As Bandu de Silva has noted in his letter of October 26th, my advice is gratuitous. It is freely given, for people to accept or ignore as they please.

In doing so, I believe that it is generally considered polite to respond to what was actually written rather than a figment of one’s imagination. Bandu de Silva writes that ‘Kath Noble seems to say that there was nothing wrong with the statement of Ms. Hillary Clinton and that she should not have been challenged’, followed by ‘Kath Noble has fully accepted what the Secretary of State stated’. Whereas I said the opposite. The sentence in question was in fact, ‘I’m not suggesting that there was nothing wrong with what Hillary Clinton said or that she ought not to have been challenged’. Interesting editing, I think readers will agree.

Later he says, ‘Kath Noble is defending the crimes of rape committed by U.S. troops by saying that the issue in Sri Lanka is different’. This is more poppycock, as what I wrote was, ‘Hillary Clinton knows about it, and she probably believes that the issue in Sri Lanka is different’.

As a reader said in an email, contributions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and those of other Democrats over the years are likely to have bought an audience with her. The sensible response would seem to be to ensure that she hears the other side of whatever story she has been told in such discussions, but if people want to continue accusing the State Department of being in the pay of the LTTE, that’s their choice. Let us see what they achieve.

I don’t believe as Bandu de Silva appears to that Sri Lankans are so proud that they cannot use their brains. He may be the honourable exception in this case.