ONCE again, it appears that interference from the European Court of Human Rights means Britain's incarcerated criminals enjoy more "rights" than either their victims, or the society that sentenced them.

For those of you out of touch with this further erosion of British justice by unelected European bureaucrats, I refer to the finding on July 15, by the European Court of Human Rights, that is compelling our prison service to release hundreds of unruly inmates.

This stems from their ruling that prison governors should not be able to add days to a prisoner's sentence as punishment for unruly or disruptive behaviour, where the unprotected, innocent little prisoner has no lawyer to represent him".

At the very least, this type of ruling makes a mockery of very necessary and already inadequate disciplinary procedures within prisons, adding huge potential costs as trolley loads of lawyers or similarly expensive legally trained "independent tribunals" tour the country's jails.

Yet again though, this decision raises a more fundamental question. Should there be a limit to the "human rights" granted to those whose contribute the least to their communities, take the most from them, and who engage in activity which deliberately undermines the "human rights" of their law-abiding victims?

Surely some so-called "rights" should be earned, not just given?

WILLIAM RICHARDS, Worcester.