I WAS quite appalled at your right-wing attitude to the case of David Duddin, the prisoner who sued a hotel in Yarm for holiday pay earned while serving his sentence (Echo, Mar 23).

I expect that he was employed by the hotel with an agreed set of terms and conditions. If he was not, then someone at the Kirklevington Grange Prison should answer how they allowed him to be employed.

If he did have agreed terms and conditions, then all parts of those terms and conditions should be honoured, not selected ones to suit either side. The fact that management at the Judges hotel agreed to honour their commitment before they reached tribunal, demonstrated that they realised that they had made a mistake.

You, however, set yourself up as prosecutor, judge and jury on a convicted criminal serving his time and trying, as far as can be seen, to re-start his life in a socially acceptable way. You describe Judges' "magnanimous" offer of employment, and try to undermine the trust that future employers and the general public might put in him and any future prisoner who might wish to go down the same road.

You tried to exonerate yourself by adding just one line by way of mitigation. It is to be hoped that the personnel department at The Northern Echo does not follow your ideas of man management, and that the management at Judges does use and honour acceptable terms and conditions for their employees. - CD Kirk, Brompton, Northallerton.

I WAS disappointed to find what appeared to be bias against the ethos of Resettlement Prisons and the very valuable contribution this type of establishment makes in helping prisoners return to normal life after having "paid their debt to society".

When a prisoner has served several years in a closed prison, returning to society is not a simple thing. The help given to prisoners by allowing them to work outside in the community is undoubtedly the best way to reintroduce those prisoners to normal life. This helps to cut down dramatically the level of re-offending, so must surely benefit society as a whole, as well as prisoners in particular.

The employers who choose to take on a prisoner have the prisoner's criminal record disclosed to them in advance and are well aware of all that they may have done. In your leader article, it said Judges hotel is out of pocket both in terms of the settlement and its legal fees. The settlement of £911 is simply wages it should have paid in the normal course of employing anyone, including a prisoner.

If an employer attempts to misuse anyone whom he employs and in so doing breaks employment law, obviously he is liable to be taken to a tribunal and is subject to the findings of that tribunal. Any employer, who deliberately tries to exploit prisoners simply because of their vulnerable situation, is actively working against the very determined efforts of the criminal justice system in rehabilitating prisoners in order that they can become useful members of society.

To my knowledge, many prisoners have obtained employment while in an open prison and continued in this employment after finishing their sentence. I would hope employers would not be dissuaded from taking on serving prisoners purely because they would wish to be treated in accordance with employment law. There are many very reputable companies who have employed serving prisoners for many years and have found the readily available workforce and the willing attitude of prisoners beneficial to both the company and the employees. - David Duddin, Newcastle.

A MAN jailed for helping in a theft of a £400,000 painting is given help by a hotel to prepare him for his return to society. The hotel takes a chance that he will not steal from the guests which would have given it a bad name and lost it business.

The man sues the hotel for unpaid holiday pay, receives legal aid and nearly £1,000 from the hotel. How ridiculous!

Did he think about how much the taxpayers have paid to clothe and feed him during the years he was in prison? Did he think about his fellow prisoners who also hope to get employment before being released from jail, because now very few employers will take a chance?

And what about the patients of Richard Neale who in the same paper were after £10,000 to be allowed to tell their side of the botched operations scandal in public. Neale will have no problem with regard to money as he was handed so much when he was stopped from working.

Why is legal aid always available for criminals and wrong-doers and victims are ignored? - E Reynolds, Wheatley Hill.

ANIMAL CRUELTY

CAN you really believe that fines of a total of £250 ("Dog was left to starve", Echo Mar 26) will make any difference to the care of any animals left with these people? It is a disgrace they were not banned from ever keeping any animals. It's about time the RSPCA did its job and protected animals. - G Davey, Thirsk.

MARY ANN COTTON

I HAVE often been told the story of Mary Ann Cotton (Echo, Mar 22) and I understand there is a poem about her. Does anyone know it? - S Myers, Richmond.

TELEVISION

KATE Adie is quite right in her comments on older viewers being sidelined as youth shows are focused on TV (Echo, March 20).

Most drama series with their violent, sexual content and bad language, display the low morals and behaviour alien to the majority of older viewers, making viewing uncomfortable and embarrassing. No wonder the off switch is so frequently used. As for the popular music, much of it is tuneless noise in the ears of the elderly.

There should be more sensitive programming aimed at the elderly, particularly at times of the day when they are likely to be watching. - E A Moralee, Billingham.