Allegations that Smith's South by election candidate Maxwell Burgess reneged on a promise to sell a house to a couple will not be used by the Progessive Labour Party (PLP) to gain an advantage in the contest.

This despite a claim by a key member of the United Bermuda Party (UBP) hierarchy that PLP Senator Michael Scott persuaded the couple - Amon and Dawn Brown to go public with their allegations.

David Burch, the ruling party's candidate for the Smith's South seat said he was hearing the story for the first time when contacted by The Royal Gazette.

"It's not something I would comment on," said Col. Burch. "I don't see where that has any bearing on the by election."

Meanwhile, UBP Leader Pamela Gordon, accused The Royal Gazette of "journalistic irresponsibility."

The Browns are threatening to sue Mr. Burgess for $15,000, claiming that he reneged on a deal to sell the Devonshire property, despite having moved in and done considerable renovation work on the house.

Mr. Burgess sold the house to a nephew instead who then initiated eviction proceedings against the couple.

C.V. (Jim) Woolridge, who endorsed Mr. Burgess as the UBP's choice for the Smith's South poll, said he was hearing about the allegations for the first time. "I don't know whether it is authentic - right or wrong. I am sure in the fullness of time, he (Mr. Burgess) will explain it to me."

One UBP insider said that the Browns had been receiving legal advice from Senator Michael Scott who had urged them to go public.

The Browns were yesterday irate at the suggestion that they were political pawns. They told The Royal Gazette that they didn't even know Sen Scott.

Moreover, said the couple, members of the UBP had advised them to seek legal advice and go public.

"If they want to talk about PLP and UBP business tell them Quinton Edness got us a lawyer," said Mr. Brown.

The couple say that they had informed key members of the United Bermuda Party of their problems, including Ms Gordon.

"They all said they'd check into it and get back to us," said Mrs. Brown. "We have only gone to UBP members - they are the ones who said to expose him for what he's doing. And they all wanted to know what the final outcome is going to be."

Ms Gordon voiced her suspicions as to the timing of the story in Tuesday's paper. She said that the story had been in circulation for "months."

"I think it's unfortunate that the newspaper would choose to use what seems to be an opportune moment" - after Mr. Burgess's candidacy for the election had been announced.

"It seems very peculiar that the media would wait until this week to put it out there... It speaks to the bias of the system."

The paper's handling of the story, said Ms Gordon, was an example of "journalistic irresponsibility."

She added: "My heart goes out to this family - it's difficult to find housing in this day and age."

She would not comment on the merits or otherwise of the allegations. "It would be appropriate to allow the legal process to prevail - we have a judicial process, and one that is highly regarded."

Royal Gazette editor, William J.S. Zuill, had this to say about Ms Gordon's comments : "We did not hold the story to coincide with the by-election. We have in fact been trying for months now to get to the bottom of the story, and the major reason for the delay was due to the fact that we were trying to get a response from Mr. Burgess.

"It was only after the couple's lawyer said he was planning to take Mr. Burgess to the Supreme Court that we felt we had to publish the story and any suggestion that this is part of some conspiracy is sheer fantasy. Who would our alleged bias benefit ?"

Ms Gordon is not the only one who has issues with the media. When contacted yesterday Col Burch said he had not read the Burgess story in the paper. "I have not been given the paper today," he said with an emphasis on "given" suggesting that he wouldn't pay a penny for it. And when reminded that he had indicated that he would allow a reporter from this paper to follow him on the campaign trail he was more direct. "I have changed my mind," he said. "I read your paper. You print what you want anyway," he added without elaborating.

A brief perusal of the anecdotal evidence suggests it is the first time The Royal Gazette has been accused of systematic bias by both major political parties on the same day.