A bitter behind-the-scenes feud involving senior Bermuda Cricket Board executive Gary Fray and Cleveland County cricketer and attorney Charles Richardson continued yesterday.

After responding to harsh criticism from Richardson?s client, Dion Stovell, who accused him of acting out a personal vendetta (see story above), Fray lashed out at the lawyer.

?I think Mr.Richardson is trying to destroy my character,? said Fray. ?And I think Mr.Richardson, above all, needs to be very careful how he attacks other people?s character. He calls the cricket board (BCB) a dictatorship but I think that whenever he gets calls from others he should investigate first before running off to the press.

?He just goes right off the cuff claiming the BCB to be a clever dictatorship that retaliates against those who dare to have an opinion. This guy Richardson attacked my character once before and I?m sick of it because he is the last one in this world who should attack someone?s character . . . and you can print that because I am sick and tired of him. And he is supposed to be a lawyer.?

Convicted of firearms offences, Richardson was called to the Bar during an emotional ceremony earlier this year in Supreme Court ? the very court room where he was convicted in 1995.

Since his release from Westgate in 2002, Richardson has been a determined advocate of prisoners? rights and an outspoken critic of a correctional system which he believes is generally failing in its duty to properly rehabilitate those who pass through it.

In response to Fray?s comments, Richardson told : ?My past has not and is not capable of depriving me of the intellectual capacity to objectively assess the manner in which a decision-maker has discharged his duties. I have a considered opinion that Mr. Fray was, whether consciously or subconsciously, biased against Dion Stovell. The fact that I have been to prison does not invalidate that opinion.

?It?s obvious Mr.Fray does have vindictive proclivities. Why else would he dredge up the past of someone who has disagreed with him when the past of the critic has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the criticism? He needs to deal with the substance of the criticism ? don?t attack the critic. That is a childish, cheap, immature avoidance technique and lastly my past is a matter of public record.

?My past seems to be important to Mr.Fray because he expects that it should make me reluctant to speak candidly in the present. But if he expects me to allow my past to muzzle my ability to exercise my sacred right to free speech, then I will probably, without regret, disappoint him every time.

?Any person who had objectively observed the formative years of my life could be forgiven for disbelieving that I stand where I stand now. But, unfortunately, there are many quarters of our enlightened society who continue to embrace the belief that when a man crosses the line which demarcates legitimacy from criminality, that he automatically becomes a lesser being.

?What is most disheartening about such an arbitrary categorisation of a human being is that it is often based on a single snapshot, taken from a brief moment in an entire lifetime.?