With all due respect to the concept of free speech and personal opinion, I feel obliged to come to the defence of the Bermuda Olympic Association.

I must give tremendous credit to the President of the Association, Austin Woods for his continued dedication and efforts in promoting the Association's efforts to support and promote Bermuda's Olympic athletes.

I believe that it is evident that the writer of the recent letter has not done her homework because not only has Mr. Woods been inundated by the media regarding the Association's plans and efforts to get the athletes ready for the Olympics -- a project which has been in place since the beginning of the year -- he has also solicited the help of many local and international companies for their sponsorship to which he has received support.

The plastic containers which have been placed at various locations are not a BOA effort but rather one of its sponsors. Therefore I would like to suggest that before we put pen to paper, we need to do our research.

READER Warwick Solution for residents September 11, 2000 Dear Sir, The Government, Opposition and community are currently debating the complex Long-Term Residents (LTR) issue. Some say they all deserve to be Bermudian and others firmly object. Two elements are necessary for the solution: A compromise of extreme positions as well as a focus on a permanent structure for a permanent solution.

Here's a possible answer: Twenty-year LTR's may apply for a LTR certificate.

If they hold this certificate for ten subsequent years (with good character, etc.) they may apply for Bermudian Status. The 20-year requirement can be adjusted (reduced) in cases such as LTR children whose formative years carry a heavy weighting.

The existing group of LTRs will have the LTR Certificate dated retroactively.

For example if a LTR has been here for 25 years he/she may apply for Bermudian Status in five years. The future control over the creation rate of LTRs in the first place is being handled separately; by waivers, work permits, whatever.

It should be noted that relatively few expatriates actually remain in Bermuda for 20 years anyway.

The goal is to provide fixed, limited, long-term avenues for becoming a Bermudian citizen. Spouses of Bermudians automatically receive Status after only ten years. We should provide ultimate equality for our other time-tested friends.

PHILOSOPHER Paget Coxall left in the cold September 11, 2000 Dear Sir, I have read with interest -- and increasing despair -- the reports of the so-called "Serious Crimes'' Commission. Despair because the one person who can shed some real light on the whole situation, Colin Coxall, has not been -- and probably will not be -- called to give evidence. Why? It would appear that there are some supposedly eminent people involved in this whole sorry business, who do not understand the difference between "immunity'' and "indemnity''. The former is, of course, almost impossible to give and, according to the "horse's mouth'', was never requested.

The ex-lamented (by some) Commissioner of Police did, however quite properly seek an indemnity and why it should take the Attorney General's Chambers and the Chairman of the Commission two months not to make up their minds on so simple a matter is beyond comprehension.

Once again a man of considerable experience, expertise and complete integrity has been left out in the cold. Could it be that once more he could have made things too hot for someone? COPPERKNICKERS Paget Making good choices September 8, 2000 Dear Sir, Economics primarily involve the dynamics of scarcity, resources, choice and opportunity cost. The question of giving subsidies to hotels is very much involved with core economics.

Positive economics would say that scarce resources like the former Holiday Inn should be utilised so that the combined benefit to the public and private sectors would be optimised. Normative economics would say that there might be some subjective reasons to be inside the revenue production frontier.

Subjective reasons like having a more diverse economy or creating jobs for different skill sets, might be included in normative economics.

Using positive economics, one might say that putting an office building at the site would create the optimal revenue. On the other hand, normative economics might say that for reasons of balance, a hotel should be at the site. As it stands now, the Holiday Inn site is not creating jobs or Government revenue.

In effect our tax rates are higher because the Government is taking revenue from the taxpayer that it would have otherwise raised if there was a viable business at this site. The opportunity cost of carrying this defunct site is measured in higher tax rates.

Normative economics can be a very tricky venture. Using normative economics creates an opportunity cost which may or may not be compensated by social benefits.

Subsidies usually imply that a business is not viable. I have not looked at the subsidies that the Government is offering, but I would say that recurring and growing subsidies are doomed to failure. If a one-time subsidy for initial investment were offered, which would lower invested capital and hence raise return on invested capital to acceptable levels, then I would say fine.

However, if subsidies are recurring and raised over time to keep the business afloat, then the opportunity cost of normative economics over positive economics will grow and become a larger hidden tax.

Let us say that once the hotel is up and running, occupancy rates drop and workers demand higher subsides to maintain profit margins for the business? The choices we make today will be realised sometime in the future. Efficient use of our resources is paramount to our long-term quality of life. Poor choices will manifest themselves in the form of higher taxes which will themselves erode the tax base.

BRIAN WAY Paget Work permit shambles September 7, 2000 Dear Sir, Another shambles has rocked Minister Paula Cox's department. According to the recent newspaper article "Mothers say work permit changes hurt them most'', a new policy requiring child minders to have one work permit for every child in their care has now become effective.

However, when you call Minister Cox's Government, officials immediately recant the story by categorically saying this is not legislation but only draft policy. Excuse me, I had not realised "draft policy'' could be monetarily enforced by requiring each family wanting to use the services of a non-Bermudian child minder to pay $160 for advertising the position, $532 annually for the work permit application, plus hospital insurance, Government pension, payroll tax and of course their salary.

Excuse me, but more than an explanation is in order, an apology to all the hard-working families who are trying to raise a family while making an honest living is also in order. Shame on you, Minister Cox for biting the hand that fed you during the last election.

DISGUSTED Paget Work permit rule unfair September 8, 2000 Dear Sir, Has the PLP Government overspent so drastically with their large automobiles, first class trips, champagne-only requests that hard-working Bermudian families must now be penalised? We were horrified to hear from our wonderful, loving, caregiver who has been on our Island for 20 years that each family wanting to use her services as a caregiver must pay $532.00 annually! Where is this "new policy'' stated in our legislation? Instead of depleting monetary resources out of the working class why doesn't our Government take a good long hard look at themselves and their spending habits and penalise the appropriate parties.

ANGRY MOM Devonshire Tired of noise pollution September 8, 2000 Dear Sir, I work hard and pay my taxes as a home owner. The majority of people in this Island contribute far more than those people driving around with disgusting loud music.

I am in my late 40s and don't mind listening to any kind of music, but when I am forced to listen to my windows rattle and feel the vibration that those speakers put out in passing cars, then I feel something has to be done about it. Apparently, these guys cannot get that bass up high enough. For anyone living on the roadside as I do, this is nerve-rattling, especially at night.

They have no respect for anyone and choose only to satisfy their own needs.

What about the poor elderly, do they ever consider them? At one restaurant (my favourite) where I have my breakfast and lunch outdoors, I have to cease talking to my friend as one or more of these morons approach in their car.

Please can something be done? No one should be subjected to this sort of pollution.

These guys are not paying their dues to Government as the majority of the people of this Island.

DISGUSTED Pembroke