George Smith Seeks to Argue A Negative

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on reddit
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

cialis buy tadalafil times;”>Description: 
Hon. George A Smith 


Tribune Columnist Adrian Gibson

This is an article that did the rounds in the press and on line by  the Hon George A Smith former Minister and MP in response to an article which was written by Tribune columnist Adrian Gibson. Mr.  Gibson whose columns are simply too long is not credible.  The column is a mish mash of personal gripes and vents and half- truths based on what looks like logic but isn’t.  The question is why would George Smith elevate that prejudicial nonsense by Mr. Gibson to the point of notice by bothering to write a whole epistle in reply.  It is true these days that you cannot generally leave spaces unfilled.  Generally politicians should answer everything, especially matters to do with reputation. The question Mr. Smith ought to asks is whether the reply does not draw more attention to the arguments of Mr. Gibson and was simply best left alone. Mr. Smith clearly believed not and so the reply below.  The other thing we ought to consider these days is who and how many actually read the newspapers.  Our guess is maybe ten per cent of the population reads a newspaper and newspapers do not have the impact that they think they have.  So when you are in a position where you are arguing a negative, as in “ No I didn’t do it” and the story is an old story, why invest the time in dredging up something which no one in this generation even remembers.  It seems to us it simply causes people to go back and actually read the original for themselves and come way with : “ I didn’t know that”. The fact is the Commission made its findings. They were not set aside as farcical as they may seem to Mr. Smith.  The Court action arising out of those findings brought by then Attorney General Paul Adderley failed .  That is history and should be the end of that.  You may click here for Mr. Smith’s reply