THANK you for printing in full Anne Enright's article on the Madeleine McCann case, following only hatchet-job snippets in other publications.

Anne brilliantly articulated what has been going on in the hearts and minds of parents everywhere and she was courageous to do so.

There is one aspect of the media coverage that I find puzzling. We are constantly told it is because the McCanns are good looking, articulate, professional people that their story is so newsworthy, and that thousands of children go missing every year without media mention.

Yes, the latter is unfortunately true. But there is almost an implication that another more ordinary family might have gone on holidays, lost a child, then simply come home and got on with it. It's preposterous.

With any tragic news event, journalists, as is their job, will often trawl to find people with a similar story. The Ben Needham case has been revisited. He was a two-year-old British toddler who disappeared in Greece in 1991. I read an account of a couple who woke to find an intruder in their holiday apartment. He was carrying some of their daughter's clothing. Another woman reported how her child disappeared from a playground in Spain while she ate in an adjoining restaurant. She found him in the back of a nearby van talking to two men. But that was as close as the associated stories came.

Surely it is the exceptional circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance that have captured the world's attention. She was barely four years old, on holidays in a foreign country, and was left unsupervised in her apartment with two younger siblings. Yes, the McCanns have courted the media, but any parent would do similar in such awful circumstances. Events since have taken so many turns that it is now newsworthy for lots of extra reasons. But the original story of this little lost girl is just very frightening and tragically unique.

Gina Byrne, Annaholty, Birdhill, Co Tipperary.

Environment series was enlightening

From Elaine Coyne

I WOULD briefly like to express my congratulations to Sarah McInerney and Isabel Hayes on their wonderful series of articles on our environment.

The facts were easily read and were compiled in a simple yet extremely informative manner and I really enjoyed doing the quiz on a delayed train journey.

I was so impressed by both articles I used them with sixth class in a geography class.

Well done once again to the Sunday Tribune.

Elaine Coyne elaineanncoyne@yahoo. ie

De Valera may be impossible to please
From Dr Mark O'Brien

Dr Eamon de Valera takes Diarmaid Ferriter to task for relying on "secondary sources of dubious value" when writing about his grandfather's relationship with the Irish Press Group (Letters, 21 October). If Ferriter feels slighted, this is to let him know he is not alone. I too have felt the wrath of de Valera, although in a somewhat different direction.

In his complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission following the transmission of RTE's Family Fortune: De Valera's Irish Press, to which I was historical consultant, Dr de Valera complained that the programme was based on primary sources, ie company documents and correspondence that he felt we should not have seen or used.

I sometimes think it is impossible to please de Valera. In his complaint to the BCC, he also accused the programme of bias, unfounded allegations, spurious claims, untruths, false impressions and selective presentation of the facts.

For the record, the BCC ruled: "This programme was a critical examination of the history of the Irish Press, which included an in-depth scrutiny of the de Valera family involvement. The commission noted this fact and acknowledged that it could understand the reaction of Dr de Valera to the programme. In the opinion of the commission, however, the programme was not unfair in light of the fact that the central theme of the programme was substantially correct. This was an impartial investigative programme, justified in terms of its subject matter. It was a topic of public interest and it was presented in a balanced manner. The commission could find no evidence of editorial bias in this broadcast. The complaint was rejected."

Dr Mark O'Brien, School of Communications, Dublin City University.

From John Horgan

If Dr Eamon de Valera rereads my biography of Dr Noel Browne he will see that I accept without reservation, on page 205, that his grandfather, the late President, derived no remuneration from his shareholding in the Irish Press.

Nor do I doubt the late President's personal honesty, integrity or motivation.

Whether it was appropriate for the late President, while he was Taoiseach, to exercise effective control, even as trustee, over a large and profitable public company, must of course remain a matter of opinion. I doubt that it would be considered acceptable today.

Researchers would be facilitated in these matters by publication of the details of the trust, and by information about whether any of the shares owned or controlled by the late President were subsequently transferred for value.

John Horgan Clontarf, Dublin 3.

Pedigree need not always mean best
From Bernie Wright
THERE has been a spate of pedigree dog robberies from private houses over the last week. Three German Shepherd pups were stolen in Louth and a King Charles in Malahide . . . none of these recovered.

While the supposed carers of these unfortunate dogs offer rewards and quote upset children, they must acknowledge the wider picture here. These dogs are being stolen in the first place because a monetary value has been placed on their head.

Pedigree dogs are bred by people to make a profit, hence they are perpetrating the following three reasons why animals are suffering and dying:

1. 18,000 dogs were killed in Irish pounds last year alone because they weren't wantedf Many people chose to buy dogs which were more in fashion or of a certain breed. This created less homes for those needing rescue and new homes. This figure excludes the unwanted animals brought to vets to be killed or the ex-racing greyhounds which have lost races and are too slow.

2. By buying a dog, you are contributing to the profits of the puppy breeders and puppy farmers that cause so much suffering and neglect. We have all seen the documented proof of this. These people couldn't care less that their female dogs are kept pregnant twice a year for their entire lives just to make a profit. Many are kept in deplorable conditions in cages and dark sheds. By buying, you support this cruelty and the myth that a pedigree is somewhat better than a mixed breed. In truth, it is more prone to illness and not as robust.

3. Pedigree dogs cost up to 12,000. By putting this value on a defenceless creature, you are making them a target for theft like the inanimate objects in your house. They are sentient beings and deserve love and their own inherent value.

So to those of you thinking of buying a dog, remember they are not possessions, or fashion accessories or the latest craze.

WHY BUY WHILE STRAYS DIE?

Please think before you support cruelty. Support our 'Shop a breeder campaign'; many operate tax-free and the Revenue Commissioners are delighted to get a 'good citizen report'.

Bernie Wright, Alliance for Animal Rights, PO Box 4734, Dublin 1.

U2 Tower may just give its street a name From Gerard Dockery Gerard Dockery, Westfield Park, Sidmonton Road, Bray, Co Wicklow.

I AM growing tired of the abusive attacks on the proposed U2 tower, most of which are phrased in the most intemperate, harsh terms possible. I see little in the way of reasoned criticism, just invective. Words like 'vulgar' and 'crass' add nothing but heat to the debate and certainly don't enlighten us.

A few common sense thoughts for people like Feargal Ryan (Letters, 21 October) and other detractors of the scheme:

Firstly, if the tower is "fin an architectural style that bears no relationship to Dublin's architecture, old or new", then the exact same applied at different times to Busaras, The Kildare St Club and Henrietta St, to name just a few. In fact, the same could be said about Christ Church Cathedral, which doubtless raised the same ire for that same reason. So we have a good reason to never build anything original at all.

Secondly, if the "ftower will dominate and overshadow its surrounding areaf" then that has less to do with any overbearing quality to the tower than to the fact that most of Dublin's buildings are very underscaled by the standard of most cities in Europe. Therefore, any tall building anywhere in Dublin will necessarily dominate its surroundings. In this case, the "reductio ad absurdum" demands that we never build anything in Dublin higher than 10 storeys tall.