Letters: Wrongful convictions

Professor Graham Zellick, the outgoing chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), argues that "it's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted" (27 September), suggesting he and his organisation have a serious concern with the wrongful conviction of the innocent.

But, although the CCRC was set up in response to notorious miscarriages of justice cases, such as that of the Birmingham Six, it cannot guarantee that innocent victims of wrongful conviction will be referred to the appeal courts, let alone have their convictions overturned. As the CCRC's website clearly states, it does "not consider innocence or guilt, but whether there is new evidence or argument that may cast doubt on the safety of an original decision".

In fact, it refers only to those cases be-lieved to have "a real possibility" of being overturned and may not refer the cases of potentially innocent applicants if the evidence of their innocence was available at the time of their original trial.

Disconcertingly, by these criteria, the Birmingham Six would not have their case referred by the CCRC today, since the evidence of police misconduct and incorrect forensic expert testimony that led to the quashing of their convictions in the third appeal was available at the time of the original trial, so does not constitute the kind of "fresh evidence" required.

Professor Zellick's remarks certainly do not reflect the actual workings of the CCRC, and it is a great pity that he was not so vocal about the plight of the innocent during the five years when he was at the helm of the CCRC and was in a stronger position to do something about it.

Dr Michael Naughton

Chair, Innocence Network UK (INUK), Senior Lecturer, University of Bristol

What exactly is an informed investor?

The suggestion by some commentators that local authorities' exposure to Icelandic financial institutions amounted to lazy risk-management and could have been foreseen is misleading. While the blame is being placed squarely at the steps of those town halls affected, both the Government and the Local Government Association agree there is no evidence of recklessness by local authorities.

Barnet Council made fixed-term investments with two Icelandic institutions as long as two years ago, before the Treasury or Bank of England became aware of an impending credit crisis. The decision to make these deposits was not based on which bank topped a newspaper best-buy table. The rates offered by these institutions, their credit ratings and external advice provided to our council informed the decision-making process.

Barnet's deposits were made in line with the financial framework for local authorities set down by the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury. As our deposits were made before the credit crisis, the security of these investments was unquestionable. Had we not deposited this money, we would have been accused of being overly cautious and the lost income from interest returns would have placed an unwarranted strain on our finances and, ultimately, the council taxpayers of the borough.

Now the Treasury considers local authorities to be "informed investors" and not eligible for compensation, yet banks who also exposed themselves to the same risks receive billions of taxpayers' money to keep them afloat. If banks are not to be considered "informed investors", how can this label be attached to local authorities?

Councillor Mike Freer

Leader of the Council, London Borough of Barnet

Is Gordon Brown seeking a Falklands victory? One of the few winners of the global financial crisis is the Prime Minister. For him, the crisis and the clash with Iceland could not have come at a better time. He is coming to the rescue of British savers, investors, public bodies and charities that could have lost millions of pounds deposited in failing Icelandic banks.

The PM said it was illegal that Iceland was not prepared to compensate UK investors equally but protected its domestic savers first. He hit back by seizing assets in Britain of one of the Icelandic banks, using an anti-terrorism law that provides for the freezing of assets in the fight against terrorism.

But how legal is such a dé-tournement de pouvoir? And how big is Iceland's terror threat to Britain? Perhaps as big as the threat the Falklands posed to Britain. In 1982, the Falkland War bolstered the position of Margaret Thatcher. A year later, her government won the general election. Is glory in a war against Iceland the PM's perspective after having been so close to his political grave?

Professor Cees van Dam

School of Law, King's College London WC1

Restoring confidence in our banks was necessary and urgent and the Government should be congratulated on doing so and on guaranteeing savers' money, but I hope that when confidence is restored the Government will quietly make it clear that in future the banks need to use some of their profits to repay taxpayers. Otherwise, private banks could end up like the "privatised" railway firms which keep all their profits while many of their costs are paid by taxpayers they're also overcharging.

Many economists suggest that, instead of a bail-out, governments should buy shares in banks whenever speculators lower their share price. This might restore confidence in the banks and simultaneously give the government (and indirectly voters) a say in their future decisions.

The Farepak savers, many people on low incomes who were saving for Christmas presents for their children, should also be fully compensated. The Government refused to do so in the past on the grounds that it would set a precedent. That precedent has now been set in the tens of billions by guaranteeing bank customers' savings.

Duncan McFarlane

Carluke, Lanarkshire

I am somewhat bemused at the situation facing many of our local authorities who invested in the Icelandic financial sector. In Scotland, for example, more than £45m of taxpayers' money may be at risk.

Earlier this year, some international agencies had cut the credit rating of Icelandic banks, and the growing risk of the Icelandic banking system was a situation that had been highlighted, in some cases, since early 2007.

Warnings were passed to some local authority financial managers, prompting some of them to stop investing in Iceland. South Yorkshire police and fire authorities stopped investing in Icelandic banks in June, after a warning from its advisory service. Were our local authorities given inappropriate advice, or did they chose to ignore warnings?

Alex Orr

Edinburgh

The time to avert a "climate crunch" has run out. The latest scientific predictions warn of a decade or less to stabilise emissions, or the climate sinks the financial and economic system for good. Whether 10 years be an over- or underestimate is irrelevant. Why pay our scientists to tell us at all, if we refuse to act rationally on their best advice?

There is only one system that was ever going to solve this problem, and that is the global investment system. Think what could be achieved with the scale of global resources deployed to "solve" the credit crunch. Does anyone believe the people running that system are capable of solving the biggest problem it has ever created? Take the LSE, a global leadership institution. The director was formerly FSA chairman, and lSE's chairman, and the chair of the Alumni Association, are heads of two of the world's (remaining) investment banks. The campus is littered with investment banking propaganda. Can this creed "take the initiative" and back something bold and innovative, before it's too late?

Now is indisputably the time for the LSE to live up to its best traditions and start offering global solutions, or it will be too late. Shockingly, the LSE Environmental Initiatives Network (LSEEIN), founded to do precisely that, is under "administrative threat" of dissolution, for the sake of pennies. I knew the world did not make sense, but I had no idea it made no sense at all.

Michael Gill

Vice-Chair, LSEEIN, London wc2

Politicians must act on climate now

Politicians are able to work together and form a joint strategy for the economy but why aren't they doing it for the environment? The same short-termism that created our present economic woes is storing up still greater woes for our planet. We need to cut emissions of CO2 by at least 80 per cent by 2050 and yet airports are being expanded and coal-fired power stations planned.

Today is the 100th anniversary of the suffragettes storming Parliament. Then, women were fighting for the right to vote, which, through their activism and the rightness of their cause, they won.

Today we're fighting for the world we inherited to survive. We call on our politicians to act decisively and courageously while there's still time.

Fay Mansell

Chair, Women's Institute

Rosie Boycott

We CAN (Climate Action Now)

Anglique Orr

Climate Change Campaign Manager, Oxfam

Caroline Lucas MEP

Leader, Green Party

Geraldine Nicholson

NOTRAG

Baroness Tonge

Sam Roddick

Tamsin Omond

Climate Rush, London W2

What a treat! A library with books

Last week, I organised a surprise treat for my children, age 7, 11 and 15: I joined a library outside our borough, which requires a car to reach it (leading article, 9 October). When the kids visited this library, they were dumbfounded with joy and relief. "Mummy, they have lots of books here."

The library on our doorstep, a five-minute walk, has had a multimillion-pound makeover. It now looks like the Ikea catalogue, only with fewer books. There are so few books that the librarians use my teenager's requests list to restock. The librarians recently tried to prevent my 11-year-old taking out "too many" books on one subject. He had a book about the piano, one about the violin and a third about the orchestra, which we counted as three subjects. They relented when I pointed out it was hardly his fault their entire music section consisted of only about five books.

This revamped library now has lots of sofas, computers, empty space and about half as many books as before. There is no information or check-out desk, so it is tricky to figure out who works there, until we real-ised they were the ones wandering about looking forlorn. The kids playing computer games were so loud, it made reading reference books impossible.

Gina Purrmann

London SE26

England's party time

Many English people are struggling to meet their bills. Yet the Scottish and Welsh governments continue to party, handing out free prescriptions, free university tuition, frozen council taxes and better access to life-saving drugs denied to people in England. It's time England joined the party. Let's have an English Parliament and English First Minister to look after England and stop this subsidising of the rest of the UK.

Edward J Smith

Romsey, Hampshire

Willing to work

With the meltdown of the world's banking systems, I am beginning to fear for my small savings and my future pension. May I hope that, recognising what must be a widespread fear, the government of the day rapidly brings in legislation forcing employers to retain those staff who are willing to continue working beyond their retirement age. I have a job I enjoy, and I am in good health; a couple of additional years on a salary, rather than on my pension, would be very welcome.

Andrew Barrow

SOUTHSEA, Hampshire

Sock solution

Peter Brook's problem with the Single Sock Syndrome (letters, 2 October) was solved when our children were growing up. This involved buying for each a pack of simple twin push-through plastic clips in their own colour. By insisting that socks are always paired up in this way as they are removed from the feet, they can be safely despatched into the washing, tumbling, airing and return process without needing further attention; the colour of the clip means no disputes over ownership.

John Edwards

St Albans, Hertfordshire

Wrong bird

It is unfortunate that Michael McCarthy's Nature Notebook item (10 October), rightly extolling the virtues of nyjer seed as a birdfood, was illustrated by a photograph not of a nyjer-guzzling goldfinch, but of a male chaffinch.

Stephen J Hackett

Salisbury, Wiltshire

Finding a fortune

For seven years, I have been recording the money I have found on pavements and roads. I have just reached my goal of £100. This hoard totals 959 coins (and a couple of notes) a total of 353 pennies, 176 fivepenny pieces, 66 20-pence pieces and 21 £1 coins. I have converted them into notes, but what would be the most appropriate way to spend this long-gathered windfall?

Donald P McDonald

Scone, Perth

Interesting? Click here to explore further