Answers needed on profits and motives.

As an Alnwick resident, I have followed The Journal's reporting on the proposed new supermarket for Alnwick with interest. I think it is true to say that the majority of residents would welcome competition for Morrisons.

In the past, most of the proposals for a supermarket outside the town centre have been vetoed, most notably by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, usually on the grounds of the detrimental impact it would have on the town centre.

If this is the case, in terms of food shopping, why does the same logic not apply to other types of store, Homebase having been granted permission as part of the proposed new development out of town. What about the existing shops in the town centre and on the industrial estates that sell similar goods, are they not entitled to the same protection?

Perhaps The Journal could ask the relevant people for an answer to this conundrum. The same applies to the proposal for an Argos store on the same site.

It is rather disturbing to read in the Northumberland Gazette the quotation from Colin Barnes of Northumberland Estates regarding the approach for the Argos development: "This was the only site that would meet their requirements. We were keen to sign up another tenant in order to give certainty to the scheme going ahead. There is a lot of cost involved in building that development, plus the cost of the roundabout." He further states that "there is a danger that Alnwick misses out again" and on Homebase that "it is on hold waiting for this decision".

The thing that seems to be implied is that unless they get their way, Alnwick won't get a roundabout on the slip road, but the underlying unspoken motive seems to be profit. It does seem to be a quid pro quo approach, let us have permission for this development, we will build a roundabout, we will profit from the exercise and town centre traders be damned.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED, Alnwick, Northumberland

Young must have their say ( loud and clear

IAM the Children's Commissioner for England and I want children and young people in England to show us what's on their minds, by entering our competition ( "Shout! Turn up the volume!" We want to know what matters most to children and young people.

To enter the competition, all entrants have to do is provide a piece of artwork (it can be a picture, film, photo or image) on a subject which is close to their heart. This could be on any topic, from what goes on at school to how young people are talked about in the media.

The issues that are raised will set the work priorities of the Office of the Children's Commissioner (OCC) and be used to develop its new brand identity. The winning children will be invited to a mystery London location on Saturday August 12 to develop this with a top design agency.

There will also be other fun activities throughout the day.

Other great prizes are up for grabs including Sony PSP consoles, iPods, and trips to London Zoo and Legoland.

Entries can be made simply at our website, www.shoutmyentry.org and must be in by Friday, July 28.

Your readers might like to know that the OCC's mission is: "To be the voice for all children and young people, in England.

"We will use our independence and dedication to look after the interests of children and young people.

"We will do this by making sure that everyone involves children and young people in matters that affect them.

"We will protect and improve their lives by working with and influencing society, the media, politicians and those who work with children and young people. We will promote debate on changing the world children live in."

Sir ALBERT AYNSLEY-GREEN, Children's Commissioner for England, 1 London Bridge, London SE1 9BG

Missing the point on community policing

The Journal's leader of June 20 advocated the use of Police Community Support Officers as "scarecrow policemen" because they carry out "the kind of work better trained police officers have moved away from over the years". You are missing the point.

The reason for the move away has been down to the fact the police force has not only been under-funded since the 1960s but has also had an increase in extra duties as well as a deluge of new paperwork.

PCSOs probably do a good job, but they are a sticking plaster solution by policing on the cheap.

Fund the police force, give it more manpower and the need for PCSOs disappears.

I am sure that if you asked the public they would far prefer to have a professional officer patrolling their area than a half-trained PCSOs.

IAN MARTIN, Ex-Police Sergeant, Newcastle

Useful inventions, but a high price to pay

JOCK MacJock and G Durham (Voice of the North, May 31 and June ) should know that we all admire and benefit from Scottish inventions like tyres, televisions and so on, but we, the English taxpayers, were paying for these inventions.

If one looks back in time, Scotland had the highest proportion of council houses in Europe if not the world, all subsidised by English taxes. We paid for that monstrous parliament building in Edinburgh which came in well over budget.

And why do we have Scottish MPs in an English parliament who bend to President Tony's wishes when he needs to ram one of his monstrous Bills through Parliament, for rewards that do nothing for England? Student fees come to mind. I rest my case.

ROBIN THOMPSON, Amble, Northumberland

Why not try luxury speed humps?

WHEN it comes to speed humps, Newcastle City Council is probably one of the most enthusiastic "humpers" in the country. These "sleeping policemen" are universally loathed by drivers, who are forced to drop speed to unnecessarily low levels to avoid damage to vehicles and injury to passengers, including broken necks.

The humps also impair fuel economy, increase pollution, are an obstacle for emergency vehicles and can lead to the withdrawal of bus services.

I realise I am probably crying for the moon if I expect the council to remove them, knowing from past experience that it is stubbornly enamoured of them, so might I suggest trying the new Dunlop Transcalm inflatable humps?

Trials of these devices in the City of London over the past five years have been an unqualified success, the transport director Joe Weiss describing them as the Rolls-Royce of speed humps. They are also quicker to install.

Something must be done because the present situation on Newcastle's streets is unacceptable.

PHILIP WARREN, Gosforth, Newcastle

Tragic photo was just too graphic

IWAS saddened to hear of the tragic death of nine-year-old Ryan Marshall of County Durham as the result of a road accident (The Journal, June 24). Stories of this sort are always emotive and should be publicised in the hope that another parent does not lose a child in such circumstances.

However, I was horrified to open The Journal on Saturday and see a photograph of the young boy dead in his coffin. I consider myself to be open minded and not easily shocked, but the image made me feel quite sick.

His parents say that they have released the photograph in order to warn kids of the dangers of not wearing a crash helmet. I am a parent myself and suspect any right-minded parent would not show this image to a child.

The publication of this graphic photo, in my opinion, is inappropriate.

ALISON FELTON, Morpeth, Northumberland