WITH respect to your article ‘Judge lenient on thief beater’ and your ‘WE SAY’ column headed ‘Part-time judge made right decision’, (Oxford Mail, July 15) the conclusion would seem to be that it is acceptable to be “a cocky and self-satisfied burglar who brazenly admitted to stealing from [someone’s] parents” as long as one’s jaw is subsequently broken by the victim’s son.

Not only did the thief receive a mere police caution, but he also retained the title “Mr” in your report, a privilege seldom granted to those found guilty of the most trivial technical offences – and even those actually totally acquitted, at times, as was once my own case.

Maybe the recorder was correct to show some degree of leniency, on grounds of provocation, towards the assailant but, as you yourselves point out, “a six-week curfew for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is literally nothing”. Well, almost.

Anyway, the assault should stand him in good stead for the “promising career” in the army – an oxymoron? – he “passionately” wants.

There is not much point in engaging those with the “Come on, old chap, that’s not quite the right attitude” outlook, is there?

DAVID DIMENT Riverside Court Oxford