Respect must be earned

October 8, 2005

Dear Sir,

Let me explain something to Alex Scott. Respect is something that can only be earned. No one owes anyone else respect automatically, it must be earned and justified. No office is automatically deserving of respect if its holder abuses or disgraces it.

KAG

Pembroke

Divisive language

October 7, 2005

Dear Sir,

So, people who use ?divisive language? (discordant, troublesome, disruptive, conflict-ridden) can expect to be in the sights of Mr. Scott when the Government?s Throne Speech is delivered on November 4. (As reported on the front page of today?s .)

Will this apply to himself? Will he be putting his ?sights? on himself? Can we expect a ?suicide? of sorts then? When ?sights? is mentioned you start to think about ?target?, which leads to ?taking aim?, then to weapons ? and I am talking figuratively here. The point is Mr. Scott?s infamous e-mail was all of those things ? discordant, troublesome, disruptive, and conflict-ridden, so presumably, to set a good example, our Premier will show us all exactly what he means to do to these troublesome people by doing it to himself first.

And what?s with this pathetic excuse from Mr. Scott that there is no reference to race ? directly or indirectly ? when he said he was tired of people ?who look and sound like Mr. Brannon?. Mr. Scott then goes on to write ?Do not be misled; my reference is explicitly to an attitude and behaviour, not to a race.? What utter rot. If Mr. Scott had only written in his e-mail ?sounds like Mr. Brannon, then well and good ? ?sound? can be very much about attitude and behaviour. But when he wrote ?who look ??, then he is NOT taking about attitude and behaviour at all ? attitude and behaviour do not have a ?look?. Get real!

?Look? is about what you see with the eyes, it?s about appearances ? in other words what something or somebody ?looks? like ? not how they act (attitude, behaviour). What is sad is not that Mr. Scott is being slippery in trying to wriggle out of what is a major gaff, but that there is anyone who actually swallows his explanation. You can rant and rave till you are blue in the face, but you can?t change what has been written.

Put Independence to bed

October 3, 2005.

Dear Sir,

Having attended one of the later BIC public meetings, I distinctly remember Bishop Lambe stating that the final report would contain both Pros and Cons of Independence. Having read the first 70 pages several times, all I can find is a section marked benefits, which actually bears very little resemblance to what has gone before. Since Bishop Lambe seems to have failed in this area, I have produced a set Pros and Cons, based on actual quotes from the report:

Pros:

Bermuda Governor General/President would appoint certain public officers (positions currently appointed by the Governor.) Ref. 3.2.7

USA sees no reason to withdraw the Visa free entry or Pre-Clearance for Bermudian?s travelling into the USA. Ref. 3.2.8.

Bermuda would manage its own external affairs Ref 3.3.2 ; 3 6 2 & 3.7.3

Bermuda would be responsible for its own internal security Ref; 3.3.4

No perceived impact on Tourism (?) Ref: 3.4.3

A Feel Good Factor among 18.7% of the community - latest poll figures.

Cons:

British citizenship with attendant privileges and rights to travel and work throughout the UK and European Community is ?expected to be withdrawn? on Independence for all except those with rights of patriality through parents or grandparents. 3.2.8

The usual UK practice is to withdraw citizenship from newly independent territories, except for patriality, as above and does not expect a different approach for Bermuda. Ref 3.7.2.

Negotiations would be required to continue Visa free travel to those countries that are presently visa free to Bermudian travellers, including Canada. Ref: 3.2.8 and 3.7.2.

International Businesses are concerned over possible increased taxation, political instability and the right of appeal to the UK Privy Council.

(Note, more recent statements from the International Business Community indicate a stronger, more negative position than the above. )

? A survey of 42 overseas professionals who refer business to Bermuda was overwhelmingly negative? Ref: 3.4.2; 3.7.6. & 3.8.1.

It is quite clear from these statements that International Business is opposed to any change, there is, therefore a real possibility that Independence could decimate the International Business pillar of our economy. This could result in a loss of more than 50% of our national annual revenue, a position from which it could take decades to recover.

Interestingly, the BIU statement makes the same cautionary note. Ref: 3.4.2.

My note: Additional Government travel will significantly increase the costs of independence Ref: 3.6. (Cost estimates)

As far as I can see from the above and these points are direct quotes from the report, the best we can achieve, by choosing Independence, would be to retain only some of what we already have now at extra cost and effort . However 20% of the population may feel emancipated by the change.

The down side is a restriction on travel, severely reduced opportunity to work and study overseas, particularly in Europe or the UK and possible collapse of our economy with the inevitable devaluation of the Bermuda dollar, which would further dramatically increase the cost of living here.

However, the list of benefits at the end of the report Ref 3.8.2 appears to be a wishful attempt to put a positive spin on Independence, as the points they raise are quite nebulous and without any real substance. It is as though someone said ?whoops we are supposed to be supporting Independence, everything we have written so far doesn?t do that?, What can we write to make it look good?

I have long held the view that the BIC was set up to promote independence rather than to produce an educational tool, for the voters to make up their own minds. Having read the report with some care, I still believe that to be the case.

I think the best thing we can do is have a referendum as soon as possible and put this thing to bed for another ten years. As there is nothing in the report to convince another 40 percent of the voting population to choose independence at this time.

Cells aren?t only danger

October 5, 2005

Dear Sir,

Please allow me to respond to ?Seen the danger on the Road? in today?s paper (October 5, 2005).

Not everyone who drives while talking on a cell phone is a hazard or causes an accident. There are plenty of other distractions that can ?easily kill a regular pedestrian, an elderly person or a child? as you so put it.

Perhaps you would like to implement a hefty fine for playing music (at a reasonable level), having other passengers in the car, or travelling to the vet with pets in the car as these are all distractions that can cause someone?s attention to stray from the road therefore causing an accident.

Obviously you have extra time on your hands as you?ve seen people around Cox?s Hill, Hamilton and North Shore, maybe you are causing a hazard by looking at them instead of concentrating on the road.

Next time you write a letter to the editor kindly include your phone number so that cell phone drivers can call you for a ride, making the road a safer place.Cell phone drivers do read letters to the editor, we?re normally too busy to respond.

Confused by cell use

October 5, 2005

Dear Sir,

With everyone already seeing more and more frightening cell phone usage from bike riders, cars/taxi drivers, truck drivers and also the large container haulage trucks here is yet another new picture where cell phone usage is being displayed.

Yesterday morning, Tuesday, October 4, 2005 while driving along East Broadway into the city, I would assume many other motorist noticed this display of phone chatting while on duty....yes duty. One of our island?s respected police officers was seen about his normal duties directing traffic along East Broadway on to Spurling Hill and within this congested early morning traffic he was having a telephone conversation on nothing but a cellular phone.

If and when it finally does become law (unfortunately not soon enough) with this new display of cell usage ? how now can we trust our police force to uphold the new law?