In your June 28th, 2000 edition, I noticed that all, bar one, of the letters to your column were signed. Could it be that your Editorial Board has had a change of heart and decided to do its part in this new era of transparency? Or, given the fact that another paper has been accused of becoming more `Gazette-like' in its writing style, perhaps you have stolen a leaf, or a few column inches, out of their page. Now that would be proof that the sun does in fact shine on Par-La-Ville Road! Sincerely, Cordell W. Riley Warwick Letter was uninformed June 30, 2000 Dear Sir, I write in response to yesterday's letter regarding racism in Africa. My only answer is in all my years of reading the letters to The Royal Gazette , I have never seen anything so uninformed. He said the problem with South Africa is not racism, it is starvation and AIDS.

If starvation and AIDS is the problem, then tell me who is starving and suffering from AIDS and then decide if racism is a problem.

GREJAI SMITH Devonshire A healthy solution June 28, 2000 Dear Sir, Reading your article today which purported to give Mr. Wayne Furbert's views on who should or should not be allowed to have cars, it strikes me that if every overweight Bermudian left his or her car at home and walked two days a week our traffic problem would be solved overright and we would be a leaner, healthier Island.

MARGARET LLOYD Pembroke A tower of uncertainty June 27, 2000 Dear Sir, I am one of the unfortunate residents of Warwick, living with my wife and children in the shadow of BDC's infamous communications tower. More and more evidence seems to be emerging that indicates that the radiation from the tower is potentially dangerous. (For example, recently the British Government has decreed that cellular phones must display health warnings.) Even so, when Bermuda's Supreme Court denied West End Properties application to terminate BDC's lease, I was somewhat reassured. Surely I could rely to some degree on the opinion of such an august and learned body. Then I read the judges reasoning and to my great disappointment, realised that I could not.

The judge stated that he did not need to analyse the scientific evidence to rule on the case. I would have thought that the scientific evidence is pretty important factor in this whole affair -- it certainly is to me and the other residents whose health is possibly being threatened -- but maybe it is not relevant to the legalities at issue on the question of the lease termination.

In fact, the judge later states that he prefers the scientific evidence provided by BDC's expert over West End's. An opinion based on no analysis? Not reassuring.

West End was attempting to terminate the lease because due to circumstances beyond its control, the tenants' use of the property had become incompatible with West End's business. Basically its employees who lived next door to the tower were complaining and asking to be relocated. Also, area residents were up in arms, threatening a boycott etc resulting in unwelcome publicity and possibly damaging West End's reputation with the public at large.

The judge found various faults with West End's case. Firstly, that because the complaints of the area residents were predictable, they did not constitute circumstances beyond West End's control. How could West End predict the degree of complaints, driven as they are by constantly emerging new/additional evidence? And if the complaints were under West End's control wouldn't they control them and make them go away? Finally, maybe West End did foresee possible problems -- that's why there is a clause in the lease designed to get them out of it in exactly the situation in which they now find themselves.

The judge then claims that the word "becomes'' implies some sort of change in the use of the land. Not only is this completely illogical, it allows for ridiculous outcomes. What if BDC continues business as usual and cancer and/or leukaemia increased dramatically in children in the surrounding area? Would this not then be a use which had "become'' incompatible to the business of a hotel, even though the land use didn't change? The judge further supports his decision not to allow the termination of the lease by citing the provision, which requires BDC to compensate the landlord, if he is sued because of any action of BDC. This seems completely irrelevant to West End's claim that the use of the land has become incompatible with its own business.

Is the judge suggesting that West End allay the concerns of its employees and other area residents by explaining to them that BDC will reimburse it for damages awarded in favour of their family members contracting cancer or whatever because of the tower? On behalf of my fellow concerned residents, thanks a lot! In any case why should the right to recover damages have any bearing at all on the landlord's right to terminate the lease? It doesn't make sense.

Tellingly, the judge goes on to state that it is difficult to see what BDC could have done to appease the residents, short of abandoning the whole project. This statement gives us a clear and worrying insight into the judge's mindset. He should not concern himself over the cost or inconvenience to BDC of locating the tower elsewhere. If he should be watching over anything it should be the public interest.

So here I am, still worried in Warwick. I feel that I'm taking a risk staying here and resent the fact that I may at some point be forced to move to protect my family. The "People's Government'' seems to feel that until there is absolute proof of danger (sick children?) then it can't do any more than the little it has done to protect the health of its constituents. BDC are in business to make money and continue to expose the community to potentially dangerous radiation even though there is at least one much safer alternative available to them.

West End seems to be taking the view that this failed attempt at terminating the lease has cleared its conscience and discharged its duty as a good corporate citizen. Yet the judgement is clearly flawed and should be appealed.

This will be as obvious looking back five years from now if health problems have arisen, as it is now, and if they fail to appeal, West End will be held accountable.

Right now the Government, BDC and West End seem to be sitting back and gambling on the tower being safe. Measured in lost votes and hard cash it could be a very expensive bet for them to lose. And when the health of the community is at stake, it is not a bet any of them should be willing to make.

UNWILLING GAMBLER Warwick Road rage drives me mad June 27, 2000 Dear Sir, I would be most appreciative if you would print the following in your Letter to the Editor section of the newspaper. It is a brief reply to a letter you ran yesterday.

The letter was written by "The Wary Transgressor'' in which the writer stated their immense displeasure at the madness on our roads. In short the writer wondered when our elected leaders would put pressure on our Police Service to enforce the laws of the road.

I agree wholeheartedly with the writer's sentiments that the rules of the road are not being enforced. I call this madness that many experience daily "road rage''.

Interestingly enough on June 23, with the support of my United Bermuda Party colleagues, I asked a parliamentary question to the Minister responsible for Public Safety the Hon. Paula Cox on exactly this subject. My question was the following. "Road Rage appears to be taking over our Island's roads. It also appears that there is a lack of Police presence and enforcement at the present time. What steps will be taken to make sure road users adhere to the rules of the road?'' The answer that I received from the Minister was most revealing and concerning.

First the Minister stated that "It is most unfortunate that misleading and provocative statements such as this are posed under the guise of a parliamentary question. It is unclear what is meant by road rage but I can report that the Police have received no complaints of road rage since November, 1999.'' The Minister then goes on to say "For the information of the Honourable Minister and Members of this Honourable House it would appear that the statement on the lack of police presence and enforcement is completely erroneous.'' The Minister went on to outline a total reorganisation and decentralisation of the traffic department in December of 1999. She also commented that "Police presence is now greater and more visible on an island-wide basis.'' Unfortunately with the greatest respect to the Minister, I have to disagree with her comments. Police presence and enforcement is sadly lacking. The conditions daily on our roads illustrate this all to frequently.

However I can put "The Wary Transgressor'' at ease to some extent by informing them that there are indeed some elected representatives who will continue to push the current government into dealing with the madness on the roads.

MICHAEL H. DUNKLEY, M.P.

Devonshire South Shame on you, Hester! June 30, 2000 Dear Sir, Readers of The Royal Gazette are no doubt aware of the nature of Hester column which appears on Thursdays and hopefully put it at the bottom of the bird cage where it belongs. Today's column, however, has reached an all time low even for Hester and I hope it has raised the ire in many right thinking people as it has certainly done in me.

I refer to the snippet in the column which suggests that we "can hardly have hope for Bermuda's children in public education when teachers cannot get it right with their own kids.'' Hester went on to support this assertion by recounting the experience of an RG reporter who had telephoned the home of a certain high school headmistress and had a conversation with a young female presumed to be her teenage daughter. The manner in which this young person is alleged to have responded to the reporter on the phone is used to support Hester's contention that somehow this parent has fallen short in teaching proper communication skills and proper telephone manners. How sad Hester that you have to resort to attacking children and teachers through their children.

How many of us adults can maintain our composure when accosted on the telephone by a reporter? How do we know how this reporter approached the young person and what was said? Do we have any idea at all as to the age of this youngster or her relationship to the teacher in question? If Bermudians are serious about holding up the children, helping them to grow strong and stand tall, then there is no room in this country for cowardly attacks such as this one by members of the media or anyone else. Shame on you Hester! And where were you Mr. Editor? KAI MUSSON Smith's Parish Dropping the 60-40 rule June 30, 2000 Dear Sir, I want to preface this letter by stating that I personally don't own any Bermuda Bank shares. I don't think that any of my family own them, except maybe a few thousand dollars worth.

I recently asked a Bermudian, who happened to be white, whether they thought the 60-40 rule should be dropped. The answer I received was startling. This particular person didn't think 60-40 should be dropped because, "Why should all these otherwise well off people be allowed to double their money.'' In these days of crazy numbers on stock markets I understand why the politics of envy would play a large role in this issue. The fact is that the returns you have been hearing about, for at least the last five years, are an abberation to the long term average.

The best investors/traders of all time have an average annual return of about 33 percent. This means that the average investor would be lucky to have a long term return of about twelve percent. So if these people double their money in Bermuda Bank shares they will invest it somewhere else, then somewhere else and so on until they have either lost money or had tiny returns until their long term average is about twelve percent. One should not be put off by a 100 percent gain because that will be averaged with future losses.

I have no doubt in my mind that eventually the 60-40 rule will be dropped.

Unfortunately, however, there is a large chance that it will occur in a distressed situation when investors grow impatient with a stagnant stock price or there is world recession -- like shock to the world economies. Let us be proactive and drop 60-40 while the world investing climate is still buoyant.

Why do the Banks need the 60-40 rule dropped? Everyone in Bermuda feels the squeeze of world competition, and my friends the banks are competing in the world market where much bigger fish have access to cheaper capital. What does that mean? Companies that need to grow need money to make investments in order to grow. How does a bank raise money to invest in growth? One way is to sell stock. So if the Bank sells two shares to the public for say 30 dollars, they raise sixty dollars. If 60-40 is dropped and investors form the rest of the world value the bank share at 60 dollars, then the Bank will only have to sell one share to raise the sixty dollars.

So now the Bank earnings need to be distributed over a lesser amount of shares than would have been the case if they had to issue two shares at thirty dollars. This means that the Bank's earnings per share would not have been hurt as much. It has cut their cost of raising capital in half. The banks in Bermuda have not had this advantage, but in due time will need all the help they can get.

Lastly, I must say that there is absolutely no guarantee that the banks's stocks would go up 100 percent if 60-40 were dropped. However, we need other sources of liquidity in these bank share.

BRIAN WAY Paget