MP is not intimidated

March 12, 2003

Dear Sir,

Please allow me space in the letters to the Editor section of your newspaper to respond to an article written by Sarah Titterton in your March 10th edition titled "Burch lays into claims of housing scandal cover-up". Since that time the Minister has continued his public comments.

In that article, in a statement he delivered in the Senate last Friday, and a press conference yesterday, Col. Burch accuses me of being "mischievous at best, and the height of deceit at worst" because I claim the Smith Government was trying to cover up what has become known as Bermuda's Enron - the Bermuda Housing Corporation scandal.

I want to respond, because I do not believe that Col Burch, or some members of the public, understand why I keep making such a fuss about it.

It was on March 4, 2002, during the Budget Debate of that year, that I first revealed the huge problems that I had come to learn existed within the Housing Corporation. If the serious allegations I made then had been made in the United States, or in England or in some similar democracy, the reaction of those governments would have been to suspend the senior executives concerned straight away, and appoint someone, probably an independent person, to make a full investigation into whether there was any truth in what I was saying.

But history shows that the former Minister of Housing and the entire Smith Government denied my allegation at the time. I was attacked ruthlessly by Government members in attendance and even had to contend with the Chairman of the debate trying to prohibit me from making any comments at all.

That was over a year ago. Any action taken by the Smith Government since then has been extremely slow in coming, and has been taken with the clearest reluctance.

Had it not been for the persistence of the Opposition, I can assure you that nothing at all would have been done to clear the situation up. Because of the persistence of the Opposition, the senior executives of the organisation have been fired, the then-Minister has been relieved of his responsibility for the organisation, a criminal investigation has been begun, people have been arrested and Scotland Yard has been called in!

Col Burch can deny it as much as he likes, but it is just as plain and obvious as it can be that what the Government has been trying to do for the last year is deny, resist, oppose, intimidate, vilify, dodge, duck, stonewall, talk a lot of nonsense and tuck as much of this mess under the carpet as they possibly could. Mr. Editor, if that's not a cover-up, then I don't know what is.

Along the way the public has also been treated to the extraordinary fiction that the Colonel has been sent in there, not to clean up Nelson Bascome's mess, but the Opposition's mess, left over from the period before the PLP took power.

What is really going on is that the Colonel has actually been sent in to the Housing Corporation as a diversionary tactic. 'Kick some ass and take some names,' they told him. 'Make as much noise as you can. Switch the focus from the big shots who allowed it to happen to the little people who made a couple of dollars from it. People will think that something's being done'.

If the Colonel thinks I'm fooled, he is sadly mistaken. And if he thinks I'm intimidated when he calls me mischievous, he's mistaken again.

The Opposition intends to keep the pressure up on the Housing Corporation scandal until we're satisfied that the rot has been cut out and the proper penalties have been paid by the guilty parties. We'll be doing the same anywhere we find corruption.

Colonel Burch had better get used to the idea, and start worrying, not about whether I'm being mischievous, but about whether the public is going to want to re-elect a Government that encourages this kind of activity on their watch, and then tries to pretend that everything's fine ... that the only bad thing that happened is that some people didn't pay their rent.

The people of Bermuda should not make the mistake of assuming this is over. I can assure them, there is more to come.

MICHAEL H. DUNKLEY

Shadow Minister of Health, Family Services and Housing

AIDS remarks worrying

February 27, 2003

Dear Sir,

I want to denounce the discriminatory and disturbing comments made by the backbencher (Derrick Burgess) in his remarks that expatriates should be admitted on the results of AIDS testing.

This is unacceptable from a Government backbencher whose role should be to protect human and constitutional rights because not only it is an attempt and offensive to human beings, this is a direct and in your face discrimination on all levels and me as a member of the society whether I'm a local or not, HIV positive or AIDS patient or not, should have no effect on how I'm disgusted and appalled by such comments.

Haven't we learned enough from powerful experiences of how discrimination can affect the unity of a nation or as a society? We shall not tolerate such remarks from such individuals and shall demand his resignation or a formal apology to everyone (that includes locals HIV/AIDS patient and to everyone on this Island). Haven't we learnt enough as a society to be compassionate towards everyone whether or not they are diseased?

In his remarks, he's targeting expatriates to keep them out of Bermuda.

What would become of locals or residing expatriates who are HIV positive and or AIDS patients? Are we to see a trend in his line of thought that he's inferring that soon the latter will have to stay away from Bermuda as well? What would happen to returning Bermudians who have HIV/AIDS? Will they be kept out of the country as well? And if they are coming back unscreened, does that mean they represent a lesser risk to spread the disease than expatriates would do? Never mind that Canada, among other countries, is welcoming hundreds of thousands of immigrants does not even screen for HIV/AIDS for its new members of their society.

In the future, I hope that we will have more sensitive and mature Government representatives and will entrust them to make the righteous and moral decisions but above all to take responsibility on an issue and come up with the right attitude and solution.

WORRIED MEMBER OF

PLANET EARTH COMMUNITY

Paget

Show some consideration

March 14, 2003

Dear Sir,

This letter is addressed to Mr Eddie DeMello and his truck drivers who are trucking sand in the Riviera Crescent Road, in Southampton.

I am a resident of Riviera Crescent Road in Southampton. I wake up at 6.15 a.m. Monday to Friday, and my hours of office work are from 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.

Therefore, on Saturdays, because of the hours I work on weekdays. I am sure I can speak on behalf of other residents of that area, that we all deserve to sleep and not be awaken at 6-7 a.m., by the loud annoying speeding of your trucks, waking us up at such an early hour in the morning, driving continuously up and down Riviera Crescent like there are no other vehicles or humans in the area.

At least have the common courtesy to begin work at 10 a.m. on Saturdays to allow residents the peace and tranquillity that we had before you began work in our neighbour. It's only a matter of time before we will be awoken on Sundays.

Your trucking company has just begun to work in the area and I was totally fed up and disgusted on Saturday morning, when I could not sleep because of the continuous amount of noise which was being made by your trucks.

I am sure your wives and families are allowed to sleep in on their weekends off, just as we did before you decided to do your trucking business in our neighbourhood.

As I look out of my window and see and hear your trucks continuously speeding noisily up Riviera Crescent, I begin to wonder, how long will these apartments take to be built? How long will we have to be subjected to this? How long will we have to hear the loud trucks speeding up the narrow windy roads before there is an accident?

You need to have consideration for the neighbours who deserve the right to sleep on Saturdays, just as your families do.

As was mentioned previously there is a right of way to your other property nearby, these trucks should be using that same right of way instead of disturbing neighbours in Riviera Crescent.

FED-UP RIVIERA CRESCENT RESIDENT

Southampton

Dangerous dogs

March 6, 2003

Dear Sir,

I would like to let the readers know about an incident that I was an unwilling participant in on Saturday morning. I was out walking my Irish Setter, Calleigh, when a huge American Bulldog attacked us both. I saw the dog come after us, but was expecting the leash to stop it at any moment. There was no leash. Before I knew it, the dog was attacking my dog with every intent to do it grievous harm. I was completely taken aback, and after a split second, did everything I could to separate the two animals.

I threw my dog onto the top of a nearby car but the bulldog climbed up after it. I kicked the bulldog five times in the head with all the force that my adrenaline filled body could administer, to no avail. In the process, the dog clamped down on my lower leg, drawing blood. I finally got it into my head to push my small dog away, while holding onto the bigger beast. This worked. By this time the owner of the bulldog was out on the road, and things had calmed down a bit.

Prior to Saturday, I had seen it occasionally while walking Calleigh down St. John's Road. From the street the dog lords over those who walk by, and when I have our dog it goes absolutely berserk. On more than one occasion it has blistered down over the stairs and given me quite a start. It is a vicious dog. The kind neighbour who assisted me used those very words to describe the dog. Why do people breed and raise animals to be like this? Just last week my husband and I were running on North Shore Road and came up behind a young man who was walking a large Rottweiler. He yelled at us not to come up behind him as his dog tried to tear away from him. The dog turned on us, and looked as if it wanted to take a bite out of us both.

The American Bulldog who attacked my dog and me had apparently not done such a thing in its seven years. Well, once is too often and the potential for this dog to do far greater harm to someone or another animal is tremendous. It is a savage. It is obviously not socialised to other dogs and likely not to people other than its owners.

What happens now? The owner of this dog reimburses us for the veterinary and medical expenses we incurred on Saturday and we take our chances on this happening or not happening again. This is insufficient as a matter of public safety and public policy. With so many of these dogs in Bermuda, and all possessing potentially similar temperaments, there is a very good chance that this will occur again; God forbid, to a young defenceless child.

MARY FLYNN

Pembroke

Give disabled their rights

March 4, 2003

Dear Sir,

The Corporation of Hamilton is good enough to provide Handicapped Parking in the city for those who need and are qualified to have it. All of us who are registered as disabled and have a Disabled Drivers Badge (DPB) Parking Permit are most grateful for this. But some persons treat such signs with nothing but flagrant and inexcusable contempt.

On behalf of the Bermuda Physically Handicapped Association (BPHA), I have no hesitation in reporting it and requesting appropriate action because of it. I saw all this myself. I refer to a private car with a Department of Air Operations parking sticker on it. I cite this vehicle for disgraceful conduct reflecting badly - but not fairly - on the Bermuda Government because of the DOA parking sticker. At 12.50 p.m. on March 1, this car was parked in a space clearly marked on the ground and above ground as reserved for the Handicapped only with a Disabled Persons Badge sticker, at the rear of City Hall. It was in the only space in Bermuda marked in exact conformity with US ADA regulations and with a special blue disabled pattern on it, its third identifying mark as a Handicapped Parking by Permit only space. The car was parked in deliberate, contemptuous, open, blatant violation of the displayed Disabled Persons Badge (DPB) signs, with no DPB on the vehicle.

What gives this a further ugly dimension hurting Bermuda's tourism is the fact that the BPHA is doing its best to persuade visitors who are seniors and/or permanently physically disabled and have Disabled Driving Parking Badges (DPB's or Permits) to bring them too. Many now do so and taxi drivers taking them around are happy to borrow them temporarily to display them from their mirrors, to stop without any problems at any of Bermuda's Handicapped Parking Only signs. A disabled couple, Gina and Mark Jones, of Coopersburg, Pennsylvania, visited Bermuda for the first time in October 2002 and did this. Mr. Renaldo Bean, their taxi driver - in taxi 1778 - gave them a great and deservedly-much publicised time, I believe at the behest of the Minister of Transport.

But all these positive efforts are spoilt when owners or users of vehicles deliberately park, or allow users to do so, without a DPB in a Handicapped Parking Only space, to deprive both visitors and residents who are registered as disabled and have DPBs, of these Handicapped Parking Only spaces. No longer are persons who do so going to get away with it. They and the owners of the vehicles WILL be reported, by the Bermuda Physically Handicapped Association with a request that the stiffest penalties, including revocation of the vehicle's registration for a six-month period, be imposed for a calculated and deliberate offence against a disabled person in wilful disobedience of a clearly marked sign.

KEITH A. FORBES

Bermuda Physically Handicapped Association