THE EDITOR:
My comments are directed at columnist John Peters:
Dear John: In your column of November 19 you accuse me of journalistic mischief, indicating that I had suggested that you possessed insider information on the recent CDB Report. That implication however came from your article of October 1 in which you state “In fact my understanding is that the report went even further to advise that the analysis is showing that a reduction in VAT has a minimal multiplier effect, and thus will not improve the revenue of Government.”
You gave no indication in that article of where that “understanding” had come from, but went on to quote the Report directly with “The CDB/ECCB Report also spoke about the use of public funds …”. Now you tell us that the information on which you relied for support of your opinion had been acquired from a talk show?
Your barbed obfuscation of November 19 however does not alter the fact that the information on which you relied was not legitimately in the public domain. It is therefore not possible to use this information, whether acquired second-hand or third-hand, without giving support to the original illegitimate act by which it was obtained. That in this respect you find yourself in the company of the Leader of the Opposition is by your hand, not mine.
Pa nivòlèsi pa nisoutiwèz.
Your true, true friend
–David Prescod
Oh my, oh my.
Albeit a respectable GENTLEMANLY disagreement.
Nice to know that MATURE exchanges can prevail even in disagreement- here in La Boo crusted, RORO loving Loosha.
Brilliant come-back, Mr. Prescod.
Mr. Peters can blame no one else but himself for the inference that you legitimately drew from his article.