MUSLIMS: IN response to Kev McStravick and John Martin (HAS, both Dec 21) I must reiterate that I have not sought to minimise the terrorist threat.

I have said that only a tiny minority of Muslims are involved in terrorism. It is an important point. Decent, law-abiding citizens have been attacked simply because they are, or are thought to be, Muslims.

I think that journalists and correspondents should think carefully about the effects of their remarks, not only in encouraging the blind prejudice behind such attacks, but also with regard to the personal hurt caused to ordinary Muslims.

I have discussed this correspondence with Muslims I know, and, via email, with a Metropolitan Police officer. He wrote: "I, along with the majority of the Muslim community, abhor and detest the actions of these terrorists. The notion that (they) would associate themselves with Islam is sickening and an outrage...

"Being one of at least 400 Muslim police officers/staff in the Met, I find some comments in these letters extremely hurtful and demoralising...

"I can personally confirm there are Muslim officers on the Counter Terrorism Command who play an active and crucial role in combating terrorism, whilst placing themselves at a high risk." - Pete Winstanley, Durham.

KEV McStravick and John Martin (HAS, Dec 21) are concerned about Pete Winstanley and Hugh Pender's attitude to terrorists and Muslims. Well, they shouldn't be.

Both the latter have consistently held the line that those who kill innocent civilians, particularly women and children, are terrorists.

They make no differentiation between suicide bombers and American bombers or between the actions of elected governments and individuals. Neither, incidentally, do they define an innocent civilian.

However, recent letters would lead me to conclude that those who many of us would label as Muslim terrorists become removed from Mr Winstanley and Mr Pender's equation after committing an outrage and become non-Muslims, simply because their religion precludes the illegal taking of life (Mr Winstanley, HAS, Dec 7).

Presumably, it follows that only Western forces acting under the instruction of democratic leaders who accidentally kill innocent civilians are really faith-driven terrorists.

Whether this can be considered logical is open to conjecture, but I think both of these gentlemen will find it hard to maintain their line in 2007 when - if our security services are to be believed - we may face more attacks from within our own Muslim population. But then these wouldn't be "real" Muslims, would they Mr Winstanley? - David Lacey, Durham.

INVASION OF IRAQ

NL KELLETT claims to speak for "most of us" in the Tuesday Poem contribution headed Tony Blair (Echo, Dec 19). However, I believe that opinion polls of the time showed a majority against an invasion of Iraq.

Many of us who believe in the rule of international law were appalled by the way that the weapons inspectors appointed by the UN Security Council were forced to abandon their search for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush administration's insistence on an illegal invasion (and, as such, a war crime), without credible evidence to support it. Tony Blair went against the British sense of justice and fair play by zealously backing the warmongering George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

I, along with many others, was convinced that this was because they knew that no evidence was likely to be found, but were committed, for political and economic reasons, to invade Iraq, come what may.

So, despite the fact that I liked the poetry, please, NL Kellett, don't tar "most of us" with the same brush. - John Heslop, Durham.

STATE BENEFITS

FOR too many, state benefits are a source of dependency and it is a culture that must change.

Recently, we have seen the plight of the elderly and winter payments, people who deserve protection of a system which often lets some of them down.

In contrast, many young people do not have the motivation to work, largely based on an attitude that refutes the work ethic. It is not just unfair to tolerate such a "mind set" - it creates a stigma for genuine people who are unable to work and will never be able to do so.

It has been too easy for many to manipulate a system that at times has been bureaucratic and where different Government departments have failed to link up.

Those who refuse to work when there is no reason to do so should not receive benefits. We should always strive to create work opportunities and expect work to be an objective and unemployment benefit to be linked to achieving that object. - Bernie Walsh, Coxhoe, Durham.

JOB INTERVIEWS

THE report that bright school leavers are failing to get jobs because they can't express themselves in interviews (Echo, Dec 14) comes as no real surprise. Schools are indeed producing a generation of "Vicky Pollards".

One of the causes of the problem could be that what used to be basic training in the classroom and at home, namely correcting children's pronunciation and grammar, is now often overlooked.

Under the influence of television and their peers, who often struggle as they do, young people find themselves tongue-tied, except for repeating certain popular phrases.

If only time could be devoted to teaching that it is "think" not "fink" and "ask" not "arx", along with many other problem words, then perhaps the otherwise very bright young people would complete successful interviews and find employment. - EA Moralee, Billingham.