When our Prime Minister Publicly declared Hamlet Mark “dangerous to Grenada” because the Journalist dared express an opinion of which he did not agree, what was the reaction of the New Today? Before or after the Prime Minister went after Grenadian professional/International Consultant; did the New Today not also launch a vicious, unprovoked, unethical public attack on the same professional FALSELY accusing him of gross and callus dishonesty; like a blind-eye ‘partner’ wasn’t your weekly at one with the Prime Minister when he was verbally adding division to his already divided Cabinet?

On the other hand, here the attack-dog front page Headline New Today September 9, 2011: “US Gov’t (United State Government?) Confirms Mitchell Accepted US$500,000.00 in Briefcase!”.

A lie undiluted, unrestrained, unmixed, but I admit a lie quite clever - in a diabolic sort of way - given how, like a venomous snake, it wound it’s way to inject its poison and indicate that the US Government wrote something it Never ever did, with intent to falsely hurt the one and help the other.

The Crassly UNTRUE story was concocted around a second Lie which failed to mention that it was contradicting the findings of the Cheltenham Commission; that it was publishing as fact, the allegation the Commission had investigated and reported upon; nor did it mention the findings of the Commission summarized here for easy reference:

“It is not an overstatement to say that this inquiry was largely about Prime Minister Mitchell and his conduct in the role as Prime Minister. Very serious and gravely damaging allegations were made about him in the discharge of the office of Prime Minister.

Now that the evidence is in, there is not a shred of evidence implicating him. The allegations have found no support whatsoever in the evidence given. For that reason, Dr. Mitchell will not be issued a letter asking him to show cause why the Commission of Inquiry shall not report adversely against him. That, in the business of Commissions of Inquiry, is called a “Salmon Letter’” (Report of the Cheltenham Commission of Inquiry, Grenada, September 2007 pp 44-45)

As is so evident, Dr. Mitchell was cleared of wrongdoing by a Commission recognized for its impeccable legal integrity internationally, regionally and locally – including then NDC-drawn Opposition Leader Hon. Tillman Thomas

Many see this New Today challenge to the Commission as part of the perceived ‘partnership’ referred to above – designed it is believed, to help the NDC Leader – by seeking to hurt the Leader of the NNP!


If that is so (and it appears to be) it raises the following questions: 1) Is it acceptable for the Hon. Tillman Thomas to remain silent while his ‘partner-paper’ continues to attack institutions like the Cheltenham Commission, known regionally and internationally for their integrity, which he endorsed –in order to vilify a political opponent and thereby bestow a political benefit upon the selfsame Hon NDC Political Leader? 2) Brushing aside prior incidents - given the role of commissions of its caliber in preserving our socio-political stability, can the Prime Minister be silent on this attack on the Cheltenham Commission – without risking some significant erosion of his useful honesty/Transparency claim?


Paul Gittens