Barry, now that you have specified more clearly what the phrase was that upset you, it is easier to give a reply. There has been ceetainly no intention on my part to make any allegations against you, and I was not considering your phrase on the front page - addressed to me - in any way illegal. I sinceely understood it to mean as I interpreted it, and cannot be responsible as, even now, if I reread the phrase and immagine to be doing so for the first time (i.e. without your clarification) I do come to the same conclusion!
As you have clarified what you mean, that you are not advising anyone to buy bonds if Charlie's project goes ahead, then of-course I will correct my statement and hereby do so, noting that Barry Williams has not advised anyone to buy bonds should Charlie's Port proposl go ahead.
I do apologise to you, but insist that 1) I was not making alegations against you, 2) really did interprit your wording as I first commented it.
It may be helpful if you yourself clarified what you mean by the phrase on the front page, for all viewers who might read it or have done so, as, possibly, others might also interprit it as I did.
Ultimately, Barry, if there is any problem concerning legal and not legal in the way you expressed yourself on the front page, you are responsible for making clear statements that can not be inadvertidly misinterpreted.
Hence, there was no premeditation on my part, and hope that this clears up the whole question.
If you wish, I can release a statement on the front page to the effect that I interpreted your wording as advice to buy bonds should Charlie's project go ahead, but that you later clarified that it is not so. Even then, I would suggest that you be more careful how you word a phrase, as people might interpret it in a different way as to that which you intended, which would de facto exclude them from legal consequences!
