MR. Arthur Hodgson raises a sore point with me. He says: "If you want to preserve something for the interest of the public, don't ask one individual to take on the burden of the community." He is quite right!

Somebody last year put my house on a list that says I cannot modernise it without arguing with some committee (and you know how far you get when you try that) that already says I am not allowed to do what my neighbours are doing, right now, either side of me.

This is because, to someone out there, my house has "historic" interest. My dad built it so just what is historic about it is beyond me. And just who is it of interest to?

If whoever these people might be are so interested, they can buy it from me, or else they should let me do what I want with it. They should not have it both ways.

My dad always had the idea of adding on, and built it so this could be done. Now this idea is shot down, just because somebody has decided I should pay to keep it going like it is, as Mr. Hodgson says, just for the interest of the public.

Mr. Editor, how about MY interests and MY needs in this situation? Why should I contribute MY house to the public, pay to keep fixing it up for their benefit, and at the same time not be allowed to do what my neighbours are free to do with their houses right next door?

Mr. Hodgson is quite correct that this is in no way fair. If the public wants to preserve my house, as he says, don't ask me to take on the burden of living in an out of date place with all kinds of high maintenance bills to just keep it like it was when it was built, for the interest of the public, at my expense, please understand.

If it is so all fired important to the public, the committee should make a choice, either buy the place or treat me the same as the neighbours.

@TIMES-18:

ONE of the topics, which interests me, is how ? especially in so-called democratic societies ? a community of animals known as humans can be persuaded to believe something or someone is an absolute and undeniable threat.

The media play a significant role in that items will either be printed, selectively, sometimes defectively or excluded, depending on the editor involved and the editorial line. Government media "relations" people are also part of the contributing force in the material they release or conceal.

For my part, I have absolute difficulty comprehending this community can submit so much rambling nonsense on the perceived grave threat of pigeons and cats, and seem unconcerned that no less than two gallons of mercury can "go missing" from the Gibbs Hill Lighthouse (either through spillage or vaporisation) during Hurricane Fabian, and probably more of it steadily over the years before that.

Then there is the tragic reality that innocent animals can be chained down (with links large enough to secure the cruise ship on a mooring), or compelled to turn on treadmills until exhausted, underfed, fought and abused, or simply buried alive after having their mouths taped and their legs bound . . . and what do we hear back from this community? This educated letter-writing community?Silence.

What do we hear from the M. Outerbridges of this island who only see the blue and the long-tailed creatures while remaining oblivious to their responsibility to open their eye?

The "establishment" must at long last get behinds off their outdoor teak chaises, stop gazing at their bluebird boxes with misty binocular-ed eyes and make a difference. Instead I fear they will stay firmly seated in their pristine "sanitised", "pesticided" gardens.

Surely they will go on topping up the old cocktails and writing their cheques to the Audubon Society, while occasionally making the effort to pen a cynical, sneering view of those that have to deal with all this crap and still find some way to nurture the kinder, more realistic approach to the problem of co-existence of all animals within the Bermuda Environment.

Thank you sir for affording the space, if you do, and M. Outerbridge is welcome to use this small section of your illustrious weekend chronicle to wipe his . . .

@TIMES-18:

IT was not without a touch of irony that I read the front page of the of Friday February 20, 2004 where United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan advocates Independence for Bermuda.

Kofi Annan, born in Ghana in 1938, would have been 19 years old in March of 1957 when Ghana (formerly the Gold Coast) became Independent.

Ghana, then a country of some 7,500,000 people, was expected to be a shining example of African "Freedom" for the rest of the continent. In my younger socialist days I read the ,a great protagonist of African democracy. That newspaper said there was no reason why Ghana should not remain a welcome member of the Commonwealth under the new draft constitution it adopted on Independence.

That view was echoed even in the more realistic coverage published inthewhich wrote that the new constitution "shows Ghana won't be heading for a dictatorship".

American African experts like Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. said it was a pleasure to pay tribute to the policy of the UK for facilitating the creation of an Independent Ghana. Richard M. Nixon (then US Vice President) said it was the best example of colonial policy the world has seen.

Ghana started off with a sound economy and reserves of ?250,000,000 (a lot of money in 1957). Its cocoa crops were the basis of a prosperous industry and the future looked bright for Ghana's developing the economy.

But within the short period of nine years Ghana collapsed in ruins.

Not only had the ?250,000,000 been squandered (only ?50,000 remained in reserves in April 1966) but the government had spent the colossal amount of ?570,000,000 of other people's money.

Right from the start of Ghana's nationhood, a compound of inefficiency, self-aggrandisement and corruption played havoc with the country's infrastructure and viability.

Money was squandered in "prestige schemes", i.e. Accra's state house, built for ?190,000 to hold conferences of the "Union of African States", was demolished and replaced with a luxury 12-storey block for ?6,000,000; of Zambia (6/10/65) quoted Ghana's Minister of Defence saying this monument epitomised Dr. Kwame Nkrumah's conference in the concept of African unity.

Countless millions were spent on luxury villas, palaces, yachts. Millions more went into Swiss bank accounts while the populace went hungry and quickly grew disenchanted with "freedom".

President Nkrumah, in an attempt to placate public concern, began to crack down on some of the more prominent practitioners of institutionalised corruption.

Henry Djaba, for instance, was jailed for 25 years by this arch exponent of corruption, for stealing one million pounds from the public purse but while on trial pointed a vengeful finger at the President himself, revealing that from one public contract alone Nkrumah received ?100,000 pounds, a ?12,000 bullet-proof car, etc.

Ultimately, the self-styled "saviour of Africa" really feathered his own nest with what was at the time one of the world's most expensive luxury yachts, a fleet of 28 cars, one of which cost ?17,000, palaces, vast estates as well as property and bank accounts he controlled in Europe.

This orgy of corruption continued until the collapse.

Ghana's national debt was ?20,000,000 and in one year rose to ?47,000,000 and by the time of the collapse it was ?400,000,000.

Thirty-two state-owned firms with an investment of ?40,000,000 showed losses of ?15,000,000 in 1965.

Just before the government was overthrown 38 years ago Ghana had the nerve to go seeking foreign aid to the tune of ?1,200,000,000.

The poverty and squalor existing among amid luxury in this land of publicly-subsidised white elephants led to the revolt in 1966.

I do find it interesting that Kofi Annan, who as Secretary General of the UN, has had no success whatever in ending the colonisation of Palestine by Israel ? a state with no clearly defined, internationally recognised borders, no constitution and a pseudo-democracy whose record on human rights abuses have been repeatedly condemned by the UN Security Council ? should be concerning himself with "decolonising" Bermuda.

It would seem that the UN has little credibility and only throws its weight around at little countries but has no power or meaningful authority with the major powers. The world forum is essentially a toothless tiger to all appearances.

I personally think the people of Bermuda will be the ones to decide if and when they will seek Independence.

What puzzles me is with so much interest in the subject of Independence that someone such as Mr. Walton Brown has yet to conduct a comprehensive poll to see how "the people" feel about it at this time?

ALTHOUGH I have on many occasions tried to read the column by Ms Wilson Carr, I continually gag after only a few paragraphs and quickly go to the end to see if there may be a new and interesting recipe.

I find her column to be pretentious, tedious and self-indulgent. I mean; who cares? Columns dealing with humour, intelligent comments and observations, even when one disagrees with them can be informative and enlightening and give one food for thought. Ms Wilson Carr fails to come near these criteria.

However, what finally prompted this letter was the recipes she has featured in today's (February 20, 2004) edition of the . Not only is she self-involved, it would seem that she's also a plagiarist as both those recipes have been lifted straight out of the March issue of the British edition of . I appreciate the fact the Ms Wilson has not claimed them to be her own but one would make that assumption when they are featured alongside the personal revelations of her daily life.