I AM in a state of profound disbelief that F Latham believes my remarks on "sleaze and corruption" in the European Union to be "scurrilous" (Letters, June 28).

He should refer to the EU's own Court of Auditors which was set up nearly ten years ago and has refused to sign off the accounts in any year since for precisely these reasons.

They have made the point that only ten per cent of the systems of accounting are properly able to detect levels of fraud.

Estimates of £20 billion are thought to be the annual figures for the fraud - but in fairness, the systems are so dire the true level may never be known.

Is Mr Latham unaware of the mass resignations of commissioners required in 1999, for similar reasons?

Does he not know that the "honest folk" who are ungraciously called whistleblowers are invariably sacked for telling the truth?

Or that all the top figures (and many lower) are exempt from prosecution?

Or about abuses of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies running into billions?

Mr Latham's use of the word "scurrilous" was rather misplaced.

Les Arnott,

Athelstan Road,

Sheffield.

Updated: 11:12 Wednesday, June 30, 2004