Sir, Over the past weeks there has been a number of letters on the above subject, which has sparked both the council leader, Mr Jerry Patterson, and his deputy, Mr Tony de Vere, to air their views on the funding associated with preserving the Old Gaol for the future generations of Abingdon residents.

We have seen this council, which has been in control for ten years or so, only give promises and so called five-year programmes that as yet, have achieved very little in ensuring that it manages the town's assets, particularly those buildings it owns.

They let the property at 49 The Vineyard go into disrepair so that it had to be demolished and rebuilt, then the old cinema to become derelict, the outdoor swimming pool go into disrepair and now we are seeing the Old Gaol becoming the next on the list to become derelict and be sold off to the highest bidder with a promise that the ratepayer will still have access. All of these have had the same excuse that there was not money available to maintain or convert them to a new use. When the new leisure centre was built, we were told that plans for the Old Gaol had been developed. This may have been the case but the costing of this development had been overlooked.

So Mr Jerry Patterson thinks the ratepayer should solve his self-generated problem, well here is one suggestion, which should be well within his budget. That is to open the Old Gaol with limited facilities that can produce revenue with minimum expenditure and then develop/expand as the project develops.

Finally, what has happened to the money from the sale of the freehold of the Tesco site, the old cinema site to a property developer and the numerous other sites around the town? Or were these sold at a pepper rate and not at the true market values?

J. Morgan, Abingdon