January 16, 2007

Dear Sir,

Facts about the Regiment you don't know:

1. An army doesn't make good citizens. While an extremely small number of individuals do benefit from a structured environment, the majority of men just want to get along with their busy lives. You cannot change people, you can only work with who they are. If our Regiment was volunteer, we would get more things done. Even if it was smaller, we'd do better than now. We'd have more money to pay for equipment and training.

2. A rifle is designed to kill. Learning to use a rifle is learning to kill. There is no non-lethal ball 5.56mm Standard NATO Round, the only 5.56 ammunition the Regiment carries besides blanks. The only other non-lethal options the Regiment has are the wooden baton, CS (tear gas) and the rubber bullet, and we need permission from the Governor to use two of them.

3. The Bermuda Police Service is reluctant to ask for help from the Regiment because they don't trust conscripted soldiers. Police officers are comfortable with professional soldiers, but not disgruntled conscripts. The Regiment is only operationally capable of fulfilling one of its two roles ? provide support for the community in the case of a natural disaster. There have been times where the Regiment could have been used for internal security, but the fact is that a conscripted army isn't prepared to handle live operations. If conscription was an effective way to fulfil the Regiment's operational requirement, we would have had many operations since 1977.

4. The Regiment doesn't serve an operational purpose. We don't provide cordons for assaulting ERT teams, we don't have access to criminal records to execute warrants, our radio frequencies don't cross over with Police, so we can't communicate directly with them, we haven't been deployed in live internal security operations since the '77 riots, and our equipment is third-world, compared to an overwhelmingly elaborate collection of gadgets the police have.

5. The Regiment is financially incapable of supporting the 400+ men decision-makers claim the Regiment needs to have. Example ? no ballistic helmets, no body armour for every soldier (unlike police), skinny breakable cable ties for hand cuffs, 1980s radios, no armoured vehicles (soldiers travel in camouflage painted PTB buses), the armoury has no shrapnel grenades, they ration ammunition stringently, don't have explosives, they have eight revolvers for service pistols, their four 7.62mm machine guns are normally out of service with one working occasionally, nearly half of their individual weapons, the Ruger mini 14, have severe stoppages, and many of their reloading mechanisms don't work at all, normally one of their four boats is operational, the other three being used for parts and a soldier receives about $600 for a YEAR of "service". It really is service, not a job.

6. The last two Ministry of Defence evaluations of the Regiment have been poor with problems no army should have ? bad communication, poor equipment and a gap between officers and enlisted men. The regiment gets a D grade, as they just barely fulfil their operational requirements. Ask me how I know? I'm in the Regiment. The man on the ground knows best, not the man in the air-conditioned officers' mess. As long as society looks at men as the problem of this society, conscription will remain. Until then, soldiers will struggle like second-class citizens of their own country.

7. Private soldiers hate the Regiment because they know that it is a joke. They don't hate it because they don't want discipline, but because everything is terrible. They hate it because politicians say it is good when it isn't. They hate it because they are denied pride in themselves, aren't involved in decisions affecting them and work overtime without reasonable overtime pay. They get around $15 from 6.45-10.15 p.m. They call this a drill. They need 40 drills a year, and at this rate a soldier gets paid $600 a year. It is cheap labour and wrong. That is another reason Government won't abolish conscription, because they'd have to pay for an army, and would have to charge taxes or raise money somehow.

Bermudians love money, so they would not accept more taxes for people like me to get a fair wage. At the end of the day, if it doesn't affect them, Bermudians won't change anything.

Until something major happens where the public sees the Regiment for what it really is, things will remain. And until men start opening their mouths, nobody will hear us. We need to rise up, because nobody is for us. We need to stick together, because no politician, officer or lawmaker will stand up for us. It is already happening, because of the frustration of the men who's rights are denied and have no voice in a "democratic" society.

CPL. X

Warwick Camp

Do not follow Dubai

January 12, 2007

Dear Sir,

I was reading, with much interest, an article in the National Geographic magazine dated January, 2007 entitled "Dubai: Sudden City". The article mentions critics who question "the speed of change and a lack of planning" in reference to the Jumeirah Beach Residence recently built there. I think that some of us could see Bermuda in this article, where the fortunate few have prospered financially and the majority continue to suffer. The article is important reading for Bermudians when looking to form an opinion on the new Southlands development being put forward as a benefit for the island by this same company and its local backers.

The article provides support for Bermudians who have expressed concern about the speed that new developments are being pushed through the planning process and the impact that these new resorts will have on life for the average Bermudian. The article also mentions the ecological impact of construction in Dubai which was not considered and the "squalid neighbourhoods where tens of thousands of guest workers live", many of them from south and east Asian countries. Who will benefit the most when these resorts are here in our island?

JUST WONDERING!

Devonshire