Dear Sir,
Once again Mr.Fleming has demonstrated just how easy it is to open his mouth that little bit wider, thus enabling him to put both feet in!! How can he sit there, comfortably behind his desk in Palma and give judgement on a case in England that has disgusted some 93% of the population, plus many millions throughout the world.

At a very tender age, a little boy was taken away, brutalised, sexually assaulted, savagely beaten and thrown on a railway track where his body was torn apart.

Eight years of relative comfort, trips to football matches and cinemas and overindulgence by 'do–gooders', seem to be the only 'punishment' handed out to the two people arrested and convicted of this horrific crime.

Are we to assume that Mr Fleming would show the same idiotic understanding were the little lad his own son? I think not!! Let us not forget that these two boys entered that shopping Mall in Liverpool, with the sole intention and purpose of abducting and torturing to death a small child, and that James Bulger was not their first target. Had it not been for the quick reactions of another mother shopping in the Mall, it may well have been her child that was so brutally murdered, and not James. Whether the parole board felt that these guilty people were a danger to the public or not is totally irrelevant. They committed a dastardly crime and should be made to pay for it. The eight years that they spent in relative comfort are eight years that their victim was prevented from living. For once, I agree with the tabloid press, in that if they do learn where these two evil young men are living, then let the 93% against their release, know of their whereabouts. As if it is not enough to be disgusted with the outcome of the Parole Board, it must be even more of a kick in the teeth to be told that the taxpayer has to meet the multi–million pound bill. Come on Mr Fleming, stop hiding behind your exulted position with a newspaper and admit you are so very, very wrong.

No longer 'a danger to the public' is how one would describe 71 years old Ronnie Biggs, who will probably die in prison, but certainly not the way one would describe two eighteen year olds.

Ivor Dugdale–Jenkins. Lloret de Vistalegre

Ray Fleming comments: In my article supporting the release of the Bulger killers I said, “I respect those who take a different view – but not if that view is accompanied by a wish to see vengeance done.” Mr Dugdale–Jenkins says, if I understand him correctly, that if the tabloid press learn where Thompson and Venables are living they should should let the public know. Would Mr Dugdale–Jenkins tell us what should then happen and who would take responsibility for the outcome? Would he wish to be among those assembling outside the addresses of Thompson and Venables and with what purpose in mind?

Three other questions: what is the basis for Mr Dugdale–Jenkins' “93 per cent” of the population said to be ”disgusted” by the release?; if release after eight years is too soon, how many years should the boys have to serve?; is ”rehabilitation” not one of the objectives of imprisonment?

Clean up our beach
Dear Sir,
I have just returned from four glorious weeks in Son Caliu. While there I was delighted to read in the Bulletin of the number of green flags awarded to Calvia for the excellent condition of their beaches.

I would suggest however, that there is one noteable exception namely the Son Caliu beach at the end of Carrer de los Pappalones.

This beach is covered in seaweed making swimming difficult. As a result of this the beach is used mainly by people walking their dogs and is polluted with dog's dirt which combined with the sea weed makes it not only smelly but a health hazard. The property owners in Son Caliu, including my husband and myself pay the same level of taxes as those in Portals Nous, Palma Nova, Tore Nova, Magalluf, Paguera, all of which have modern clean beaches maintained by the council. So why should Son Caliu have to suffer?

Anne Farguharson.Strathaven. Britain