THE editorial on firefighters' pay (Echo, Sept 3) simply misses the real point.

The employers are, essentially, the same people who employ teachers and police. There is no need for an independent investigation to compare pay levels between the three, as all the details must already be known. It sounds like a tried and tested delaying tactic to me.

The employers should offer a genuine pay comparison and agree to be bound by the results.

We certainly do not want a return of the obsolete Green Goddesses. The last time they were used, the servicemen involved did not receive proper training and were told to let the fires burn themselves out. Who would replace the highly-trained and experienced firefighters attending car accidents?

Commonsense should prevail. This has to mean a very different level of pay altogether. I think it is worth paying more to have professional experts prepared to risk their lives to save me, my loved ones, and my property. Don't you? - Stuart Hill, Darlington.

REPRESENTATIVES of the UK's firefighters and control staff have been involved in negotiations with national employers over a new pay deal since February 26.

For our employers to suggest that we have rushed headlong into a strike ballot is inaccurate and inflammatory.

Local government has so far failed in its responsibility to negotiate on a fair wage level and has consistently side-stepped the issue. FBU members are justifiably wary of entering into a Government inquiry, considering that it could be lengthy and expensive, and by no means guaranteed that the findings will be implemented.

Firefighters work two eight-hour day shifts and two 16-hour night shifts every week, often over weekends and bank holidays. They are trained to deal with fires, road accidents, flooding, chemical spills and all manner of rescues, on occasions risking their own lives to save others, and all this for £100-a-week less than the average earnings of other full-time workers.

MPs and local councillors should listen to the opinions of the public who elected them and reward the UK's firefighters with a wage that reflects the technical and professional demands of the modern fire and rescue service. - Ian Moore, Fire Brigades Union, Durham.

SADDAM HUSSEIN

IF the US attacks Iraq without UN authority it threatens to make the UN defunct, make international law worthless, whilst sending out the message that strong nations can do what they want without fear of prosecution.

The UN is the only means by which many of the poorer nations can have a voice and a means to justice, aid in times of disaster and protection from those who have territorial claims over them.

An effectively defunct UN will remove this protection and ensure many deaths as stronger nations physically enforce such claims.

Whether attacking Iraq is justified or not, without UN backing such an attack is illegal and a crime under international law, whilst without the support of the Arab nations such an attack could escalate into a world war. Afterwards, the US will invoke its immunity from prosecution before taking measures to restore its position around the world. But no matter how many are killed or whether it escalates to a world war, such an attack may result in prosecutions. America has immunity, Britain doesn't. - CT Riley, Spennymoor.

YOUR comment (Echo, Aug 29) is an attempt to make the American President out to be the villain and justify those who suggest he has a case to answer as a warmonger. You ignore the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.

A year ago the Americans left themselves open and paid a dear price and now, because they are not prepared to do the same again, you find excuses for what anyone who condones what the likes of Saddam does.

To sit on the fence is inexcusable and to try to convince us with dubious questionnaires in the Prime Minister's patch has more to do with subterfuge and less to do with moral responsibility. - J Young, Crook.

HOW naive are the governments of Egypt and Saudia Arabia to oppose America's stand against Iraq? Obviously Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction because if he did not have them, the first UN delegation would have confirmed he was clear, but they had to leave because he would not give them free access.

Now, if he was clear, he would be welcoming the UN into his country to let the world know he was no danger to them. - E Reynolds, Wheatley Hill.

PRESIDENT Bush seems determined to wage war on Iraq. His reason, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

The Americans proved more than 50 years ago that they possess destructive weapons when they dropped those atom bombs on Japan.

If Iraq should be attacked because it has weapons of war, should not the same apply to the US which will have more destructive weapons than any other nation in the world.

George W Bush should never forget that, when America went to war against Vietnam, his country received a hiding and now that the Arab nations are rallying in support of Iraq, this will be another conflict that America cannot win. - C Stoner, Peterlee.

RETURN OF THE WOLF

FOR sheer optimism, this correspondent raises his cap to John Dean, who has been promoting the notion of the return to the British countryside of the lovely European wolf (Echo, Sept 2).

Once, such a reintroduction would have worked in a land as green and pleasant as ours. Now our countryside is so badly polluted that it can't support the humble little sparrow.

Yet it is said that the worst is still to come. It is just that everyone is gnawing so contentedly at the bone of advanced industrial society that wildlife is copping it every time.

No gold medals, Mr Dean, but an admirable idea anyway. - A Jones, Bridlington.