Red-hot issue: The campaign to close Shamrock Farm at Small Dole, near Henfield, and our coverage of the demo there the Sunday before last.

You won't have missed the maelstrom unleashed against us in our letters pages last week. And with good reason. We pride ourselves on balanced and accurate coverage. However, on Monday last week we let you down with our lopsided and half-hearted reporting of the protest and the ugly clashes with police outside the monkey farm.

Demonstrators accused police of foul-mouthed intimidation and brutality, pinpointing officers drafted in from other forces as more to blame than Sussex bobbies. Eleven people were arrested, one man ended up in hospital with a broken hip and protesters said they had seen a pregnant woman strong-armed to the ground by police.

Those same protesters complained to the Argus because of what we failed to print in that Monday's paper. Early editions carried an admittedly brief front-page story reporting the arrests and a line about claims of heavy-handed police. We also carried a picture from the demo.

However, in later editions this story was taken off the front page but not put inside as we would normally do. This was a major oversight on our part. Furthermore, as quickly became clear from your letters, we should have had a fuller report in all editions of what had happened. On that score, we were found wanting and deeply regret it.

To pour petrol on a blazing bonfire, so to speak, what we did publish was a feature about extremists targeting Shamrock workers. Understand, though, it was not, as some protesters have claimed, to replace what we should have printed.

It was written previously by a reporter who was not at the demo. It was deliberately timed to appear that day so it was topical. It was an accurate news feature quoting protesters, police and farm managers. It earned its place in the paper, but given the demo went largely unreported, I can see why we were accused of trying to skew the debate about Shamrock.

Our Voice of the Argus comment lifted the temperature further. It may seem we have an axe to grind. Let's be clear. We support the right of campaigners to protest peacefully. The vast majority of people who turn up at the farm are passionate in their protest, but law-abiding and well-behaved.

We condemn stop-at-nothing extremists. They have cranked up the ratchet of terror against staff at the farm, intimidating them and attacking their homes and cars.

Protesters are horrified anyone would want to work at the farm and employees must square their jobs with their consciences. But whatever campaigners think of the people who work there, they and their families should not be terrorised.

Equally, we condemn police brutality against anyone in the same way we condemn extremists. You will know from our coverage over many years, we have never shied away from reporting what goes on at Shamrock Farm. And we have reported the protests before and after, week in, week out. But we do not believe acts and threats of violence against families should be tolerated.

We are not in cahoots with police or farm bosses and are not guilty of deliberate bias. We strive for play fair. Yes, we let readers down this once, but don't leap to the conclusion it was because we are biased.

Quite simply, we slipped from our normal standards. Let's hope that douses the flames.

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