Crime figures fuel the fear, not us.

It is not The North East TaxPayers' Alliance that is "unnecessarily fuelling a fear of crime" ("Good policing at a reasonable price", Voice of the North, November 27), but the blunt reality of high crime in the North-East itself.

Councillor Mick Henry's blissful description of the region's safe streets completely fails to acknowledge the important facts.

Northumbria Police detect less than one in four robberies and only one in seven burglaries. And few of these will actually lead to an offender being convicted and taken off our streets. Confidence in the police has been declining year on year for more than a decade and one in five people surveyed by the Home Office in Northumbria last year admitted to a "high level of worry about violent crime".

Unfortunately, the public are right to be worried. Total violent crime across the North-East rose by 10% last year, and remains roughly seven times the rate it was in 1960.

A rare comparison that is more revealing than Coun Henry's statistics is based on the latest official figures, which show that you are more likely to be assaulted or robbed in the North-East than in America.

At what point is our police management held accountable for this failure?

It is no good talking about accountability through the unelected local police authority, which is completely opaque and powerless. Chief constables currently answer to the Home Secretary in London, not Coun Henry, and I would be shocked if one in a hundred people knew who Coun Henry was, or what the Northumbria Police Authority actually does.

In-house surveys of public opinion are all well and good, but why can't the people of the North-East have real power to tell the police what they think by voting locally in an election, like millions of Americans?

If Northumbria Police's record is really so good, Chief Constable Mike Craik won't object to standing on that platform in an election. It's called democracy.

PHILLIP CUMMINGS, Chief Executive, The North East TaxPayers' Alliance, Durham

Let the Grays claim their place in history

I WAS interested to read your November 27 story about the DNA tests conducted on male volunteers with the surname Robson to see if the genetic information could link together dozens of families of Robsons who were Border Reivers in the 17th Century.

I suggest we don't restrict the search to the Robson, Fenwick, Armstrong or Elliot surnames, for possible family ties with well-known Border clans.

What about the Greys or Grays?

This was a notable family name in the County of Northumberland where they were regarded as a family of great antiquity. They were usually Wardens or Constables who were appointed to uphold the law in those lawless times; not an easy task.

Chronicles of Scotland show early records of the name Gray, which ranks as one of the oldest in that country from very early times. They were granted lands by Duke William of Normandy for their distinguished assistance at the Battle of Hastings in 1066AD.

Would the Centre for Life in Newcastle like to add the Clan Grey/Gray to their list of Border names for future DNA research?

ELIZABETH GRAY, Bickerton, Northumberland

Our troops are in Iraq, serving the Crown

WITH reference to D Halford's letter on the war in Iraq ("PM took us to war for WMD that didn't exist", Voice of the North, November 25): I will remind him that our fighting forces have all signed up for King and Country, and no matter where, what and when, you go, you represent the Government in office, come hell or high water.

If he had ever served in the forces, he should have realised or experienced such.

All of our troops in Iraq are patriots and that's not relevant to "the lofty ambitions of Mr Blair", as Mr Halford puts it, let alone Zimbabwe.

TM MARTIN, Amble, Northumberland

Expose these parties to market forces

I AGREE with Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham ("The real role of the political levy", Voice of the North, November 27): political parties should be funded by their members and any voluntary contributions by citizens.

I stress voluntary contributions.

The contributions should come from general taxation for a number of reasons.

1. The number of citizens who exercise their right to vote is at its lowest level in modern times. Why should tax revenues be used to subsidise politicians who have lost the support of the majority of the electorate?

2. Why should parties be subsidised when people are being denied access to drugs on the National Health Service to treat certain conditions?

3. Using taxpayers' money may perpetuate parties which do not reflect the aspirations of the electorate and most importantly, prevent new, more in-touch parties from evolving.

This would protect the position of established parties and sitting politicians. Why should political parties not be subject to the same market forces that have led British workers to lose jobs to competitors?

4. The main parties already enjoy free radio and television air time to put forward their policies. In some other countries, this must be paid for.

The expenditure of political parties should be capped, as should contributions to parties from individuals and organisations. Contributions from organisations should be subject to a vote by shareholders or members.

This would encourage parties to adopt policies that reflect the aspirations of society.

TOM MOUNTAIN, South Shields, South Tyneside 

COUN STEPHEN LAMBERT, Labour, Kenton Ward, Newcastle City Council

Safety has taken the wrong road

THE European Union has stamped its authority on New Labour's Road Safety Act. During debate on this Bill, numerous amendments were proposed to help save lives.

Unfortunately the Westminster Parliament was unable to accept any suggestions. It has no power to enact them as this would be in breach of EU law.

Seventy people a year die through collisions at night with lorries.

Such accidents dramatically fall when lorries are fitted with reflective tape. Alarm systems to prevent HGV drivers leaving their cabs without putting on the brake (seven fatalities a year) and a requirement for left-hand drive trucks in the United Kingdom to have a right-hand side mirror, enabling drivers to see behind them when pulling out, were all rejected.

Tory, Lib Dem and rebel Labour MPs supporting the proposals were outnumbered by Labour MPs who placed subservience to Brussels above saving British lives.

By 2011 Brussels may bring in such laws. However, by then more than 300 British people alive today will have been killed.

Road, aircraft, ship and railway safety are areas where Westminster apparently cannot pass laws to save lives in our own country.

Almost eight out of 10 laws in the UK now come from Brussels.

Why then do we need a transport minister who is only a mouthpiece for Brussels?

Or indeed why we do need MPs at Westminster?

COUN STEPHEN ALLISON UK Independence Party, St Hilda Ward, Hartlepool Borough Council

Assembly is stuck without a purpose

I'M sure I'm not the only reader getting a little tired of Councillor Foote-Wood's attempts at defending the indefensible.

He does go on a lot ( doesn't he?

One of his main points seems to be that the North-East Assembly was not appointed by central government. Absolutely true, of course. It was created by Government and given its (for example) regional powers. It was not necessary to have it at all.

If the Government had wished, it could have given extra powers to the existing Association of North-East Councils. These already represent the broad area of the North-East, but presumably they were not to be trusted with any extra power. Our local MPs have also been left out in the cold.

If the assembly was abolished, broad policy-making does not have to revert to "highly paid civil servants in London" as claimed by Coun Foote-Wood. The North East Assembly was simply created to be a bridge to the (then confidently expected) elected assembly.

The fact that this course was massively rejected by the local electorate has resulted in a real problem for Coun Foote-Wood. It obviously worries him still.

RAY FARNSWORTH, Freelands, Northumberland

ME needs treatment based on research

YOU wait years for a report about myalgic encephalomyelitis to show up and two come along together.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's draft proposals have been roundly condemned by every ME group, with an unprecedented unanimity. Principal criticisms include an over-emphasis on psychological factors, lack of recognition of a neurological cause and a monopolistic approach to treatment by cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise treatment.

The Inquiry into ME, led by Norwich MP Dr Ian Gibson, is to be welcomed because it seems to put a call for more funding for biomedical research and for establishing specialist treatment services around the United Kingdom in the correct order: that is, research first, then treatment based upon its findings.

But it looks as though the treatment-before-cause model, approved by NICE, will go ahead, despite lack of patient approval or scientific endorsement. There never was good scientific evidence for the establishment of the specialist clinics, in their present form, in the first place: if cognitive behaviour therapy works, we should expect a cluster of successes around the therapists or geographical areas where they are used and, by contrast, patients lingering ill where they are not. There is no such evidence.

In addition to the experience of veteran ME sufferers, who took the advice of well-meaning GPs to exercise and ended up in wheelchairs, a study by the 25% Group, which represents severely affected people with ME, showed that 84% were worse after graded exercise.

Nor, where they are already in existence, have the specialist clinics done much to justify receiving money to maintain them as they are. The experimental methods are riddled with flaws; the diagnostic terms are ill-defined and bundled together, making generalisation impossible; treatment combinations are not consistent; there are hidden, unreported, statistics and, despite protestations to the contrary, some patients are pushed beyond their limits and there are even allegations of bullying.

For these reasons, ME Free for All.org is not the only ME charity which recommends that these services, in their present from, are suspended pending further research, in order to seek a definitive diagnostic test, which may, in turn, suggest treatment towards a cure. Only after this, would we welcome specialist safe and effective treatments for people with ME.

DR JOHN H GREENSMITH, ME Free For All.org, 36a North Street, Downend, Bristol BS16 5SW ([e-mail])