I have had the opportunity to read Charles Richardon's submission regarding the differences between his past and that of Shawn Crockwell. I have difficulties with the PLP repeatedly bringing up Mr. Crockwell's criminal past, particulary, when, in December 2006, Dr. Brown said before a special cabinet meeting at Westgate:

"The purpose of taking Cabinet to Westgate for this week's meeting is simple. We have a sector of Bermuda's society about whom much is said and little is verified. Along with my colleagues in Cabinet we want these young men to know that they are not cast away nor are they forgotten. This community is as much theirs as anyone else's and we want them to know that once their debt to society is paid and, if they are willing to change their lives, we are there to assist. Genuine social rehabilitation is our pledge and we must take every step to break the cycle of destructive behaviours that plagues some of our young men."

The PLP's use of Mr. Crockwell's conviction for political gain flies in the face of the admirable goal of making our young men whole again when they re-enter society. It reeks of hypocrisy to now insinuate that Mr. Crockwell is somehow not worthy of running for office because he has a conviction. Instead of being chastised he should be commended for what he has achieved and his bravery in facing down his critics.

Given the criticisms that Mr. Crockwell has faced, and given that it is the PLP that has made Mr. Crockwell's past a political issue, then surely he has a right to remind the voter of those persons whom the PLP leaderhip surrounds itself ¿ Rolfe Commissiong (consultant to the Premier), Scott Simmons (ex press secretary) and Mr. Richardson (as Dr Brown's attorney in the BHC libel case) all of whom have criminal convictions for serious crimes.

Let us not forget Julian Hall (a self-professed consultant to the Premier) who has been disbarred in Bermuda and England and Wales. Mr. Richardson's splitting of hairs on whether an offence under the law is termed one of dishonesty versus violence is irrelevant to the issue of rehabilitation. Either society believes in redemption or it does not.

Mr. Crockwell, has, as far as I can tell, always confronted his past with sincerity and contrition. This has been done numerous times in the media, most recently in the June issue of RG Magazine alongside a story outlining the redemption of Mr. Richardson. It has been done behind the pulpit of the church, whilst addressing a school graduation or in smaller groups. I know his personal goal is to be significant in everything that he does. I further undertand that Mr. Crockwell was not outraged simply because of a reference to him once being in prison but to the PLP's inexcusable and outrageous analogy to a paedophile. This goes beyong the realm of decency.

It is time to let this matter rest. In my view both sides of the political divide should be thankful that we live in a place where men who get themselves into trouble, for whatever reason and who have fought through adversity, find themselves part of mainstream society. They should be celebrated rather than attacked. This is dead end politics at its worst.