taken by the justice system on behalf of the society. That being the case, Peter Sutcliffe is entitled to a hearing on possible release; that right is almost meaningless without the assistance of counsel; and therefore, assuming he has no funds, the taxpayer is stuck.

Sutcliffe, whether we like it or not, has legal rights, too. They were given to him by the judge who handed down a sentence that included the possibility (very remote, I hope and trust) of parole. The taxpayers are not "seeking ways to spend their hard-earned cash". They are

carrying out the law in the same way as they would had Hitler been caught at the end of the war.

He would, I trust, have swung, but not without a trial, assistance of counsel and all the other rights our society would have given him. Hitler would have laughed at us for that. That is one of the many, many reasons why our society is better than Hitler's. It is a small part of why we fought the war.

Sutcliffe is probably laughing at us, too, but if we abuse him, even in a way that is trivial compared to his behaviour, we take a small step down to his level. Is that really what your correspondents want to do?

What is our society coming to?

From: Richard Ford, Carlton Husthwaite, Thirsk.

I WAS very interested to read the letter from York visitor Dave

Hitchman (Yorkshire Post, August 2).

Unlike this contributor, my wife and I are regular visitors to the city, living, as we do, less than 20 miles away. We are also dog owners, although we do not bring our dog with us into the city and were therefore unaware that there was a ban on dogs being exercised on the city walls. Presumably this is because the city council is concerned that animals may perhaps relieve themselves while enjoying their walk around the walls.

This is interesting because there is obviously no ban in force

concerning humans who might wish to relieve themselves in public within the city walls.

A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I were in the city early in the evening, enjoying a meal in a restaurant in Petergate. We had a window seat and were able to watch people come and go along this busy and historic thoroughfare.

A group of young, smartly-dressed women came along, and one of them decided that the pavement immediately outside the restaurant was an ideal place to relieve herself in full view of all those of us

unfortunate enough to have a window seat.

Petergate was busy at this time, and people were obliged to step off the pavement in order to avoid being splashed by this young woman's urine. This unedifying spectacle went on long enough for people to take photographs and, by the time she had finished and replaced her underwear, there was a large pool on the pavement which subsequent passers-by unwittingly walked through.

This deplorable event happened in broad daylight and was made even more deplorable by the fact that the young woman in question was not in any way embarrassed by what she had done, neither were her friends who stood quietly waiting for her.

What is society coming to? I am sure Dave Hitchman's dog would have been much better behaved.

From: Mrs Christine M Balmforth, Stocksbank Road, Mirfield.

HOW dare David Hitchman (Yorkshire Post, August 2) condemn our beautiful city of York?

I visited York last week with my three granddaughters and what a

fabulous day we had. We were able to park free of charge at the park and ride, and did not have to pay for the children on the bus, the driver was very helpful, telling me the best value to be had for the journey.

We visited the Castle Museum where it only cost me 8 for admission and free for the girls, we spent several hours there enjoying the wonderful displays. We then visited the fabulous Jorvik Centre and thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

We didn't have to pay for any toilets which we used.

May I say how cruel it is to take a dog into a busy city and to expect to be able to take the poor animal into shops and restaurants.

There may be some empty shops but lots of the others were vibrant and busy.

Shame on Mr Hitchman for his unfounded accusations about a great city.

'The knife's inside...'

From: Mrs Annie Painter, Spring Lane, Wakefield.

I MUST comment on Jayne Dowle's article (Yorkshire Post, August 2) regarding her point of staff attitude in Yorkshire's resorts and how miserable some are.

On Sunday morning, I was sitting with a friend outside a caf-bar in Scarborough. We had ordered two toasted teacakes and were awaiting their arrival. There was no ticket system and when they were ready, a young waitress walked silently round holding them. I managed to spot

her luckily and gestured merrily to where we were sitting. At which point she thundered over, dropped the toast on the table and was about to leave when I meekly asked if a knife came with them. "You get that yerself. It's inside," she tutted. Customers! Who needs them?

New danger for pedestrians – the Segway

From: G Carpenter, Diamond Avenue, South Elmsall, near Pontefract.

REGARDING John Darby's "Pavements for pedestrians" letter (Yorkshire Post, July 23), this is a long-standing problem facing successive governments.

I understand the law stating that cyclists using the pavement are liable to a substantial fine is still in force, but is never

implemented. As is the requirement for cycles to be fitted with a bell or other audible means of signalling their approach.

With the traffic congestion on all roads, it is quite obvious that cyclists are very vulnerable while using them. However, this does not excuse their practice of using the pavements and endangering

pedestrians. This practice has become so common that the said cyclists now consider it to be an acceptable action, and actually expect

pedestrians to get out of their way.

It would appear that successive governments have turned a blind eye to this situation rather than trying to solve the problem, and now we find an additional danger arriving in the shape of the Segway which, unlike

the invalid scooter is not an aid for disabled people, but a gimmick.

Anyone who can control this contraption is certainly not an invalid, and is capable of walking like everyone else.

I hope that in this instance its use on pavements will be made illegal as a pedestrian's life is dangerous enough as things stand at present without this added danger.

Helping hand for families

From: Karen Dean, regional consultant (North), Home-Start UK, West

Walk, Leicester.

YOU printed Karl Sheridan's letter entitled "Savings that cut at heart of 'The Big Society'" (Yorkshire Post, July 26).

While Home-Start UK appreciates the effort Karl has gone to in highlighting the important work that Home-Start volunteers carry out, it is factually incorrect to say that Home-Start Bridlington and Driffield and Home-Start Goole and District do not support as many families as Home-Start Wolds.

Both Home-Start Bridlington and Driffield and Home-Start Goole and District work with families in two of the most deprived areas of the East Riding of Yorkshire and that is why they receive local authority funding.

Many of these families find it too hard to engage with statutory services, but will accept a Home-Start volunteer into their home as our support is confidential and non-judgmental.

Well done to ground crews

From: Stan Nordsted, Vandyke Close, Milton Keynes.

IN this 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, while acknowledging the bravery of the pilots, some mention should be made about the dedication of the ground crews who worked tirelessly to keep the

aircraft in the air.

Without their expertise none of these would have ever left the ground.

Well done them!