SHORT of sending a person to prison, taking away their means of making a living is just about one of the cruelest thing that can be done to a man.

It leads to a variety of horrors, real or imagined, almost certain financial problems, very often homelessness as well as the feeling of uselessness which many jobless people speak of.

This week's Citizen features two men who have lost their livelihood -- both, by coincidence, as a result of the actions of Lancaster City Council.

The lamentable story of David Christley's unfair treatment by one or two officers and councillors has been well documented by this newspaper (and much underplayed by our rivals).

Having been left with an astronomical bill for unfairly dismissing Christley (now unemployed and with four little girls to feed) it appears that you now have to dig deep once again. This time your hard-earned cash will be taken from you to pay for an out of court settlement (split this week between the local authority and the council's insurers) following the release of potentially libellous statements about the unfairly dismissed officer. Those statements were issued by the former acting chief executive, David Corker and the former Labour council leader, Stanley Henig. The council was advised at the time that those statements could expose the authority to a financial loss and yet did nothing to stop the release of this material. Insisting on adding humiliating insult to Christley's injuries may have been considered a good idea to some but it appears that the perpetrators (as is often the case) don't have to pay the price for the untenable and seemingly gratuitous statements. In short they had everything to lose and nothing to gain and Mr Christley was eventually offered written apologies and compensation. The council (almost inevitably it seems) were left once again with substantial legal costs.

Why the insistence on rubbing the man's face in it? Was it simply because they could? More importantly why did they not stop (or at least amend) the publication of those statements once they were aware of the danger? Had they done so maybe they could have been forgiven, as it is Citizen Smith would like to know what, if any, proposals those involved have, to repay some of the cash that their actions have cost the authority.

It cannot be claimed that they had the support of the full council behind their decision... because they did not. It cannot be said that they were not warned of the dangers... because they were. They may claim they took officer advice... if they did, then let's ask those officers to cough up.... they're certainly paid enough.

It has been argued that the details of the payment should remain confidential as the council considers the matter an exempt item on a number of grounds... one because it pertains to council coffers and one because it concerns an employee or former employee. Some may recall, with more than a little irony, that at the time David Christley requested that much of the damaging allegations levelled at him should not be released into the public domain by council officers. That request was dismissed and leaves us asking that, as he too was an employee, did he too not deserve the same protection?

Anyway, rest assured it is an issue which Citizen Smith will not allow to die.

The case of Ian Dobson is slightly different. Mr Dobson had been a successful and popular trader on the festival market since it opened. Then he made, by his own admissions, a foolish mistake.

It's easy, from the outside, to ask how on earth he ever thought he could get away with making reference to recent unrest in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham in advertising his market stock.

The city council, not unreasonably, took action. Given the current tinderbox atmosphere associated with racism in this part of the country, something had to be done.

However, let's just take a step back and put all of this in perspective. People may well have been offended, but no-one has been physically hurt. As soon as the trader found out, he took immediate action and removed the offending signs and decided to apologise profusely.

Saying you are sorry -- and meaning it -- is hard, but Ian Dobson has managed it. Is it not time for the city council to look at itself and possibly rethink its decision to take him out of the market. Instead maybe a firm warning would appear to be the order of the day.

After the events of the past week, a sense of perspective is more important than ever.

In a final dig at the local Labour group this week it is interesting to see that following some concern expressed by the rank and file about the party's role in the new town hall cabinet that reassuring noises were made about proper representation for the group being maintained in the form of effective opposition.

All well and good and the news probably calmed the fluttering hearts of one or two who may have been concerned that councillors were doing what they thought best for councillors and not necessarily for the people who voted them into office.

Now it appears that the positions which offer the best opportunity for effective opposition (chairmanships of the four newly-formed Review Boards) have been taken up by three Conservative and one Green. Does this leave our friends up the creek without a paddle? Or will we now see the highly-principled, canoe crew taking up their three places on the cabinet, as they ought to have done in the first place?