I write in response to Mr Vaughans letter in the Dartmouth Chronicle, April 12.

As one of the two excitable readers he refers to, I am happy to confirm that I still do not understand his first unintelligible letter. Neither, I have to say, does anyone I have spoken to who has read it.

The response has mainly been one of anger at what was clearly a defence of paedophilia in general and convicted child sex abuser Phillip Walton in particular, whether intended or not.

I have to say I do agree with Mr Vaughan's latest point about disproportionate sentences. Mick Philpott should have been locked up for life with no chance of parole – but so should Walton.

On another note, I would question why the Chronicle saw fit to publish Mr Vaughan's original letter solely in the Chronicle and my response in both the Chronicle and Kingsbridge Gazette, a newspaper covering the town where some of the offences took place. It made for some confusion.

Thankfully, I am not yet a conspiracy theorist.

As Mr Vaughan would say, I rest my case.