Sussex Police officer Bill Whitehead says he was unhappy at our coverage of the recent trial and subsequent acquittal of his force colleague Tim Temple.

Mr Temple had been charged with dangerous driving following a crash while on an emergency call.

He agrees the story was of public interest and justified the coverage, even on the front page, which it did make on some days. However, he believes it was "irresponsible journalism" to have published PC Temple's address in the same way we do for other people appearing in court.

He says: "Few members of the public would make the front page for having a damage-only car crash. In other words, this story was only published because of PC Temple's job.

"I can only hope that now the criminals he deals with on a daily basis know his address, he will not be the subject of a revenge type of attack. This did recently happen to one of my colleagues.

"I do feel The Argus has some duty of care to innocent officers."

Indeed it does, Bill, and The Argus is largely supportive of Sussex Police and the difficult work undertaken by its officers.

However, there is no reason, in my view, why anyone appearing in court should not have their name and address published when they are an accused person since this is part of the formal court proceedings that are open to the public.

To make an exception for anybody - and, arguably, especially policemen - would undermine the process of justice being seen to be done as well as being done.

I myself had my address published in The Argus when I appeared in court for alleged contempt (and was subsequently cleared).

And innocence doesn't come into it since, as in this case, a trial can take days before a verdict is reached.

As to unfair treatment of policemen, it must be remembered they are trained above the level of the rest of us to drive safely and they do it on our behalf so a police vehicle crash is more significant and newsworthy than your average damage-only crash. (PC Temple's trial ended last Wednesday within 24 hours of two Sussex police vehicles being involved in crashes, which we also reported on.)

The article on Thursday, December 5, about the controversial proposed tower block on the site of Medina House in Hove, incorrectly stated it would be just shorter than Brighton and Hove's tallest residential building, Sussex Heights, which is 82m tall and has 21 storeys. In fact, the 18-storey building would be only two thirds of the height.

Many thanks to Kim Stoddart of Media Zone PR, for the correct information.

Regular readers of Bini McCall's column in The Argus Woman will have been surprised to read in the morning edition last Monday, a repeat of Jacqui Bealing's column from last Saturday. Apologies for the error, which was corrected for later editions.

My apologies to freelance journalist Peter Taylor, from Lewes, who should have been credited on the page 3 story on Tuesday about The Record Album shop in Terminus Road, Brighton.

Jim Denham, from Hove, didn't approve after reading in last Saturday's paper that Sue Lord, from Portslade, had won our Win Your Christmas competition and £6,000 worth of presents.

"I disagree it is best to give one person the multiple prizes in a grand draw. To people on a small income, any one of the items would have made their Christmas."

In fact, Jim, that is exactly what happened. Apart from the overall prize won by Mrs Lord, each of the presents she received was also given to individual daily winners throughout the duration of the competition.

I wish those people and every other reader of The Argus a very happy Christmas.