Our Don't Give To Beggars campaign has sparked considerable comment from

readers both for and against.

However, there seems to be some misunderstanding among our critics that we are somehow anti-beggars and the campaign will encourage violence against them.

Like Andy Richards, from Hove, who says we should be exposing the drug habits of the wealthy and powerful and not taking the "easier" option of giving "a good kicking to those who get enough of this already".

Instead, we should be campaigning for the need to re-invest in public housing and adding to the debate about the current drugs legislation and whether criminalisation causes more problems than it solves.

Well, Andy clearly missed our call for all new developments in Brighton and Hove to have a larger percentage of social housing than Government recommendations and our exclusive story that the Chief Constable of Sussex had called for a national debate on drugs because prohibition wasn't working.

Not only that but, as we reported yesterday, the Government has even been accused in the House of Lords of basing its drugs policy on this newspaper!

He must have missed, too, our leader on the first day of our beggars campaign, which stated it was not a vendetta against the many people sleeping on the streets and in grotty bedsits, but a campaign to redirect cash donations to where they would be more effective and were needed most - the organisations dealing with these problems.

At least that is a potential solution for a long-term problem which no-one wants to see, which is more than Andy himself can offer as he admits, "I don't pretend that giving money to beggars addresses the problems which put those people on the streets." The debate will, I suspect, rage on and, rest assured, you will read about it in this newspaper.

Another topic to attract considerable comment was Adam Trimingham's column on September 28 attacking the demands of pensioners for improvements in the state pension.

Neil Duncan-Jordan, of the National Pensioners Convention, says the "Sage"

has given us a tarnished image of being anti-pensioner and suggests we make it clear the paper does not necessarily support such views while accepting a columnist may do. Only too happy to oblige, Neil.

Our report on October 6 about a four car crash on the A27 near Falmer referred to the nearby University of Brighton when it should, of course, have referred to the University of Sussex. Many thanks to the latter's employee who points this out but wishes to remain anonymous.

Reader Tony Beck's vivid memories of witnessing a German bomber crash at Barcombe, published in last Friday's paper, was introduced with a paragraph wrongly stating the accident happened at Balcombe. My apologies to Mr Beck, who was not responsible for the mistake.

Mr C Wright, of Woodingdean, didn't like our Tomboy cartoon about the Sussex floods showing a boat floating above "the lost city of Lewes". "It's no joke," he says. "Just think of the upset it has caused to the people in these areas." Point taken, Mr Wright, but I am sure our cartoonist Alex Hallett meant no offence.

And finally, still with water, Robert Gunnell points out our front page story on October 6 about Southern Water no longer charging for surface water on properties with soakaways could have been misleading. The company has only agreed to stop making these charges as of April this year and is not making retrospective payments. Quite right, Mr Gunnell, but the point of the story was that while the Argus unsuccessfully argued for backpayments, we also highlighted the whole issue, thereby allowing many thousands of people to claim for this year than would otherwise be the case. And, dare I say it, many of those claimants were pensioners!