I refer to Alfred Gauci’s letter (November 15). My first letter was an appeal for fair play. A policeman gets hours of air time and media coverage but then the policeman objects to an eight- minute interview of Liam Debono. This does not seem to be “fair play” to me.

In his reply of October 31, ‘Hazards of the Trade’, Mr Gauci changes the subject and somehow or other Daphne Caruana Galizia comes into the picture.

I completely agree with Homer. Of course Mr Gauci is free to say whatever he likes, irrespective of whether I agree or not. That is what is meant by freedom of expression.

However as a reply to my letter, the contribution can only be marked as out of point and has no relevance to the point I was making.  I would have thought that a reply to a letter would be on the same subject. 

Pot and kettle is not a correct analogy, I would suggest chalk and cheese, both useful when used correctly, but cannot be compared.  One can only compare like with like.

On a completely different subject: I do not agree that journalists should fear for their life, or live in fear of reprisals. 

If we agreed to this concept then, this would be  an acknowledgement and, even worse,  acceptance, that journalists can be killed with impunity (because they should have known that they might be killed for what they write) and therefore agreeing that  there is absolutely no rule of law.