He said that too many people being were sent to prison – an argument which, if taken to its logical conclusion, adds up to a call for judges to give more criminals slaps on the wrist and tell them to go away and be good boys and girls.

But isn't the true picture that there are not enough prison places available in this country where all the murderers, rapists, drug pushers, thieves, robbers, paedophiles, those who attack the elderly, child abusers, fraudsters and so on can be sent to?

Shouldn't we be doing much more to get this scum off our streets by building more jails?

On hearing the news on Sunday evening, Mr Pendle made a throwaway remark about it in one of his watering holes in a local town centre in order to gauge the public reaction.

Not a single person spoke in support of the Lord Chief Justice – and while he accepts although the opinions taken were those of a tiny minority, Mr Pendle believes he would have got a similar response had he ventured into any of the other pubs in the vicinity.

All too often these days, those appearing before the court are handed down soft sentences such as community orders or curfews – totally inappropriate punishments which fail to satisfy the public demand, leave the victim feeling angry and aggrieved and the perpetrators laughing all over their faces.

The Lord Chief Justice, of course, is hardly likely to drink in his local pub and hear what people are saying.

If he did, he might get a rude awakening and learn that the ordinary man in the street has had enough of this pandering to the civil libertarians and the do-gooders who have dogged society for far too long and that it is time that the courts handed down tough sentences to those who choose to break the law.

THE next two years should be very interesting to those with a close interest in municipal matters here in Pendle.


After four years of relative calm with the Liberal Democrats having a majority on the council, we now have a hung council.

And while the Lib Dems still hold all the seats on the Executive, we are promised "constructive opposition" by the Conservatives and Labour. Just what the word "constructive" means in terms of running Pendle's affairs until 2010 remains to be seen.

But on looking at the new Executive, Mr Pendle had a thought – why is there one Executive portfolio holder for housing regeneration, and another one for housing market renewal? Is there a significant difference, if any at all, between the two?

And even if there is, why can't all housing matters be the responsibility of a single councillor?