Modesty (his, not mine) prevents me from revealing the identity of this week's first complainant.

However, he eloquently writes to express his "appreciation" of the Did You Know? spot on the letters page.

"No," he confesses, "I did not know Charlie Dimmock used to manage a garden centre in Romsey, nor that she wears a bra if it's with a low-cut shirt.

"As a local newspaper reader, I am more interested in what the proposed £30 million development for the West Pier (front page, evening edition, Monday, July 9) looks like. There was no artist's impression.

"The Voice of The Argus the next day said people might be shocked by it but most readers have not seen it.

"I understand the impressions appeared in that miracle on the breakfast table that is the morning edition and in the midday edition but were removed from the evening edition that reaches the bulk of the Brighton and Hove readership. Is there a simple answer?"

Yes, there is. The drawings were replaced in the later edition by a lovely front page picture of Carol Norris being reunited with her missing teenage daughter, Kirsty.

Unfortunately, in the rush to get the paper out, we forgot to move the drawings to inside the paper for all to see. Sorry.

Anon also points out that my acknowledgement last week that Red Indians are now "native Indians" is not quite right. "They live in India," he says. "The pedants call Red Indians 'native Americans'. Mr Clinton, of course, is one, though he was never a Red Indian."

Tony Booker emails me to point out that the first item in Dina Loeb's family law column in last Saturday's Weekend should have referred to "donor" (as in donation) not "doner", which, as he helpfully points out, is a kind of kebab! Thanks, too, to Mrs M Whitchurch, of Shoreham, for pointing out the same error.

Our article last Tuesday about former Shoreham toll bridge keeper Maude Lawrence should have made it clear that the "woman" we said adopted her in Brighton was in fact her aunt.

My thanks to Maude's husband, Ted, for pointing this out and apologies to the family who had rung him to complain.

That same day, our story about retired Worthing businessman David Dion's court case against a double glazing company wrongly stated that he still had to pay £6,488 of his £15,000 bill.

Mr Dion also says he didn't refuse the firm access to his house to fix the defects but wasn't prepared to pay for this and the offer was withdrawn. Apologies for any confusion.

Finally, an apology to Jane Derrick, of Hove, who found the gory colour picture illustrating our review of the film Ginger Snaps on June 29 offensive and unnecessary.

Mrs Derrick says the film was admittedly for adults but the picture should not have been published in a paper purporting to be a family newspaper.

Quite right and sorry, Mrs Derrick, and anyone else who was upset by its use.