Sir, - A couple of letters published last week (D&S, Sept 5) regarding Yarm were of particular interest.

In relation to the sandwich boards illegally positioned on the High Street, the offence being committed is under Section 121 of the Highways Act 1959. All persons doing this should be issued with a summons and appear before Teesside Magistrates Court.

Simple as that.

These signs obstruct the free passage of the highway for the public, causing particular problems for blind persons, those in wheelchairs, mothers with pushchairs etc.

The excuse given, that it is no good trying to enforce them as they will be back the next day, simply does not hold water. The police and the local authority must enforce this legislation. It is not enforceable by a local bylaw, it is contrary to an Act of Parliament, the same as theft, assault, driving offences etc.

I also disagree with the illegal erection of signs relating to the prospective Conservative candidate, James Wharton. Peter Monke, a couple of weeks previously, was spot on in his letter.

Mr Wharton or his agents are guilty of an offence and they should be issued with a fixed penalty notice or summons.

Coun Bob Cook of Stockton Council has answered the question diplomatically but could it not open the floodgates for appeals?

What is the difference between these signs and signs advertising a club or factory furniture sale?

A friend of mine put three small signs on lampposts in the Norton area advertising a new business. She was promptly issued with a fixed penalty notice for "flyposting"

There were no discussions or co-operation in that case. The council said that it was an offence, pay up or go to court.

So Coun Cook, have I got grounds to appeal in the light of your answer given in the Darlington & Stockton Times?

GORDON HOWES Stockton-on-Tees.