January 30, 2004

Dear Sir,

The only way the that seatbelt law would make sense is if the driver was left with the responsibility of themselves (some drivers for some stupid reason figure it's OK to go NASCAR on the road and sad but true, some are female) and others and they either get stopped for speeding or the passengers got injured or died because of that person.

However, if that car doesn't have child seats, that driver shouldn't have to pay any fine. It's not that person's fault that that car doesn't have any child seats so why should that driver have to pay $2,200 for that? Because Bermuda is nowadays greedy when it comes to situations like this.

The only time an individual should pay that huge fine is:

1. Driver is caught speeding and he/she isn't wearing a seatbelt(however if that driver was wearing a seatbelt a fine should still need to be paid and maybe not that big but,if that person doesn't pay it,lock up.)

2. Driver is involved in accident,survives the crash and found not wearing a seatbelt.

3. Driver had passengers and was not only speeding but,driver wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

4. Driver was driving with a cellphone up to their ear and using one hand only to drive the car.

5. Driver was impaired. Bermuda's law needs to be changed so that it makes sense for everybody and not be greedy for unnecessary incidents.

February 4, 2004

Dear Sir,

The niece of a friend of mine who teaches at a school on a First Nations reservation near Montreal, Canada had the same problem as Prospect Primary School ? i.e. they were infested with mice. The teachers complained to the authorities who promised to think of the best way to deal with the problem.

The next morning, when the teachers and children arrived at the school, they were greeted by two cats.

January 30, 2004

Dear Sir,

Perhaps you would be kind enough through your column to inform Mr. John Harrison that we have a dozen copies of the Bermuda Biodiversity Study in our waiting room free for our clients. Sadly I do not believe that I have ever noticed the document either opened or removed.

As both zoologist and vet Mr. Harrison, I make it my business to stay informed, and I believe I have the right to express my concerns about flaws in this study, which could only be regarded as 'scientific' if it included other very important sources of data. At least it is a start, and that I acknowledge.