Please allow me the opportunity to add my contribution to the Renee Webb saga.

Many supporters of the Progressive Labour Party (PLP), through the medium of the daytime talk show, were quick to point out how trivial this matter is and did not merit discussion. I would like to differ. Firstly, it is highly unusual for a Commissioner of Police to be calling an MP to warn him/her that the Press has been informed of an incident, especially a matter that Ms Webb erroneously believed to be between herself and the Police. Has the Commissioner of Police accepted a position as Parliamentary Secretary? To say that this is irregular is an understatement. Furthermore this type of action, if true, is demoralising for the Police and threatens the independence they must have and must be seen to have in a democracy. And for the information of Ms Webb, when you are involved in a matter in which the courts determine the final outcome, it is a public matter, not a private concern. Ms Webb by her actions did not think this matter was private otherwise she would not have revealed that the Commissioner of Police contacted her. By deliberately mentioning this, Ms Webb in my opinion, was trying to show that her exalted position nullifies any action by the officer who stopped her, or the Press.

Secondly, if a caution is to have the desired effect of encouraging drivers to accept their good luck and amend their driving habits, indiscriminately handing cautions out to persons who offend in quick succession is self-defeating and smacks of favouritism, not discretion. Since Ms Webb is a Minister of government, the public is left to draw their own conclusions.

However, Ms Webb by her own admission was caught speeding within the past two years.

Moreover, giving cautions to anyone caught doing twice the speed limit takes the action outside the realm of compassionate discretion; cautions in my opinion, should never be given in that circumstance.

While is true that cautions have been given to MPs and ordinary members of the public alike, there is definitely something different about Ms Webb's good fortune! Supporters of Ms Webb would do well to remember that law and order breaks down when laws intended for all are discriminately applied to some.

On another matter, the lady who called the talk show on October 1st and combatively confirmed that her accent was English even though she is Bermudian represent to me a deleterious legacy of the past; of course not her accent, but what she said. This lady went on to say in effect, that with many black judges and Policemen, the judicial system is now discriminating against white people in this country.

This lady has caught the disease left over from the UBP reign, which has infected Bermudians of all races and even some foreign residents here. This illness leads the infected person to believe that anyone who is black is harmful, ill educated, second-rate and represents the worst of society. Some people recover from this illness with the passage of time, but unfortunately there is no known physical cure.

Finally, in a previous letter, I stated that there is a disturbing trend of talk show hosts that allows callers to raise notoriously false or erroneous premises and then proceed to worsen the situation by permitting these callers to deliberately deceive some members of the listening audience. At the time I made this assertion I was not a regular listener to the David Lopes Show. I would like to add that Mr. Lopes does not fall into this category. Mr. Lopes tries his best to get callers to state facts as known, and not falsities that are intentionally meant to enrage and agitate the listening public.

TYPICAL BERMUDIAN Warwick Given the wrong ad-vice November 5, 2000 Dear Sir, I couldn't help but laugh at the article that appeared in the October 30 issue of The Royal Gazette featuring the comments of Kevin Roberts, the CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi.

The opening line of The Gazette article reads: "Bermuda should re-make itself and promote the Island as a place of mystery, sensuality and intimacy, according to one of the world's leading advertising gurus.'' Perhaps if Mr.

Roberts had been aware of the controversy that accompanied the sensual and intimate advertising run several years ago, he might have taken a different approach.

The fact that Mr. Roberts is the head of a major worldwide advertising agency doesn't make him an expert on marketing tourism and/or destinations. Yet here he is pontificating about the way Bermuda should be presenting itself in advertising.

Bermuda's marketing position is extremely complex -- as the past and certainly the present Ministers of Tourism (and their ad agencies) have discovered.

There are no simple solutions to Bermuda's arrival situation. Yet here is a man, who admittedly hasn't even done his homework pontificating about what the Island should be doing. Why should Bermudians believe he has the answers? And what is the answer according to Mr. Roberts? Simple -- just follow his siren call to the next level of branding. In this case it's Saatchi's "love mark''. Patented bunk! Face it Bermuda -- this is what helped worsen your tourism situation -- listening to advertising folk spew their marketing doggerel without understanding what it really takes to market a complex (and mature) tourism product. The answer is not advertising. And its not yet another re-branding.

It's getting down in the trenches, pulling the Island up by its bootstraps and doing whatever is needed to get the product and the marketing in sync that will save tourism. And, believe me -- that will have little to do with advertising for the foreseeable future.

MADIGAN PRATT Darien, Connecticut Stand up and be counted October 29, 2000 Dear Sir, This is in answer to Keen Observer's letter today entitled, `Rule by Intimidation'. The writer agreed with a letter I wrote on October 29, 2000, then he/she goes on to mentioned how thankful he/she was for the Michael Dunkleys and the David Sullivans of this world for speaking out, despite the flack they have to take. What I find odd is that after all of this name mentioning, they sign off in the end as, Keen Observer! In the next paragraph, Keen Observer states fear and intimidation have taken over and gripped Bermudians since November 9, 1998. Maybe because of the above, that is why Keen Observer did not sign his/her name.

Regarding fear and intimidation, I have to inform Keen Observer that long before November 9, 1998, when Bermuda was governed by the UBP, and long before party politics ever came into play, a certain segment of the community were ruled by fear and intimidation if they dare spoke out against the then powers that be. They were afraid to speak out because if they had a mortgage it could or would be suddenly called in. Getting a loan from the banks would probably end in a denial, and forget about finding a decent job. You can throw in a few other goodies and all of this was because you did not play along with the "Yes Sir'' "No Sir'' game. Fear and intimidation! In those days, it took an exceptionally strong minded person to stand up for human rights then, and it takes an exceptionally strong minded person to stand up for human rights now. These people not only had the power, they also had the money. Today, the PLP have the power, they still depend on someone else for the money.

Please do not think for one moment that I condone any of the above actions. I do not believe in crippling another for my own selfish needs. We have arrived where we are today because of fear and intimidation. Just take a look around this miserable world and see what fear and intimidation has done to mankind -- and while you're at it, throw in a bit of ill-used power plus some greed, then you will see the colossal mess that has been made of it.

Keen Observer, thank you for agreeing with my letter, I am quite sure your heart is in the right place, but if you and the other nameless letter writers are for freedom of speech, democracy, equal rights and human rights -- stand up and be counted -- let your voices be heard. People in Bermuda who read the letters to the Editor know (if not in person, then by our signed letter writing) who the Michael Dunkleys, the David Sullivans, the Rolfe Commissioners the Dr. Eva Hodgsons and myself are, but, Keen Observer, we don't know who you are. I am sure you have heard the saying, "The greatest fear is fear itself!'' Let's try to get this Island on an even keel. Let's all try to make Bermuda a place for all of her people to enjoy. Things have been one-sided for too long and we do not need to extend this any longer by reversing the tables.

PAT FERGUSON Warwick Missing the point October 20, 2000 Dear Sir, I do not understand the reticence in the community to speak out against the proposed boundary changes and/or number of Parliamentarians.

I am not criticising the PLP individual members, I am criticising their propositions. In fact, they are holding their cards so close to their chest that I frankly don't know what they propose.

I would suggest your readers reread a few of your editorials on this issue that you have written over the last few days -- you said it well.

Let me ask again. What is the Hurry? The PLP has three years of their elected mandate to implement any changes. Frankly, I think propositional representation without a transferable vote is the best alternative, but from broad based community input might well come a better and more democratic solution.

"What a tangled web, we weave when first we practice to deceive''. Stop the practice Jennifer Smith -- it has already gone too far.

The overwhelming number of people, in past, frankly all the hundreds of people I have talked with want consultation. The mechanism is important but broad based consultation is more important. All that I talk with want a constitution conference for certain. Almost all would like a referendum to follow.

Many people say to me when I ask them to write a letter, that they don't know enough to write -- is that not the point? SANDERS FRITH-BROWN Warwick Call for urgent action 31 October 2000 The following was sent to Allan Marshall, MP for Smith's North, and copied to The Royal Gazette .

Dear Mr. Marshall, Tradewinds Travel has just moved to Flatts, where the old liquor store used to be, probably the `worst' part of Flatts road! But we were given notice to move from our `quiet' location at Phase One Plaza, and after many decisions, decided to try this area.

As you are the UBP representative for Smith's Parish, maybe you can suggest the following, to make it safer for everyone to walk in Flatts village and cross the road! 1. Lower speed limit to 15 mph through the Village.

2. Install three speed bumps (ie as outside Masters Limited, Hamilton).

3. Install a Pedestrian Crossing, plus a larger sidewalk along the roadside.

4. Possible traffic lights.

5. All large trucks, not allowed, should travel Middle Road. The trucks speed along at an incredible rate, blowing dust and debris everywhere.

I am very worried that our clients will not be safe trying to get to our offices. We have arranged for parking at the Flatts Gift Shop, but then how does one "walk'' along the road to our location? Thankfully, 90 percent of our business is by phone and email and tickets delivered.

Now that Tradewinds Travel is part of the Flatts community, I hope you can bring this very important, neglected subject in the House of Assembly, before someone is hurt, or killed by this terrible, speeding traffic.

BRENDA M. WARWICK President Tradewind Travel Pulling the same stunts November 1, 2000 Dear Sir, I am writing in regards to the traffic ticket/warning incident, involving Ms Renee Webb, highlighted in the front page editorial on October 31, 2000. I was shocked and concerned at what I read. Let me start by saying everyone at one time or another has broken the rules of the road and exceeded the speed limit.

And I'm sure, many have been caught speeding and given a warning for minor violations. This is totally understandable; after all, we are only human. But are we as a public expected to believe that Ms Webb's warning, after allegedly doing almost twice the speed limit, had nothing to do with her position as a member of government? I find that extremely difficult to believe especially when other members of the public have the proverbial book thrown at them for less.

I'd like to point out that I think the editorial missed one major point in its coverage of this incident. Aside from breaking laws and getting away with it, Ms Webb's actions put herself and members of the public at risk for injury.

That is the main reason why the speeding laws exists! To keep us all safe. I won't even get into the amount of road fatalities we have as a result of reckless driving this year alone! Call me naive, but shouldn't the government officials be setting the standard? How can we have a law-abiding community when those responsible for making the rules are bending and breaking them to their own advantage? And where do we draw the line? What rules are okay to bend and what aren't? And who gets to decide that? Should all of government be given exception to our community's laws? Moreover, to use the excuse that the regular "Joe Public'' gets warnings too is irrelevant. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If our government leaders cannot abide by the laws of the community, the ones that they helped put in place, how can you expect "Joe Public'' to? What bothers me most, aside from the fact that this whole incident looks bad and does nothing to boost my confidence in the Police (who might I add, are here to serve, protect and enforce the laws of this country with respect to all members of our society, regardless of social position!) is that Ms Webb sees nothing wrong with her getting away with this and is irritated when we as a public are informed about it! As a public figure, (one elected by the people) her actions, both private and public, represent all members of Bermudian society. This means you and me. Since our votes put her in office and what she does reflects on us, we have a right to know when she is using her status to bend the rules.

I was enraged by the fact that Ms Webb has admitted that she's been stopped before! (Can we say repeat offender!?) I'm sure everyone with a licence will agree that if it was our second or third offence and we were doing twice the speed limit, we, "Joe Public'', would have had our licence pulled not the ticket! Since I have only recently become a voting member of the public, I don't have much recollection of the political scandals of the previous government.

However, I have enough common sense to know that there is nothing "new'' about these kinds of things. Unfortunately, it appears to me that this "New Bermuda'' is only new in the sense that a new group is pulling the same old stunts! ANOTHER MOTORIST Paget More letters on Page 7