This week's story about a police officer being attacked at a weekend hunt really put the fox among the hounds.

Inspector Ray Apps was kicked and punched by three men while on anti-saboteur duty at the South Down and Eridge Hunt in Halland, near Lewes.

His colleague, Inspector Mark Powles, told us the police believed the attackers were people following and supporting the hunt, adding: "It is unusual that somebody pro-hunting should be involved in this sort of incident. It is normally hunt saboteurs who have the more militant and extreme reputation."

A handful of letters arrived accusing us, together with the police, of bias. Like the one from George and Anne Norton, of Eastbourne, who felt Insp Powles distanced the hunt from the alleged attackers. "I wonder why?" they ask. "When it is animal rights, we are all lumped together."

They knew of many occasions when huntsmen and their followers had attacked saboteurs, but not one when a saboteur had hospitalised a policeman. Avril Smith, from Brighton, agreed: "Wake up, Sussex Police, and stop policing hunts with such a biased attitude."

Dawn Preston, press officer for the Hunt Saboteurs' Association, added: "Not only is this stereotypical image of hunt saboteurs offensive and incorrect, but it shows the police are yet again too ready to believe the pro-hunt side."

In contrast, Sian Darling, of Ripe, accused us of printing "unsubstantiated facts" and Insp Powles of making "insinuations" that the attackers were pro-hunt supporters. "There is absolutely no firm evidence to prove this.

All the bona fide hunt supporters are seen week after week with their faces uncovered by police officers. However, members of the public are quite free to follow the hunt and may claim (truthfully or otherwise) to be pro or anti-hunting."

Well, you can believe who you like. We are not biased and simply report the facts and comments of the police, who for their part, try to do their job. Insp Powles said only that he "believed" the attackers were pro-hunt supporters and that the anti-hunt people had "a reputation" for militancy, not that they actually were militant. Careful words, carefully recorded and carefully published.

For those above and others who accused us of anything but taking care, you are incorrect and guilty of the bias and assumption you lay at our door.

Westminster Cathedral is getting me down, as the old pop song went. Why? Because we referred to it in our story last Saturday about Bishop Cormac Murphy O'Connor as Westminster Abbey.

Michael Harris, of Shoreham, pointed out the error, adding: "Has there been a merger (long-prayed for) between the Church of England and Roman Catholics of which we have not heard?" Not that I know of, but please forgive us our sin.

Our story of March 6 about the Pussycat Club's application to stay open until 2am six days a week stated three previous applications had been refused. The club has asked me to point out that none of these applications was made by the Pussycat, but by previous occupiers of the premises in Church Road, Hove.

Finally, in a story about the reopening of the leisure club at the Grand Hotel in Brighton in later editions of Monday's paper, we stated the refurbishment had cost £1.5 million and the full adult day membership was £25. The figures should have read £500,000 and £15 respectively. Sorry.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.