IT is, of course, reassuring to know that 35 of Britain's most notorious killers - some of the most evil human beings alive - will never be released from prison.

And while it is shocking that the list does not include the likes of Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe or Soham murderer Ian Huntley, we can be confident that no Home Secretary would ever commit political suicide by sanctioning their release.

We are more concerned about the army of less well-known killers who were sentenced to "life" in prison but will serve a fraction of that time behind bars.

The overall number of those serving life in jails in England and Wales has reached a record high. On the face of it, that sounds like evidence of the courts being tough on the worst kinds of crime.

But we know that a life sentence has become so devalued that it has become meaningless because, apart from in a minority of cases, "lifers" are allowed back into communities all too quickly.

This is not to say that there is no room in our society for rehabilitation. We must believe that criminals can become useful members of society and work hard on that objective.

But unless a life sentence means someone will die in prison, why use it in the first place? Why pretend it is something it is not when the consequence is an undermining of public confidence in the criminal justice system?

Bowled over

WITH Shane Warne announcing his impending retirement from Test cricket yesterday, the world of sport must brace itself to losing one of its biggest names.

The word "genius" is over-used but in Warne's case it is perfectly justified because no cricketer has had a greater influence on the game in modern times, not only through his mesmerising skill with the ball but also with the force of his personality.

In our view, Shane Warne is quite simply the greatest bowler the world has ever seen.