IN RESPONSE to the letter from M Martin regarding asylum seekers (Citizen, June 26), the rest of Europe did not so much reject the UK proposal for overseas 'safety zones' as refuse to even consider it.

These safety zones were not suggested for the benefit of the asylum seekers but for the Government, so that offshore holding areas would allow it to pick out the 'desirable' refugees in terms of their value to the economy not the strength of their case for asylum.

M Martin says there is a danger of England becoming a concentration camp - that is deliberate and arguably laughable exaggeration. He also suggests that the number of immigrants coming to Britain is somehow responsible for the lack of money for services, which is absolute nonsense.

It is perhaps worth the writer having a think about why we have an asylum system. The world is an unfair place and large economies dominate weaker ones. This destabilises the world and creates areas of conflict that produces refugees.

Of course it's a lot more complicated in the detail but this is essentially the situation. So in effect, Britain - in exchange for having a very large slice of the cake - has to pretend to do something in return, hence our asylum system. Mere crumbs thrown from a very full table.

M Martin finally asserts that there are almost no cases any-where of successful multiculturalism. Nonsense once more.

Lancaster for instance, has had regular influxes of'outsiders' for the last 2,000 years. Are the streets of Lancaster running with blood? No, we have a relatively stable and peaceful city much enhanced by these influences.

If we welcome such people instead of stirring up intolerance and mistrust it will all work out a lot better.

Paul Speight, Wellington Road, Lancaster