Unfair to compare Best and Jackson

AN anonymous letter from ‘Looking for consistency’ in Writeback listed ever y single f law in the persona of George Best, and posed the question, “Why turn a blind eye to Best’s many sins? ”

I’ve never before witnessed such a heartless case of character assassination. The author did not mention a single positive word about our revered icon, and was totally oblivious to the hurt caused to the thoroughly decent Best family and friends.

The author then went on to seriously compare George with Paddy Jackson, and asked, “How can we honour George but dare to criticise Paddy? After all, he’s been found not guilty of rape”.

Firstly, even the dogs in the street know that ever y character f law ascribed to Best was symptomatic of alcohol addiction.

This man had to struggle with this illness night and day while tr ying to maintain the f itness needed for topf light football.

Even when premature death was obviously inevitable unless he stopped drinking, he eventually lost the battle.

He paid for his character f laws with his life, thus he owes neither the author nor any of his critics a single thing.

Paddy is a talented rugby player, but George was considered worldwide as a genius. You cannot compare chalk with cheese.

George didn’t choose to be an alcoholic. Paddy chose to insult women, but he has now made the welcome decision to humbly ask for forgiveness. But misogyny is not an addiction and Paddy and Co had a choice.

Raking up muck about a much-loved icon was entirely inappropriate, and ‘Looking for consistency’ owes all of George’s friends and family an apolog y.

BOB GRANVILLE Glengormley

Please note that letters should be short and to the point. Letters will be edited as deemed necessary and should be authenticated with a full name and postal address, not necessarily for publication. A daytime telephone number would also be useful.