Editor Comment:

Thanks for your advice. I am not sure, though, about your qualifications for giving it.

Do you really want the media coverage of crimes and the application of the law to be controlled and overseen, as you suggest, by Thai and British authorities?

Britain and Thailand are both proud democracies, embodying the principle of an unfettered, free media.

Where is the jury in this case? In Britain? Unless there has been some recent change in the law, not in an extradition application. In Thailand? No. Thailand has no juries.

We certainly don't aim to prejudice a fair trial. And we consider our coverage fair and factual.

Fortunately, judges and magistrates in both countries are beyond influence by the media - good coverage, or bad coverage.

And that's as it should be.

Editor Comment:

What we've reported is that the footage is incriminating if the man in the image who looks like Lee Aldhouse is proven to be Lee Aldhouse. The evidence of the staff at the 7-Eleven store and the people around the store will, no doubt, be heard in determining the question of identity.

As I've said, judges in Thailand are not influenced by the media. Nor for that matter are judges in most countries.

As I've said, our coverage is fair and factual. We've made no presumptions of guilt.

Whose 'guidelines' are we supposed to follow? I must say, you seem to be making this up as you go along. What are your qualifications?

Perhaps we should make it clear:

If you are a judge or magistrate in Britain reading this, please make you decision based on the facts and the fairness of the case.

Likewise, if you happen to be a judge in Thailand who will be determining this case, please remember to make your decision after weighing all the evidence, not on the media coverage.

Thank you.

Editor Comment:

No, you certainly don't, and I am sure we agree on the need for an honest and just result in this case.

Please do tell me, though, where the issue of ''influencing a jury'' comes into it? You raised that, not me.

The point is that you seem content to make a presumption of media bias while attempting to make a case for freedom from presumption of guilt. Unfair, John.

Without wishing to question your integrity, you presume too much.

We have no aim to breach Britain's Contempt of Court Act, nor does fear of it influence the factual nature of our reporting.

And we're not really keen on pursuing an extended debate involving your theorising about the rights and wrongs of this particular case. That would be unfair.