While reading Tonio Fenech's Talking Point in Thursday's The Times, I was amazed at how two reasonable people, when confronted with the same facts, can come to totally different interpretations.

Mr Fenech states that the Auditor General unceremoniously declared that allegations of corruption in the awarding of the tender (for the Delimara power station extension) were false. I, on the other hand, read that, partly due to failing memory on the part of otherwise healthy people, no hard evidence of corruption could be found. The difference, of course, is the same as between "you are innocent" and "we could not find enough evidence to prove you are guilty". This is a not unimportant distinction.

I will not waste any words on the childish antics of members of both parties during the parliamentary debate on the subject, except to say that Mr Fenech's statement is clearly an over-simplification.

Finally, he states that Joseph Muscat's position is that the Delimara power station extension is more polluting than the Marsa station, whereas all I have read is that the opposition feels that the improvements the new station brings should not be measured against the very old technology of the Marsa station but against other available new technologies, which is a perfectly reasonable argument.

So the question becomes: Am I interpreting the facts totally wrongly or is Mr Fenech talking as a politician rather than a reasonable person?