Two letters in a similar vein have arrived on my desk.

The first was from Judy Moore, who takes us to task for a sentence in our story on December 31 about a woman who had just given birth to a critically ill baby boy and then, with her partner, had to catch a packed train to see him at the hospital he had been taken to for treatment.

It said: "On arrival at Guy's after a journey lasting more than two hours, nursing staff were appalled by what the couple had endured."

Judy said: "'On arrival . . . ' refers to the subject of the sentence, the couple. Your sentence had the nursing staff enduring that horrible journey."

She continued: "I imagine that you and your staff are relatively young. Basic English grammar was ditched in schools around the 1970s when it was decided that creative flow was more important than proper sentence structure.

Unfortunately, this idiot idea did not work and now there are generations of otherwise talented people who dangle their participles in ignorance, stumble over their subjunctives and are completely incapable of using the word 'only' in its proper place.

"I was going to say sorry for being such an old fuddy-duddy but I'm not sorry. If I had the energy I'd be out there pushing in the teeth of alleged English teachers, beating up young reporters and throwing vegetables at editors who allow their staff to get away with misspellings, sloppy grammar and cliches. What I am sorry about is that, generally, Americans and Canadians are now better at it than we are."

For reading, she recommends Lapsing Into A Comma by Bill Walsh, her former editor, English Our English by Keith Waterhouse and the web site www.theslot.com. Many thanks, Judy.

Linda Conway, from Worthing, writes: "I purchase a copy of The Argus every day in an attempt to keep up to date with the local news and as a TV guide.

"I am often dismayed by the considerable amount of errors, such as unfinished sentences and items to be continued on another page, names spelt different ways in the same article and the duplication of articles in the same paper.

"I could not believe, however, when reading the Family Law article (The Argus, January 4/5) to find it identical to the one which appeared on December 28/29.

"I realise we all make mistakes but I am sure you should have more pride in your work than this."

Thank you, Mrs Conway, we shall try to do better in future.

Now an error of my own - sort of. Readers of this column two weeks ago will remember I stated that DNA samples were taken from people arrested by Sussex Police as a matter of routine.

Trevor Butler, who had questioned this fact in an earlier story, then took it to Brighton solicitor Steve Wedd who said I was wrong and that a person being charged with a recordable offence was in fact the trigger for an automatic DNA sample being taken.

Steve, and therefore Trevor, are right as a spokesman for Sussex Police (who had incorrectly advised me in the first place) explains: "If someone is going to be charged and if he/she gives permission then DNA can be taken at that stage. Otherwise DNA is taken after a charge with or without the person's permission."

Thank you to everyone for clearing up that one.

Thanks, too, to John Sanderson, who also wrote in about the incorrect Nonagram referred to in last week's column but whose letter didn't arrive in time for me to be able to credit him. It's done now, sir.

And finally, this week's Spicer (you know who it's from by now) who says we repeated the number one in the News of the World bingo numbers published on Monday. Sorry, Gerald.