Sir: Charles Moore argued (Notes, 13 January) that sub-postmasters in the Post Office/Horizon scandal should not be pardoned ‘en masse’, but rather that each case should be treated individually. He gives two reasons: the possible future risks associated with precedent and because each claim, being different, merits separate consideration. Theoretically, he may well be correct, but this would inevitably add many more wasted years to the endlessly protracted legal process. It would serve only to delay further the justice and the compensation to which the victims are entitled. The only real beneficiaries would, of course, be the lawyers.
Weston Patrick, Hampshire
Sir: Charles Moore says we should resist the urge to exonerate sub-postmasters without their appeals being heard as this would be a dangerous precedent, but there is a very ancient precedent: a royal pardon, now only given on the advice of HMG. Surely no more deserving cases could be found and it could be done very quickly. All that is needed is the political will to do so.
Sir: Your leading article (‘Sick list’,6 January) was most condescending and unfairly critical of junior doctors asking for higher pay. Take your figure of £52,900 p.a. including shift and overtime and examine further. Mortgage/income ratio is now 4.3, so on earnings of £52,900 an obtainable mortgage would be £227,470. After spending five years at medical school and then five years working, a typical 38-year-old junior doctor in Greater London would not be able to buy any reasonable house or flat in the area. It is insulting to be treated in such a way and your attempt to justify this is morally wrong.
Sir: Matthew Dennison asks if the time has come to revive the Wassail (Notes on…, 6 January).