They all pleaded guilty since they sincerely believe in their mission to draw attention to the plight of our planet.

Some appeared in one court, the rest in another, each with a different magistrate presiding. They chose to accept a fine rather than a good behaviour bond because their consciences told them they would do the same thing again if the occasion arose.

This is an admirable stance for upright, respectable citizens to take; such is their commitment to the cause. What was disappointing, however, was that the fine imposed by one magistrate was 50 per cent higher than that meted out by the other, though the offences were identical. Of all places, I would have expected that in a court of law, the scales would be balanced.

Val Clarke, Kings Meadows.

PETER Doddy's critique of Robin Gray deserves a response. Only this week as reported to a correspondent Attorney-General Elise Archer stated her workload was" too great" to visit Westbury in her response.

Robin Gray speaks from the knowledge of being a former premier.

I can recall when Miss Warburton was the only person in Launceston at the public buildings dealing with all Northern state politicians and when cabinet ministers along with Premier Eric Reece attended her services were available, surprise, surprise, they even wrote their own speeches and correspondence. Miss Warburton was also responsible for the public service and her successor continued in that role.

Miss Warburton ensured appointments were made for constituents and they were promptly arranged.

That is not the case today because of the bureaucracy. Mr Doddy, you are not the fountain of all knowledge, those political professors at the University of Tasmania would be worth spending an hour or two with. In conclusion, has a cost-benefit study been done on the explosion of bureaucrats numbers and salaries, since parliament numbers were reduced?

Brian P Khan, Bridport.

I APPLAUD the letter from Ross Warren (The Examiner, November 21).

It is puzzling that so many at Westbury appear to be vehemently opposed. Why?

The prison will be some distance from the town, surrounded by a high fence, somewhat obscuring its purpose. If I was an inhabitant of Westbury I would be much more concerned about the narcotics factory just outside the town boundary. See the positives in all this: prisoners so much nearer families across Northern Tasmania and so much more likely to be positively rehabilitated. Substantial additional employment for Westbury and surrounds. I expect critics are worried about escapees. The last place prisoners would linger in such rare events is anywhere near the prison. Let us be bigger than the hysteria that some are generating.

Dick James, Launceston.