Sir, - Methinks that Vincent Browne (Opinion, June 2nd) doth protest too much. His spurious defence of his own role in not exposing Charles Haughey's clandestine (to those of us who weren't in the know) wining, dining and bedding of Terry Keane at a time when he was waxing lyrical about the integrity of marriage is curious to say the least. In effect what he appears to be saying, if I am reading him right, is that at the time of, say, the Watergate affair, Richard Nixon and his cohorts should have remained in office on the grounds that those who pursued them must have engaged in lies and deception at some stage in their lives. With respect, this is unadulterated hogwash.
One can only give thanks that Mr Browne wasn't employed by the Washington Post during that heady time for investigative journalism. - Yours, etc.,
Eddie Naughton, Weavers Street, Dublin 8.