While the outburst of protests about Voice Of The Argus on the referendum was predictable - planned? - I notice that not one of them seriously challenged the accuracy of the claims it contained.

Although it was couched in terms I would hesitate to use - preferring to call a spade a bloody shovel - its arguments remained intact.

The people certainly have spoken but they can still be in error. It will not have been the first time.

Nevertheless, democracy demands we all try to make the resurrected old system work, even if we are by ourselves within the country.

However, to demand that a local journal should not concern itself with the requirements for an efficient local government is way off mark.

But its contributions should always be factual, objective and fair and certainly not party-linked.

The Argus, having placed its cards on the table regarding the referendum, gave full publicity to the activities of the No campaign.

This resolve to be open is indicated in the weekly mea culpa column (Feedback) of the editor - unique, as far as I know.

Having said this, there was, I feel, a slight tinge of sour grapes within the editorial, which only confirms that even editors are, occasionally, human.

-R G Jenkins, Hove