Dear Editor,

On January 3, 2016The Agenda magazine in the Sunday Observer carried a column written by Damion Crawford titled ‘Juliet Holness incorrect in all aspects’.

It has been over a week since Crawford’s response to Juliet Holness’s accusations; therefore, unless I’ve missed the response from Holness — which is quite possible — I believe a response from her refuting Crawford’s claims is warranted.

Based on the non-response coming from Holness, like many, I could be drawn to conclude that she flat out lied, or at the least was being disingenuous. I say this with the trust that Mrs Holness was speaking from an educated point of view.

However, it’s best not to draw conclusions and, thereby, give Holness the benefit of the doubt. It is quite possible that she had not seen Crawford’s commentary, or has been made aware of it, and so I’ll wait.

In Minister Crawford’s commentary, he had presented figures from exit polling showing the distribution of the votes for either parties by district or polling divisions in the 2011 General Election; if in doubt, these number should be fact-checked.

To support his claim of fair representation, Crawford has also presented figures to show how and where he’d spend the Constituency Development Fund monies that were allocated to his constituency. It should not be difficult to fact-check and refute such claims, if necessary.

Accusing a politician of being a liar is not a stretch; their record speak for themselves. However, if these accusations of political prejudice were aimed at Andrew Holness, she is different, or at least that’s the assessment of her, and so I await her response to Crawford’s rebuttal.

DM

nativeson_ja@yahoo.com