Re: US Bases.

Article 21 of the 1941 US Bases Agreement states that the US is entitled to abandon the areas leased to them for their bases in Bermuda at any time during the 99 year term without thereby incurring any obligation to maintain any buildings or to clean up pollution or to do or not to do anything whatsoever.

The agreement was carefully worked out by the relevant US and UK government authorities with the full knowledge and involvement and support of the Bermuda Government and both the UK and the Bermuda Governments were anxious to encourage the US to build the bases and to avoid introducing any obligations which might deter them from doing so.

One can sympathize with the stand of the Bermuda Government in trying to persuade the US Government that it has a legal and moral obligation to clean up pollution on the bases and we will all be pleased if the effort is successful but there are problems.

One is that the Bermuda Government is not a party to the 1941 Agreement, so that even if the 1941 Agreement did provide for a clean-up obligation, we are not in a position to enforce it. Legally the Bermuda Government is not empowered to control external affairs but it does appear that the UK Government is supportive of the Bermuda Government's effort to persuade the US to pay for the desired clean up.

As part of its stand the Bermuda Government is publicly accusing the US Government of violating the terms of the 1941 Agreement by not paying for the clean-up but this is not an acceptable course unless the clauses giving rise to the obligation are clearly spelled out, which has not happened.

The Bermuda Government has also accused the US Government of violating Bermuda law and US law and International law but neither is this an acceptable course unless such alleged violations are spelled out and reasons are given to show why any such violations give rise to any clean up obligation.

Another tactic of the Bermuda Government is to claim that the Common Law obliges the US Government to leave the leased base lands in the condition in which they found them. This obligation of a tenant to leave leased premises in the same condition as at commencement is often implied by Common Law in ordinary commercial and residential leases but it has neither relevance nor application in the case of the 1941 Agreement. Furthermore it would be most unfortunate for Bermuda if the US Government were to attempt to do any such thing.

Although the 1941 Agreement is called an agreement and uses the word lease it would be more correctly called a treaty negotiated between two sovereign nations and would have been so called had the US not been neutral at the time and anxious to avoid being seen to take sides by entering into a treaty with one of the belligerents.

When two parties reduce the terms of their agreement to writing the Common Law permits the introduction of outside material to make clear unclear wording but does not permit the introduction of such outside material to alter the substance of the agreement when the wording is clear.

The Bermuda Government's strident accusations of dishonourable and illegal behaviour on the part of the US Government and threats of proceedings in various courts are not appropriate in this situation.

There is a saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar an another saying is that being positive usually means being wrong at the top of your voice.

WILLIAM M. COX Devonshire No fan of this newspaper May 10, 2000 Dear Sir, Once again, I do not understand the RG reporting of some events! I was one of the people who allowed the Belco "impersonator'' into their homes. After realising my mistake, I called Belco who assured me that no employee was in my neighbourhood on Belco business on the day in question. They advised me to call the Police immediately and I did. I reported the details to a very professional young lady and was told that they would keep me informed, which the police did.

I could not believe, however, that The Royal Gazette twice printed my name as well as many others involved with the accused and had given so many details regarding how the deed was done! I had seen "neighbourhoods'' mentioned in similar cases but never actual people.

I stewed for a day and then called the Police officer in charge of the case. I voiced my concern and was told that he was completely empathetic and was actually very upset with The Royal Gazette . He had been amazed to see names and the "recipe for entering under false pretences'' given to any and all. He hadn't remembered coming across such reporting other than neighbourhood mention. He had checked the legal end of things and had, unfortunately, discovered that the RG was within legal limits in this reporting. The officer said that he was upset because of the details reported; but, more angry because he realised that once readers saw that those who reported illegal actions ended up with their names in The Royal Gazette , the public would become reticent to come forward. Why risk retaliation when the guilty part is out walking the street and reading this reporting? I await your response.

NOT AN RG FAN Paget Editor's Note: Newspapers and the broadcast media have an obligation to give a fair and accurate report of court proceedings. This includes reporting the details of evidence and charges read out in court; including the name of the accused and the names and addresses of victims. To do otherwise would rightly lend to accusations of favouritism in certain cases.

A step back in time May 10, 2000 Dear Sir, Recycling is undoubtedly beneficial to the environment. However the re-use of the former Millennium Clock to herald the pending arrival of the Tall Ships in June, is surely a stretch of the recycling ideal. Many were hoping that the advent of the Millennium (if it has arrived) would signal an end to this illuminated desecration of Front Street, and are now wondering what event will be dreamed up next, to extend its existence.

Perhaps we can apply the Duracell Bunny theory in reverse and have a glorious final countdown to the clocks ultimate demise. May I suggest a weekly count at Harbour nights cluminating in the last of the season, when the Regiment Band can lend a musical, celebratory or funereal tone, accompanied naturally by a few environmentally sound fireworks.

TICKED OFF Hamilton Such bigoted trash May 10, 2000 Dear Sir, I was just wondering if you were aware that a letter in Tuesday's Royal Gazette insinuated that western blacks should be thankful for the enslavement of their ancestors? Thankful because despite slavery, Western blacks get to enjoy the "good life'' denied to Africans in Mombasa who are "really black''.

Exactly what is The Royal Gazette's standard for printing such bigoted trash? If anything, I am glad that the proposed CURE policies have caused so much controversy. Why? Because now all of the paranoid bigots are coming out of the woodwork. With email like "The Ant and The Grasshopper'', and now this letter from Pisces, I can see how much more work needs to be done to ensure equality in Bermuda.

Heaven help me if this person is a manager in some company, and heaven help me if The Royal Gazette willingly allowed this garbage to be printed in the first place.

JUST ANOTHER BYE Sandys Parish Oh for the good old days May 11, 2000 Dear Sir, Congratulations to `Slipping from Democracy', Letters to the Editor May 11, and for signing her name. We are not only slipping from democracy but slipping into lawlessness.

First we have a member of the Government's Marine Resources Board caught allegedly breaking the law using illegal fish pots, and our Environment Minister saying he was `considering' asking him to step down from the board.

He should have been banished immediately, and fined heavily.

Next we have the Minister of Transport importing oversized cars, not just for the Premier and the Governor, but for himself! Oh for the good old days of Jack Sharpe, who drove to the House on his bike! Now we have the Attorney General meddling in legal matters, leading to the resignation of Crown Council Peter Eccles. Her comment that her opinion of him `could not be repeated' was shocking.

Are we becoming a lawless community? E. RABEN Paget