Fair and foul

YOUR front page (28 September) addresses the John Terry case, revealing that the Football Association has differed from the Criminal Courts and has imposed a large fine and sentence on the Chelsea player and now former England international. There is argument about the perceived rights and wrongs of his case, and whether his alleged act was “racist” and the subsequent penalty merited.

Yet Conservative Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, who, having attempted to wheel his bicycle through the wrong gate at Downing Street, strongly berated a police officer who had directed him to the correct gate, has apparently got off scot free.

His harangue apparently included a fair measure of bad language including the word “pleb”.

The matter was raised with Prime Minister David Cameron, who agreed Mr Mitchell was wrong, but said that he had taken this up with him. As a result, an apology had been given to the police officer, which was accepted (what choice did the officer have?). The Prime Minister then declared himself “satisfied” with this outcome.

There is a very big difference in the treatment of these similar cases, each involving a high-profile figure. Can we really accept, in the light of Mr Terry’s punishment, that the PM has dealt with Mr Mitchell properly?

JR Hall

Colinton Grove

Edinburgh