For me the majority of media discourse (which then drips down to the fans) on these suspensions is worthless because so many pundits start with the different suspension lengths, with all of the loading already taken into account, and work backwards e.g. Gus Gould having a big bitch about how Mitchell got 4 weeks and Radley got 0. These guys never start with the initial charge and then discuss the merits of that charge. The Radley and Mitchell incidents are completely different and you will never get "consistency" between these incidents (TBH, one of the only people I've heard repeatedly hammer this point home is Paul Kent, of all people).
The simple fact is that Mitchell elbowed a bloke in the head and if he had a clean rap sheet he would have got 2 weeks, which is more than fair - it's totally disingenuous to bleat about how Mitchell got 4 and Radley got 0 as if they are in any way related.