WHAT a surprise! Ray Hill once again bites the hand that feeds his egotistical arrogance.
It was not I, Ray, who called you "gruesome" but the compositor of the heading above my letter.
I called your actions in continuing to pursue John Whitelegg sad, simply because - as many of us keep pointing out - you have both made your point and now you keep flogging it to death.
Your response to those requests; before the turn of the year as I recall ; was, the more you try and stop me writing the more I shall keep writing.
That was a childish response by you, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
As you had both set yourselves up as some kind of arbiters of moral rectitude; although I now readily recognise that Richard Newman-Thompson has left that field to you; I decided to examine your political morality by asking questions about your attitude to your new friends in New Labour.
If that is what you call "a series of insults", then you are a precious wallflower indeed.
However your response was so personalised; indeed insulting; and vitriolic that I decided you were indeed small minded - as I had suspected earlier - and; in boxing terms; unable to punch the weight.
As a result I sought to withdraw; as graciously as I could; from that catch-weight contest.
Ray, you are now punching at thin air.
It is undignified and I offer you the draw.
If I make this my last letter on this whole matter will you publicly state your reply will be yours?
Barry Bell Croft Avenue, Slyne
Sorry, looking back it was us - but what other word would you have used in a headline with your word twosome in this context! Ed
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article