Letter to the Editor
The Anguillian Newspaper
With regard to the article Sutcliffe Hodge submitted to your newspaper for publication, after reading the array of personal attacks he leveled against Marcel Fahie, I could not ignore the hypocrisy he showed by stating at the end of his article that Anguillians should not use their time “to rip each other apart.”
Mr. Hodge became incensed because Fahie had suggested in an earlier article that there was “some understanding” between Hubert Hughes and the manager of Cable and Wireless concerning Hughes’ $40,000 telephone bill. Fahie did not identify the manager by name, but Hodge nevertheless took it upon himself to step forward as the unnamed manger, and then proceeded audaciously to label Fahie’s innocuous statement as being “malicious””and “deceptive” towards him.
Worse, Hodge then went on to gratuitously refer, first, to Fahie’s alleged failure in a fowl business (comparing this to his own self-professed “multinational business” experience) and then an apparent problem concerning a telephone bill of a business, in which, according to Hodge, Fahie was a principal.
It’s deceitful and malicious for Fahie to refer in an anonymous way to an agreement relating to Hughes’ bill (which Hodge even admits actually did occur), but OK for Hodge to highlight by name, totally side-issues designed to make Fahie look badly.
Moreover, although Hodge feels free to talk about the bill which Fahie and the supplier supposedly had a problem with, he refuses to “discuss the details of the Chief Minister’s account” (apparently, unlike in Fahie’s case, that is deemed to be confidential). He does, however, say that the matter was “successfully resolved”. So it seems clear that what Fahie said about “some understanding” was entirely correct after all. So how is this deceptive, as Hodge claims?
Hodge, ever mindful of his impeccable reputation, states “I am as transparent as one can get”, but in the same breath, says he will not give details about how the Hughes’ bill was resolved. Isn’t the public entitled to know what happened on a 440,000, 15 year bill, which tax payers must now underwrite?
So much for Hodge’s “transparency”.
“Concerned Citizen”.
