So, the bashful, no-surname 'John' of Whitchurch, still seems somewhat confused ('If Mr Port does not speak out, who will?' Open Lines, June 27) as to what should be the unbiased duties of a police officer. I will further attempt to lighten his darkness.

It is a fact, that the laws of this country (including in Whitchurch) are devolved from the authority of the sovereign through Parliament.

As such, it is no part of a police officer, let alone the chief constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary Mr Colin Port, to hinder the directions of a High Court.

The recent case in question involved the initial refusal of Mr Port to hand back computer harddrives taken during a raid on Mr Terence Bates' home.

He is a forensic computer expert who was used both by the police and the defence in paedophile cases.

Mr Port realised belatedly, that the High Court outranked his powers as a police officer, and duly handed back the digital and hard-copy files.

'John' in his anarchistic support for the chief constable took the popularist view, saying: "If it's not his job, then whose job is it?" and "Bully to Mr Port, I say, he's only speaking for the majority".

Well, there we have it. An object lesson in 'barrack-room' tabloid democracy.

Despite Mr Port's attempt to act as judge and jury, Parliament has, I suspect, not given him carte blanche to interpret the laws he administers according (Mr Port gave an interview on the subject to The Sun newspaper) to tabloid opinion.

The law should not be discharged on the personal whims of a police officer, however much he/she thinks that public opinion is being served.

That 'John' is the substantive case for retaining elective Parliamentary democracy. Not the mob rule lynch mentality of some of the worst aspects of tabloid journalism.

RL Smith,

Knowle.