Tuesday's Letters: Why waste resources on this Ripper charade?

To say Peter Sutcliffe killed 13 women doesn't accurately describe his grotesque murders. He made people, in many parts of Yorkshire, live for years in sheer terror, particularly those women leaving work later at night.

Last week, he applied to be told of a possible release date from

custody. Lawyers, generously but unwillingly funded by Britain's taxpayers through the abomination of a misuse of legal aid, acted on his behalf.

Have we nothing better to spend our dwindling and hard-earned money on?

Hospitals, schools, roads, companies, police and all of Britain's people are all having to bear the pain of spending cuts, helping to reduce the appalling national debt.

It seems, however, that mass-murderer Sutcliffe and legal aid lawyers are immune from such hardships, something we have come to accept in modern, decadent Britain.

Why did we waste scarce resources on this charade?

It is irrelevant whether Peter Sutcliffe is deemed to pose little risk to the public if he is released. He committed crimes beyond the understanding of all normal, decent people and if his 20 life prison sentences don't mean life, then what does?

The taxpayer has spent millions of pounds keeping Sutcliffe in Broadmoor Hospital. Taxpayers' money seems to be regarded by lawyers as an unlimited and never ending source of income.

If, instead of legal aid, the only cash available to lawyers could only be provided by the public willingly donating cash to a "Peter Sutcliffe release fund", I wonder if lawyers would be as eager to accept him as a client, but when taxpayers can be used to provide an easy and never ending source of money, the situation is altered.

How many people agree with the way our money is used in such cases?

From: Barrie Frost, Watson's Lane, Reighton, Filey.

Villages hit by blight from lorries

From: AW Clarke, Wold Croft, Sutton on Derwent, York.

HOW interesting to note the list of objections to the call for weight restrictions on the bridge over the Derwent, known as Sutton Bridge, after its recent closure.

Notwithstanding that the structure is a Grade II* listed monument which has cost a fortune to repair, not to mention the disruption to local traffic, the colossal vehicles which use this tiny bridge are unsuitable for anything but A roads.

How many more villages are to be blighted by a relentless increase in the size, weight and racket caused by these leviathans which seem to be used to deliver everything from a packet of biscuits to the local shop to huge loads for industry?

Perhaps those who regard the continuation of this relentless traffic as so important should try to sleep in the bedrooms fronting the Main Street for a night or two, both in Elvington and Sutton on Derwent, or

try to take a walk to the village shop without having to flatten themselves against the nearest hedge to prevent them being swept from the pavements.

Of course, this scenario is repeated a thousand times in little

villages throughout the country and nobody in authority listens. So much for the "Big Society".

Pitfalls of fixed terms

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

"Even the United States has elections every four years," says JW Smith (Yorkshire Post, July 14), advocating a four-year fixed term for the UK. Not really. That is true of the President, but the House is every two years and Senators have a six-year term.

More importantly, the US system has nothing to match the vote of "No Confidence" which can turn out a UK administration and often – but not, of course, always – lead to a new election. It seems that such a new election would not be possible under the proposed fixed term.

Had Mr Smith lived through the Nixon scandal, I suspect he would be more appreciative of this possibility. Under fixed terms, we had to live with months of gridlock before the President was removed. Even then, Nixon only resigned under threat of impeachment. Had he not done so, the process would have taken even longer.

If the UK has no more use for the vote of no confidence, please ship it over here. We need it even though it is too late for Mr Bush.

A BT fault to address

From: Mrs JM Andrews, Back Lane, Easingwold, North Yorkshire.

IN our latest edition of the BT telephone directory, our address has been printed wrongly. Having lived at our present address for nearly 19 years, I queried this error.

Despite being passed to and from various departments, no-one could give me any reason why this has happened. I was even asked if we had, in fact, moved to the new address – I think we would have remembered. BT seemed doubtful.

I was informed, of course, that until the next directory is issued this error cannot be rectified, but the computer would immediately be

updated and further communications to us would be addressed properly.

Since then, we have received, thanks only to our postman who does know

where we live, several wrongly addressed letters from BT.

I wonder what happened to the immediate computer update?

When I read therefore that due to "BT's staff contribution and success" they have been awarded a nine per cent pay rise, I now know that they are not only inefficient, but overpaid as well.

The Queen richly deserves the nation's appreciation

From: Maureen Hunt, Woolley, near Wakefield, West Yorkshire.

PHILIP Smith complains in his letter (Yorkshire Post, July 12) that he has been deprived of the possibility of having an elected Head of

State. He also has the audacity to say that, were he a millionaire, he could easily do the same job as the Queen does – "and so could anyone else".

On the Queen's recent trip to Canada, the 84-year-old monarch spent nine days visiting five cities in a sweltering, humid heatwave where temperatures reached the mid-thirties.

She attended numerous official functions and dinners, laid cornerstones, planted a tree, inspected the Ceremonial Guard and met some of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who turned out to greet her.

She always looked elegant and immaculate, wearing colourful outfits, large hats and long white gloves. Never did she show any symptoms of heat or fatigue.

In Toronto, a woman, holding a black plastic bag, broke through the barrier and approached the Queen who, without any sign of fear,

accepted the bag, chatted to the woman and introduced her to the Duke of Edinburgh before the Royal Canadian Military Police arrived on the scene. This was in stark contrast to the previous week when there was massive security for the G20/G8 Summit and violence broke out.

There is no one, apart from our Sovereign, who could have handled the arduous programme with such cool dignity and genuine pleasure. The Canadians may not all be in favour of the Monarchy but they love the Queen.

No political head of state could engender love and party politics is always divisive.

It is because our Monarch is non-political that she can represent us

all and be inclusive.

Long may she reign – and may she receive the appreciation and respect which she richly deserves and has truly earned.

From: K Fishcroft, Elwick Close, Alexandra Park, Manchester.

I REFER to Jayne Dowle's article (Yorkshire Post, July 8) and it seems to me that four questions were being asked about our Queen.

n Is she value for money?

n Would Jayne Dowle curtsy to certain members?

n Why do soldiers go to work?

n Should our Queen accept her privileges in austere times?

Losers in the council sell-off

From: JW Smith, Sutton-on-Sea.

BJ Cussons trots out the usual Tory propaganda praising Mrs Thatcher over the sale of council houses (Yorkshire Post, July 10).

Of course, there were beneficiaries, but they were only a fraction of those who were compelled to rely on the rented sector.

This, however, does not alter the fact that it was a dogmatic, anti-public sector, vote-buying idea with houses being sold at knock-down prices.

Local authorities were compelled to go along with the measure, but she legislated so that they were not allowed to use the proceeds.

The housing stock, therefore, reduced and they could not even spend any of the money either on replacements or renovations.

The only possible reason for this was political dogma, but worst of all, it left so many people unable to obtain local authority housing and pushed them into the clutches of unscrupulous landlords demanding outrageous rents for what were very often no more than hovels.

Fare's fair

From: CC Grace, Church Close, Maltby, Rotherham.

I WOULD have thought the solution to the free bus passes for the

elderly was obvious. In these straitened times, would it not be possible to continue with the current system, so that at 60 years of age a person becomes eligible for a bus pass but, instead of free travel, why not charge a nominal fare of 20p per journey on production of the pass?

Everybody wins – it's still cheaper than using a car, it's not such a strain on Government finances and is still cheap enough to qualify as a bargain.

Strange society

From: Barry Foster, Manor Cottages High Stakesby, Whitby.

WHAT a tremendously sad world ours is fast becoming.

Last week (Yorkshire Post, July 16) we learned of a Facebook page established to support and praise a man who has murdered one human being, maimed a young woman and blinded a police officer who was doing his duty.

I simply cannot and will not understand the type of person who would wish to contribute to this. If this is the society we are all expected to live in, then God help us all.

Double vision

From: Andrew Crossland, Kensington Road, Halifax.

After a strong case of dj-vu, I then realised that Horace and Doris on Friday (Yorkshire Post, July 16), is a repeat of Tuesday. What about a credit note?

Editor's note: Apologies for this oversight.