SO Hugh Cleverly thinks I am wrong. I am not.

In his first letter he put the National Service man on a par with inmates of borstal. They were not.

They were, in the majority, decent hard-working young men, as are the youngsters of today.

As in every generation there are those who do not want to conform to the laws and traditions of this country, and take advantage of the advantages we have worked and fought for.

We have created a class of young people willing to loll about rather than get a job because we pay them not to work, while accepting workers from other countries to do the things that they should be doing.

I believe that other EU countries do not allow this and make sure that any money received by a person is worked for.

If that was introduced here then the lazy people would soon take a job and be less of a burden to the public at large and the police in particular.

For example, the current system of paying teenagers to go to college they only pick up their money if they have attended is the correct system.

But it has its drawbacks in that they do not have to achieve anything and the staff know that it is bums on seats' that pay them (the staff).

Having taken up Hugh's point of view in my first letter I find that now he wants to move the goal posts so his National Service will only apply to naughty children - this is NOT National Service what he is really saying the current punishments are not deterrents and should be made so, who's arguing?

As for Mike Parker's letter, it is as I found most lads worked hard and enjoyed their time in the mob, it's the others that Hugh is on about.

HAROLD PRICE, Fair Oak.