THE editor of this paper has, as advised by the honourable member for Lancaster & Wyre, noted the MP's observation that, apart from the 'daft lad' running round in a Blobby suit, the whole issue of the Crinkley Bottom scandal was raised only once (in his presence) during the General Election... er, so what Hilton?

That's okay then is it? We can all go back to sleep now because it isn't relevant, can we? Notwithstanding the fact that the 'daft lad' was a hard-working party worker, albeit a Tory, of the kind so deeply praised by you the other week but because he attempted to outfox your own political stunt, he now warrants the label 'daft' from you, does he?

We will take your word on the Crinkley Bottom affair not being an election issue but I don't give a monkey's if it wasn't raised at all... that doesn't make it, or your role in the affair, any less a subject of public scrutiny.

You know as well was anybody how much concern and how many letters have been prompted by this financial scandal during the last few years -- should we dismiss all those people Hilton? Maybe they don't live in your constituency. Maybe they are the poor saps who live in Morecambe or the Happy Mount Park area that witnessed, first hand, the fiasco that you and other councillors oversaw. Why do you choose to ignore them?

In a General Election it is only natural that people will be more interested in the other things you mentioned and, while we are all delighted and eternally grateful to hear of the cash you have campaigned for, plese tell us... what else are you supposed to do as an MP? We note also your promotion of a radically improved, sustainable transport system but would remind you that, many others (including staff at this paper) were suggesting the proper consideration of bypass alternatives long before your recent, pre-election revelation on the road to Galgate.

Why mention the fact that you have co-operated 100 per cent with the auditor's investigation? You make it sound as though there was another choice and can we remind you that, if it wasn't for the public, there would be no auditor's investigation in any case. Certainly none was called for by you or your Labour colleagues (or many other councillors to be fair). No, what happened was, members of the public and staff at this paper attempted to unravel the truth about what happened and why £2million of public money was lost in an operation handled so ineptly (and I'm being kind) that all concerned should have resigned en masse. As we all know there were legal and other threats from both councillors and officers to staff at this paper and the public who had the nerve to ask where their loot had gone... we didn't change our tune then Hilton and we are not going to change it now.

To your credit, shortly before you were interviewed by the auditor and his legal team, you publicly admitted to not keeping your eye on the ball and of being too trusting of officer advice, however, you also claimed that nothing about the matter caused you to think that anything untoward had taken place. So tell us Hilton, when you chaired the meeting where the projections for the park depended on a non-existent figure of £130,000 plus (a figure that was included with no written confirmation whatsoever), did you not think it odd at all? If you didn't know that the money wasn't there at the time you certainly became aware afterwards because we showed you a letter from the former town clerk revealing that the money was not there... not only that, it had never been there! Did that not make you think that there was something ever so slightly wrong about at least one part of the deal? If the answer is yes, then what did you damn well do about it? If the answer is no, then maybe you don't deserve to be an MP.

All the way through this sordid episode there have been attempts to distract, confuse and derail anybody seeking the truth and you have done little, other than that you were obliged to do, to help. Items have been declared exempt, when they should not have been. Some councillors and officers have claimed that other councillors could not see the Objection to the city council's accounts... that was and remains untrue. You, as the sitting MP, publicly claimed that regulations bar you from publicly answering the question about if and when you knew the Crinkley Bottom side-letter wasn't signed... this is not the case.

We know it's boring Hilton, but we have been forced to carry on beating the drum because you and others have done so little to help bring the matter to a close. Even the release of the auditor's public interest report may not bring a satisfactory closure to the whole affair. The only thing that will do that is the full story of what actually happened and only people who did any wrong need have a fear of such an account being public knowledge.

Finally, the editor and staff at this paper are here to do a job. Part of that job is to keep an eye on you and other public officials/servants and to make sure that all due prudence is used when handling such large sums of the public's money. If that makes us in your eyes, the opposition (unelected or otherwise) then so be it. The fact that MPs are elected does not place them beyond scrutiny or criticism... far from it. You may have beaten an out-of-town Tory newcomer by 480 ballot papers, but a 43 per cent share of the 66 per cent of your constituents who could be bothered to vote, does not, in our book hand you the whopping endorsement you may believe you have.

We have a great sense of humour here in this office Hilton; perhaps you could call in one of these days and see for yourself? Perhaps not, you haven't done so, so far, why change now?

As for changing our tune, what would you suggest? Something to make your footwork look less clumsy?