October 8, 2002

Dear Sir,

Mr. Eddie Fisher is quoted in your newspaper (Page 1, Oct. 7, 2002) as saying "the word visitation is grotesque. A parent should not be classed as a visitor in their child's life". He states that to do that, is begging for a parent to quit on his or her child.

Seems to me he has a point, what visitor takes on the responsibility of a non visitor? The term visitor implies "temporary", the word parent equates to a life time of commitment.

What were they thinking when these concepts were introduced? They are so obviously flawed.

Who are they, any way? They, it would appear have a generation of social fallout to account for, by installing a divisive custody system in the first place.

TIME FOR CHANGE, AND

TO GET IT RIGHT

Devonshire

Dear Sir,

I refer to yesterday's front page headline "Commission branded a waste of public money - Drugs agency is failing to carry out its work due to a staffing crisis" which preceded an article about how the NDC is evidently failing to deliver in spite of a budget approximately $6 million.

It was not clear from the article what now costs $6 million to provide, although it was suggested that "Absolutely Nothing" is in fact gained from this significant taxpayers' expense owing allegedly to personality conflicts within the Commission. If this is so, then very strong measures are clearly most urgently needed to correct this preposterous situation.

For example, the money could be far better utilised in reducing drug dependency among our young people by automatically ensuring good character training via an "Outward Bound" type of compulsory sail training initiative for all of those youngsters so obviously at risk (both boys and girls) teetering on the very brink of disaster. These youngsters will never otherwise see such an opportunity via the highly commendable $4 million Bermuda Schooner Initiative, because that will instead benefit the already well adjusted and positively oriented of our young people who thankfully make up the majority. However, it is not the well adjusted who so desperately need this experience to positively refocus their lives. Indeed, it is regrettably the maladjusted who choose to place the livelihoods of all of us so critically at risk by their antisocial behaviour.

Admittedly the Regiment helpfully catches a few males in need of positive redirection. However, unfortunately there are a great many more of our young people also in need of this exposure to a vitally demanding and testing "life skills" type of experience emphasising the critical necessity for teamwork if we are to begin to hope for a better Bermuda for all of us to both enjoy and contribute to.

Does anyone think youngsters who take drugs, recklessly speed, steal bikes etc. or are prone to violent expression (both physical and oral) will ever play a positive role in our "New Bermuda" in spite of their never having learned to control themselves?

Does anyone think that those unacceptably far too many presently wholly negatively oriented of our young people regard anyone else's role as anything but an opportunity for their own self gratification instead of an encouragement for selflessness leading to self disciplined positive fulfilment and an earned place in society?

In August of last year a magnificent 60 foot "blue water" ketch Ocean Voyager was seized while reportedly transporting 15 kilograms of heroin to Italy, which I understand is even yet still being held in St. Georges. Presumably she is being held pending a trial of those who sought to destroy other young people overseas by lining their pockets with the obscene profits garnered in the drug trade.

However, I understand that if Bermuda so chose it could permanently seize and thus retain ownership of this vessel under the misuse of Drugs Act (Section 37 - Forfeiture). In such an event, and at very little expense, Bermuda could then have another vessel to helpfully enhance the already proven to be successful "Outward Bound" programme, but instead specifically dedicated to the rehabilitation of those of our young men and women already seen to be at risk of "falling through the cracks".

Furthermore, and when taking into account that this vessel would have been salvaged from an alternative wholly negative drug smuggling use, what better name could one choose for such a sail training vessel to positively reverse the paths of our alienated youngsters than "Bermuda's Pride"? After all, if one gave PRIDE Bermuda (Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education) a meaningful role in the management of "Bermuda's Pride" together with others who have similarly already proven themselves as positive role models, what possible risk of failure could then remain?

At least then we will case to wonder what our $6 million in taxes is being spent on when we see a significant reduction in antisocial, alienated behaviour patterns among those of our youngsters so obviously at risk.

Furthermore, and as a direct result of our willingness to finally grasp this nettle for the far better future of us all, we would coincidentally also reap additional dividends of a reduction in perceptions of racism together with a return to more generally enjoyed goodwill throughout the community equally certain to improve the new Minister for Tourism's chances for success as well.

With every good wish for a far better future for all, I remain

TED GAUNTLETT

Sandys Parish

October 10, 2002

Dear Sir,

I read in The Royal Gazette that "this group ChildWatch " is trying to "save Bermuda" from social problems by having both parents involved in raising their children, children created by two.

These people must be stopped! They, if allowed to continue may in time cause a decline in the crime rate, as well as drug abuse, teen pregnancy and prison population, our children may even perform to a higher standard at school.

Please Mr. Editor don't print or preach their propaganda any more.

Lets not fix it, it's broke.

On behalf of lawyers, prison officers, counsellors, and drug pushers don't jeopardise our jobs.

GARY SIMONS

October 8, 2002

Dear Sir

It is with concern that I write about Government's proposal to introduce regular traffic along the quayside on the South Basin in Dockyard, referred to as Freeport Drive.

This stretch of road is generally very busy servicing visiting vessels. The use of forklift trucks and delivery vehicles is a regular occurrence as well as a continuous flow of large vehicles collecting cement from the silo located at the eastern end of the road. There are presently three cable ships berthed alongside and several times a year cable transfers between the depot located there and the ships requires pulleys suspended above the road.

This is a potential hazard to vehicles using this stretch of road. There are also regular visits from ships carrying cement and fuel to this part of Dockyard. Any vehicle losing control and colliding with the fuel tanker or one of the many fuelling points located along the road would have catastrophic consequences. I note with interest that Works and Engineering cannot widen Pender Road because of the 'listed buildings'. I am sure the portcullis gate at the western entrance to South Basin, once the entrance to HMS Malabar, was a 'listed structure', but that did not prevent a crew from Works and Engineering demolishing a large segment of the gate several weeks ago.

The narrow road is a problem and needs a quick solution, but diverting traffic along a busy port facility is not the answer.

DOCKYARD LACKEY

October 10, 2002

Dear Sir,

I believe it is high time that the people of Bermuda understand what is exactly going on between the doctors/surgeons and the insurance companies on this Island. (Colonial Insurance excluded).

Anyone who carries health insurance has a "contract" with that insurance carrier and through that contract we pay a premium that is automatically withdrawn from most people's pay cheque to cover our individual medical health insurance. So, explain to me why I have to pay the doctor/surgeon within a maximum of 90 days following surgery when I have a contract with my health insurance carrier to pay my medical bills as covered by my health insurance coverage? Not only are the doctors being stripped of their income but we the client are also being penalised for this ongoing dispute between insurance company vs. MD. (except for Colonial Insurance who is not with the HIAB).

If this war continues and I cannot pay for my surgery then my name goes to the Credit Association because my insurance carrier has failed to pay my medical expense, I fall into debt, the credit association can take me to court for unpaid bills and then I have been placed on a payment plan with my doctor so he/she can pay their bills (rightly so).

Don't get me wrong, if you are sick, please seek any necessary medical attention but the people of Bermuda need to let their insurance carrier know that we will not stand for this kind of treatment. We expect full reimbursement of ouir medical expenses (as indicated by our coverage) and not have to dig into our pockets twice.

KEEPING A WATCHFUL EYE

Devonshire