Expenses accused just worst of a bad bunch

THE distress on the face of Jim Devine as he left court, depicted on your front page photograph (12 March), was palpable and brought on a reluctant stab of human pity. No matter the abhorrence felt about the crimes of which he and the others are accused, they are clearly the fall guys and sacrificial lambs for the much deeper and murkier expenses scandal.

There are many elected representatives no doubt breathing a sigh a relief. Those, for example, who claimed maximum eating allowances or home cinema set-ups, whether or not they were morally entitled, go scot-free and are technically innocent of criminal wrongdoing but the only difference between these cases and those of the three accused are those of scale and of getting caught.

ALEXANDER MCKAY

New Cut Rigg

Edinburgh

Your sketch about proceedings against the alleged miscreant MPs (12 March) prompts my disappointment as to the "distancing" by the leadership of the two main UK political parties of their four criminally accused members.

This "walk away" parallels, for me, all the parliamentary abuses that have been tumbling from the Westminster financial closets over past months.

One might think it was the "offended" parties who had found and exposed the abuses. It was a newspaper, not any of the party leaders.

In all the distancing there were few acknowledgments that the party leaders failed to be on top of what was happening under their noses. When your own nose is in the trough such overview might be tricky.

IAN JOHNSTONE

Forman Drive

Peterhead