Life could be peachy

July 22, 2002

Dear Sir,

I always knew that the time would come when I started writing letters to the Editor. I read these submissions daily and I think that the page definitely lacks positive input.

Everyone is always complaining about something. So I decided today to talk about something positive. Bermuda peaches. This was prompted by a fabulous meal I cooked tonight for my husband and myself. It was chicken pieces saut?ed in herbs from pots on my porch and served with three peaches served whole on the plate, cut with a knife and fork to eat between bites of chicken.

This wonderful tree that grows in our backyard produces an amazing amount of fruit every year, regardless of the weather, needs no maintenance or spraying and the fruit is always a delight to family and friends.

You plant a pit in the ground (it grows anywhere) and within a few years you have all this wonderful fruit. It needs only two square feet to grow and becomes as large a tree or as small as you want it to be.

Working mothers would just love this plant. It's fruit tastes good with just about anything and certainly helps the grocery bill every week. It also keeps my grandchildren entertained for an hour - at least - when they come to pick the fruit.

So while all the politicians are wrangling about the state of the country, I suggest that we all plant a peach tree and share the fruit with neighbours. They in turn can plant one of the seeds and have their very own Bermuda peach tree. Peaches for everyone.

MARIA EVERS SMITH

Paget

Unwarranted attack

July 19, 2002

Dear Sir,

Our rights have been violated as private citizens and as professionals.

We dared to express our dismay at the destruction of a small piece of nature. Our piece of nature.

We penned a letter to the Editor, which was treated with spin by a reporter and withheld until after the spun story was printed. In the reporter's piece, Mr. Sherratt whom was obviously contacted forthwith, alleged to the press that Corporation of Hamilton workers had been abused, which is absolutely untrue.

At no time was any blame directed at the workers. We clearly placed the blame for these sorts of blunders (in this specific case and in general) with poor management or supervision and deficient training or schooling.

This was not balanced reporting; at best it was lazy reporting, at worst, good old-fashioned "kill the messenger" technique. The presence of the hedge had no influence on rubbish collecting there. The hedge was not obstructing anything, nor was it unsightly... for we made sure that the guard dog was not in the upper garden, but locked inside before any steps were taken to call the Corporation.

Had the reporter called us, he could have obtained a verbatim account of the exchange, from at least two members of our staff. However, that would not have suited his spin.

Mr. Sherratt then wrote a lengthy letter to The Royal Gazette in which he portrayed himself as in having to stand up for his workers. He spoke of sections of Corporation land that had nothing whatsoever to do with this small, essentially tidy piece of land in front of our hospital. This we feel was done in order to cloud the issue, which was really a very simple one.

Mr. Sherratt never retracted his allegations of abuse. As a direct result of this untruthful representation of what many may consider a fairly trivial event, a letter has been published today (July 19), which is a violation of our human rights and our right to privacy.

It is a very, very personal and nasty attack from someone with an ulterior motive. It is clear who it refers to, it is clear to us exactly who has written it and why.

As the Editor, you made a decision to publish this `letter of support'. Your motives are utterly unclear to both of us, but one may be forgiven for assuming that you probably applaud the intention of this letter, which far from simply expressing support for Mr. Sherratt is manifestly and quite viciously intended to bring grief to ouir personal happiness and brand as crazy someone who cares about all things living such as hedges, trees and animals.

This letter is intended to divide a happy marriage and ostracise one partner from the community.

The problem with legal action is the continuing and inevitable exposure to hurtful characterisations and untruthful statements. The problem with property developers is that they hate environmentalists.

That is the crux of it in Bermuda. Make any waves, and you will probably drown, unless you have enough time on your hands and money to buy your justice.

We would rather get back to our animals.

DR. JAN CIETERS AND DR. MAUREEN WARE-CIETERS

Pembroke

Editor's Note: The reporting of this story was fair and balanced. Indeed, an entire page of letters to the Editor was devoted to the issue on July 12, including two from Dr. Ware-Cieters which suggests that every effort was made to present both sides of the story. The subsequent letter published on July 19 could be construed as an unsigned personal attack and on reflection it should not have been published. Finally, more than enough time and space has been devoted to this issue and this correspondence is now closed.

Bank did respond

July 19, 2002

Dear Sir,

In an opinion column in The Royal Gazette (July 18), Dr. Grant Gibbons discussed a case involving Mr. Harold Darrell. We would like to clarify a suggestion in that article that the Bank of Bermuda would not participate in the Human rights Commission's original efforts to resolve the matter.

In fact, the Bank was timely and responsive in its information to the HRC. In our correspondence, we noted that Mr. Darrell had filed his claim four-and-a-half years after the alleged incident, whereas the Human Rights Act stipulates that such claims have to be made within six months.

Moreover, Mr. Darrell had already chosen to sue the Bank in the Supreme Court of Bermuda and it was inappropriate for the HRC to run a parallel investigation on a case that was already going to court. In our view, the HRC filing was simply part of Mr. Darrell's publicised strategy of `swarming the bank' with complaints.

As we stated in correspondence to the HRC, the facts outlined above were clear and indisputable reasons for Mr. Darrell's claims to be dismissed by the HRC. We then left the HRC to make their decision.

We firmly believe in the rights to a fair hearing for all parties provided due process is followed, whether in the Courts or through the HRC. The bank has repeatedly stated that Mr. Darrell's complaints are groundless, and we are prepared to vigorously defend our position in the Courts.

BRUCE WOOLLEY

General Counsel Bank of Bermuda