Sir, - Maire Geoghegan Quinn, in her untypically superficial article of July 12th, misses the point completely. She plaintively accuses John Bruton of suggesting that "if you work for someone who is on the take then your very proximity to that person implies that you're on the take also". This scenario was neither spoken nor implied.
What is implied is that those closest to C. J. Haughey politically must have known (and most thinking people believed) that his lavish lifestyle and known income simply did not add up. The parliamentary party was in a position to select any one of its members as leader, yet the majority, knowingly and cynically chose him. I think they were culpable in the extreme. The party has a lot to answer for. And they have not changed!
Near to despair, and in considerable anger. - Yours, etc., (Ms) Maire Fox, Drogheda,
Co Louth.