March 13, 2006

Dear Sir,

It is 7.45 a.m. on Saturday, March 11 and I have just returned from a harrowing 45-minute car journey to St. George?s.

Exactly one week ago along North Shore, Bermuda?s roads swallowed yet another life (Mr. Alvin Flood). Just yesterday there was a four-vehicle pile-up along this same stretch of road, with at least three persons being taken to hospital with personal damages that do not sound good.

In the 45 minutes it took for me to complete my journey to St. George?s, I witnessed six road traffic horrors that but for the grace of good fortune did not actually result in further carnage on our roads. With road carnage occurring at an ever-increasing frequency, what these six close calls clearly demonstrate is that we as a community simply do not get it. Regrettably, it may be that we may never get it.

There are three essential elements to a successful road traffic strategy. First, there must be sensible and wise law makers (Government) who use their wisdom to create a safe traffic environment. Second, there must be willing law abiders (the road users) who recognise the inherent and obvious good sense in following the traffic laws. And third, there must be a team of strong and fair law enforcers (the police) who are ready, willing and able to enforce the traffic laws, if and when the road user has a temporary lapse of good judgment. Utopia will be when all three essential elements are working well and in harmony; road traffic hell will be when all three are failing and traffic accidents are common place. It would therefore seem quite clear that we are in a state of road traffic hell. The Government has earned an F, for it is neither sensible nor wise, for our roads are not safe. The community earns an F for we lack driving skills, and we demonstrate this lack of skill daily. And the police earn an F for they never seem to be ready, willing or able to enforce the driving laws. Indeed, as I hear so many ask, ?Where are you, Mr. Policeman?? The bottom line is this ? the current state of our traffic cannot, and will not, improve until and unless we all make a determined commitment to improve it. Our Government needs to become wiser, we all need to drive slower and better, and our Police service needs to serve us by enforcing the laws that we are currently not abiding by. Until we get on board this initiative, each journey will be fraught with concern and unnecessary risk.

HAV TROTT

Hamilton Parish

Mr. Smith?s response

March 15, 2006

Dear Sir,

I refer to Calvin Smith?s ?Opinion? of March 14, in response to my letter published on March 7 in this newspaper. Firstly, I must congratulate Mr. Smith on his acceptance that appalling treatment of African Bermudians in the past cannot be used to explain the shortcomings of the PLP Government. I urge Mr. Smith to press this point home with the likes of P, the Colonel, Minister Brown, Ms Webb and Minister Cox. Secondly Mr. Editor, I also congratulate Mr. Smith on his shamefaced agreement that he should not have made wide sweeping generalisations about Asians. However, this is where my conciliatory attitude comes to an end. What concerns me about Mr. Smith?s response, despite his acceptance as noted above, is that he makes excuses for the behaviour and conduct of the PLP Government, insinuating that it is somehow acceptable for Government members to make racist remarks, since he says UBP politicians were silent ?in the face of blatant discrimination?. Whether or not some UBP politicians were silent in the past should not be a justification for the PLP attempting to exploit the prejudices of the electorate. In fact Mr. Smith?s response is noteworthy in that he fails to say that PLP Government members should stop their ridiculous diatribes.

Mr. Smith then makes an attempt to discredit my observations relating to Berkeley by trying to hide behind the fact that a Tribunal is currently making a true assessment of claims relating to the site. The fact that the matter is in arbitration does not address the fact that Berkeley is massively over budget and over-time and has been terribly mismanaged by the Government. Mr. Smith goes further, and suggests that perhaps the Government should dismiss the ?Englishmen? (I am not sure of the significance placed on the nationality of the Tribunal members by Mr. Smith) on the Tribunal and appoint me instead. I suggest that instead of making such sarcastic and unconstructive remarks, Mr. Smith should accept that the project has been unmitigated disaster from start to finish (not quite finished however). Mr. Smith should also accept that the PLP Government would have had more respect in the eyes of the electorate if they had just been forthright and honest about the time delays and overruns from the start, instead of being given excuse after excuse and simply put, lied to. Unfortunately, despite consistent promises of transparency, the PLP have merely obfuscated and hidden behind blatantly racist tirades to deflect criticism of the project, culminating more recently in thinly veiled threats by the Colonel to a reporter for daring to ask questions about the debacle.

Mr. Smith then attempts to tackle my remarks regarding the Bermuda Housing Corporation. Perhaps Mr. Smith did not properly read my letter in which I accepted there was no evidence of criminality by Government members. However there was evidence of ?unethical? behaviour by Government members. Again, Mr. Smith failed to address my comments, choosing instead to wrongly accuse me of believing in ?lynch law? (for the avoidance of any doubt the word ?lynching? or any inference thereto was not in my previous letter). Mr. Smith then goes on to make an inane comparison between the lynching of white women who had relations with black men with unethical behaviour by Government members! With respect to Mr. Smith, the two are not comparable. Surely the electorate can expect the Government to lead by example and expect those that fail in their duties and/or engage in unethical behaviour to be held accountable by way of losing the party whip or stripping irresponsible Ministers of their portfolio? I am not suggesting lynching, just accountability. Mr. Smith should choose his words carefully and again consider them before he writes, particularly when one considers the negative connotations and images that the word ?lynching? creates.

Mr. Editor, finally Mr. Smith insinuates that the unethical behaviour of Government Ministers (which was not denied by Mr. Smith) is not a breach of democratic principles. Mr. Smith should be reminded that in order for the principles of democracy in Bermuda to be upheld, accountability, transparency, respect for human rights and openness by the Government is certainly required. That is not ?Fahy?s Truth?, rather it is Bermuda?s fundamental right.

MICHAEL M. FAHY

Smith?s

Regrettable statement

March 10, 2006

Dear Sir,

The statement made by the Hon. Maxwell Burgess on February 24 concerning the hospital has made me put pen to paper. I take exception to the statement that our hospital is ?Third World?.

Whilst we are not perfect we are far better off than many large industrial nations as far as hospitals are concerned. We provide a medical service and with dedication equal to the best, I can vouch first hand as a nurse and patient regarding this. The care is first class from the top the bottom.

I trust that the Hon. gentleman who made the statement will think about the wonderful dedication of the committed staff of our only general hospital. It is regrettable that he made such a statement.

LINDA RUSSELL

Pembroke

Humorous reminder

March 21, 2006

Dear sir,

I wish to respond to the article by ?Hector? in you paper of March 17. Reacting to what he called ?media bashing? at the BIU Quadrennial Conference, Hector headlines his article as follows, ?CAL DOESN?T LET PESKY FACTS SPOIL THE FUN SPORT OF MEDIA BASHING?.

The so-called ?media bashing? took place because the vast majority of PLP supporters attending the conference were amazed that the very significant upgrade to Ariel Sands received so little prominence in The Gazette. The Gazette had been compared by many with the treatment I received from the Mid-Ocean News as a result of my statement in my Opinion column wishing that Bermuda would recruit the overwhelming number of their workers from the West Indies rather than Asia since we shared a common history and heritage with the islands of the Caribbean. My criticism of the media was intended as a humorous reminder that the print media must report more fairly.

Surely Hector knows humour or attempts at the same, usually involves some exaggeration. I assume that Bermudians who listen to the Letterman show, recognise Letterman?s attempt at humour when he makes his usual gross exaggerations of President Bush?s strategy in Iraq. That is humour. If Hector does not agree, why did he end his article with the following statement?

?A smoking ban takes effect on April 1, but some bar owners will be taking advantage of a six-month grace period, courtesy of Health Minister Patrice Minors. Is it true that they must first prove to Ms. Minors that there?s a worldwide shortage of smokers and that the puffers are ?key? to the operation of their businesses?? Is this a statement of fact, or is it merely Hector?s inability to give unreserved support to a PLP policy, even one with which he agrees totally?

CALVIN SMITH

Cigarette butts

March 17, 2006

Dear Sir,

I am extremely grateful to the Ministry or Ministries responsible for the enactment of legislation banning smoking in public spaces. I am hoping that there can be a directive issued in regard to the proper disposal of cigarette butts now that smokers will be relegated to the great outdoors. I am already noticing an increase in discarded butts along the streets and sidewalks and I am hoping that we can curb this practice now before it gets out of hand. I commend the owners of The Hog Penny Pub/Barracuda Grill who have installed a box on their outside wall for the disposal of cigarette butts and I encourage other establishments to consider that accommodation for their employees/customers.

KIM SMITH

Pembroke

Insulting our intelligence

March 13, 2006

Dear Sir,

With reference to today?s front page article in The Royal Gazette, March 13, the Human Rights Commission should not have to find someone to take up the cause against David Burch.

The comments themselves were not only insults to Bermudians? intelligence, but also they insult the integrity and pride of every Bermudian. David Burch practices ?strong arm tactics?, and bullies whoever and whenever he can. His party gets him to take care of the ?dirty work?. Maybe he doesn?t see the people of Bermuda turning their backs on him with disgust. His motives are for self aggrandisement, and his method is to divide the country racially.

Hats off to Julian Hall, who sees David Burch and his ilk for exactly who they are, as the second article on the front page expresses Julian?s feelings.

I can?t help but think, as Julian does, that our party system is incorrect for Bermuda, and that we should have a system where every person who wants to run for parliament, pays a fee, is put on the ballot, and any voter in Bermuda can then vote for any of one of the names on the ballot. That way we can vote for who we think is best to run the country. If, after votes were cast and there were insufficient elected members, let those elected choose from the remainder of the names on the ballot, to make up the full number of parliamentarians.

I wish our paradise home a healthy future.

NEWTON ADCOCK

City of Hamilton

A worthy story?

March 20, 2006

Dear Sir,

I am curious to know what was the purpose of the front page article on Dr. Christopher Johnson. I was going to address this letter directly to the reporter, Ms Jeannine Klein Menzies, but decided that maybe other people were asking the same question. I was also going to steer clear of pulling the race card but after careful consideration decided to pull it. Why does it always seem like The Royal Gazette tries to discredit successful black men? I read the article in its entirety and I am glad that Dr. Johnson was able to offer explanations for all of his citations. The best explanation was ?I was a very busy trauma surgeon going from hospital to hospital and I rushed way too much and I had to learn from that ...? He also states that he runs a multi-million dollar business. Good for you, Dr. Johnson!

Did the reporter think that by printing this article she would bring about a resignation from the newly appointed Road Safety Council head or that this article would harm his career as a plastic surgeon? I am curious to know.

Dr. Johnson has made mistakes and, as reported, has a few skeletons in his closet but who doesn?t? When I start seeing more articles in the paper, ON THE FRONT PAGE, about other successful business men and their skeletons in their closets and NOT JUST BLACK MEN, I won?t be so infuriated. I am sure there are more than a few very successful white men with skeletons in their closets. Can we hear about them too?

So I ask the question again....WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE?!

GREJAI SMITH

Devonshire

Nothing but pipe dreams

March 23, 2006

Dear Sir,

So let me get this straight ? the Corporation of Hamilton intends on spending $600 million on a new waterfront to create new land for parks, housing and a hotel as well as building new marinas.

Also in the works are Government plans for a new hospital which will cost over $500 million, a new Causeway, new docks, a new Police station and court house, and hey, let?s not forget the new Berkeley that when completed will cost over $150 million. Meanwhile, Bermuda boasts a rapidly expanding homeless population, exploding crime figures, pot holes in almost every road you drive on, and a generation of children who are getting educated so poorly that half of the ones in the public system will not graduate.

While the grandiose plans of a Fort Lauderdale style waterfront may be appealing to some, the taxpaying voters who have to finance these pipe dreams would be far more appreciative of some tangible plans to tackle the far more pressing issues at hand that ultimately will have a far greater impact on Bermuda?s future than these veiled plans to redistribute the wealth in Hamilton.

LESLEY COX

Devonshire

A clever link?

March 21, 2006

Dear Sir,

I am responding to the recent reports of violence in the media. There is a not so cleverly disguised attempt to link some of these events to our sports. This seems to happen by simply stretching geographical location and time frame. It appears that if a sports event takes place and an unsavoury incident occurs on the same date in the same parish, then it is related to the sport. On Sunday there were some guys surfboarding at Horseshoe Bay. I wish to report that soon after there was a report of a man been assaulted nearby and a report of armed persons gathering in the vicinity.

LEE DEROSA-HOLDER

City of Hamilton

Objecting to plans

March 21, 2006

This was sent to Director of Planning and copied to The Royal Gazette:

Dear Sir,

As a member of The Fairmont Southampton Golf Club and a neighbour of the golf course I am objecting to The Fairmont Southampton?s plan to build golf villas on the existing Fairmont Southampton Golf Course of the following reasons:

1. It further cuts into Bermuda?s open spaces. When the Southampton Princess was built there was a stipulation that the space surrounding the hotel should remain open space for the use of Bermudians. Encroachment on our open spaces must end now or Bermuda will become a concrete jungle.

2. Even if it is proven that the golf course is uneconomical, thought must be given to our future generations. To allow building on this beautiful course will be destroy a treasure. (The course has been rated the third best par three course in the world.)

3. To name these proposed buildings on the golf course ?golf villas? is a misnomer. No one will buy these villas to play golf on a chopped-up par three nine-hole golf course.

4. If these golf villas are sold outright then they will have assessment numbers and this will result in an increase in the number of cars on or overused road system.

On the other hand the ?fractional ownership? condominiums proposed to be developed on Turtle Hill could make a positive impact on our tourist industry. I would assume that no assessment numbers would be given to these building, therefore, (as the law stands now) they would not cause an increase in the number of cars on our roads.

Finally I must stress that to give away one of our most beautiful golf courses to benefit the shareholders of a foreign company would be a betrayal of Bermuda?s trust for future generations.

P. DOYLES

Southampton