October 13, 2012Dear Sir,One thing has always perplexed me about Government (and particularly in recent years — since about the time Ewart Brown ascended to his Premieral throne…): why do Government spokespeople so often have “no comment” to make when this newspaper asks them about some issue or other? When the newspaper offers them a perfect opportunity to explain themselves or give an opinion about something, more often than not it seems their response is — silence.What is the point of having spokespeople employed by the Government — media relations and PR people — when, time after time the speaking part of their responsibility fails them utterly? It is, as I say, a perplexing conundrum.I mean, it’s not as if they have to comment on something immediately. They could say, “I’ll get back to you on that”, and then go and have a cup of tea and get together and chew over what they want to say, and then say whatever they decide upon. They could even write something down and send it back to the newspaper at their convenience by their own choice of conveyance — fax, e-mail, carrier pigeon. But no; a lot of the time (too many to count, really) they just don’t say anything at all. And I just wonder, why not?Should we infer that “silence means consent”? That “silence is golden”? Or maybe that they are afraid to say something? Or that they can’t agree on what to say? Maybe they’re all out to lunch or having their hair cut or a pedicure or something when the newspaper calls them (in which case, do they not have answering machines?) Do they not want to commit a response to print? Do they forget to write down the caller’s number? Maybe they don’t think it’s any of our business. Or maybe they just don’t like this newspaper. Or they don’t think the newspaper deserves their pearls of wisdom to impart to commonplace hoi polloi readers like ourselves (otherwise known as the people who elect them into office).What other reasonable explanation could there be? That they’re all dumb?HARPOCRATES (‘SHUT YA MOUTH’)Tree ToadLondon