The Editor, Sir:

In your editorial of March 28, you castigate and ridicule Minister Pickersgill for his statement that the Cricket World Cup event in the Caribbean will benefit the PNP in the forthcoming general election.

You asked the question whether this statement is merely another of his frequent "stumbles" or does it show that he is an astute, albeit cynical, politician? Your answer to your own question is "honestly, we do not know."

That you should consider this an appropriate topic for a lead editorial is surprising enough. What is even more surprising, however, is the downfall from your posture of intellectual superiority that occurs in the last sentence of your editorial. You there invite the public to resent Mr. Pickersgill's cynicism and exact a penalty: for being so rudely taken from granted" (emphasis mine).

We are, of course, accustomed to the phenomenon of 'printer's devils' and grammatical errors being left undetected in headlines and the body of news reports.

But here we find, in an editorial, a common English phrase in which the word 'for' is replaced by 'from' and hence rendered meaningless.

This leaves us to ponder thre First, gross ignorance of the English language.

Second, sloppy sub-editing, and third, an astute manoeuvre to discover if anyone actually reads your editorial.

Whic is the correct explanation? Honestly, we do not know.

I am, etc.,

DAVID COORE, O. J., Q.C.

Ministry of Justice