The Bamboozle, Indoctrinate and Condition Report, I mean the Bermuda Independence Commission Report, is in, all 600 pages of it. And what's the conclusion? Let me summarise: "We misled you because we had to."

The unwelcome six-month intrusion by "not only a commission on Independence, but also an independent commission" produced a report whose contents stood up to a month of Cabinet scrutiny but seconds in the public arena; being swiftly discredited as a lightweight rehashing of decades old reports littered with outright misrepresentations, omissions, distortions, falsehoods and overly rosy projections.

Just what the Premier ordered. A job well done, The Man hoping to be King declared at last week's Press conference, with the delivery of a used-car salesman.

The document that the BIC's Chairman characterised as "a light to the future" is about as illuminating as the Belco fire. This one however fizzled out in minutes, a monumentally desperate attempt to further the narrow agenda, oversized egos and power base of an out of touch Cabinet.

The BIC vastly overplayed its hand by producing a report consumed with overwhelming bias. Confusing Bermuda Onions with Mushrooms was a rookie mistake; onions don't appreciate being kept in the dark and fed ? well this is a family paper, so let's just say 'manure'.

If any independent commissioners existed at the beginning of this exercise, they clearly acquired Stockholm Syndrome along the way.

With so little substance but so many problems, the toughest decision is what to debunk first. A good starting point is the most obvious and egregious error, one so untrue it could have only been intentional.

The BIC Report opens with a disingenuous bombshell, claiming that the "Commission learned that, in many cases, the decision on Independence was determined by means of a General Election and, in no instance, did the Commission discover the use of a referendum."

This statement is so blatantly dishonest it is hardly worthy of correction. Compound that by the fact that the "General Election versus referendum" debate was explicitly outside of the Commission's remit and everything in the report becomes suspect.

But a correction is nonetheless in order. How's about Bermuda, East Timor, Quebec and Jamaica in addition to many, many more? That the PLP urged a boycott of Bermuda's 1995 referendum doesn't mean it didn't occur.

Bermudians didn't want Independence then, and we don't want it now. Demonstrating a modicum of respect for the electorate's intelligence would have been advisable before attempting to rewrite history.

But it gets worse; the UBP even did the BIC's homework on this issue, by citing numerous examples of jurisdictions which decided the issue of sovereignty through referenda. Not to be swayed with facts, the BIC nonetheless claimed that they didn't 'discover the use of a referendum' anywhere, while neglecting to include the UBP's submission in the final report or on their website.

Did I say "we misled you because we had to"?

Off again on another tangent, the BIC proudly claimed that "after two decades of decline, the tourism sector appears to have stabilised and may even be improving." The Prime Misleader of Tourism would be proud.

Except that statement didn't hold up either; being swiftly debunked by a BIC Commissioner himself in a Mid-Ocean News article of Friday, September 19, only one day after the BIC report was released. In the interview, President of the Bermuda Hotel Association ? and prominent BIC Commissioner Mike Winfield ? lamented the declining hotel occupancy rates over last year, noting that August's occupancy rate plunged to 70 percent from a "not acceptable" 79 percent in 2004.

You couldn't make this stuff up could you? But what are a few factual errors among friends?

How about those misrepresentations and rosy outlooks you ask? Well, try this zinger on for size, the misrepresentation of one of the biggest points of concern: the inevitable withdrawal of British citizenship?

The UK's position is abundantly clear; citizenship would be withdrawn for those without familial connections. But don't believe me, here's what the UK said in their submission, and the Governor recently affirmed:

"In the past, the usual practice was to withdraw British nationality from the majority of those acquiring citizenship of the new state on Independence but to provide for its retention where the person concerned had a residual connection ? for example through a parent or grandparent ? with the UK or a place that continued to be what nowadays would be referred to as a British overseas territory. We would not expect to take a different approach in Bermuda's case."

"We would not expect to take a different approach in Bermuda's case." Seems unambiguous enough doesn't it? Not to the BIC, who contend that this could be negotiated at a constitutional conference. Have they no shame?

And then there's section 3.8, where the Commission analysed their data in two hopelessly pro-Independence sub-sections entitled "Myths & Misconceptions" and "The Benefits".

Where was the section on the 'Cons' you ask, as any objective analysis would surely have included? Evidently it was deemed redundant; the whole document is one big con. The BIC suggests that Bermuda needs a Truth and Reconciliation Commission before addressing Independence; an inspired recommendation indeed. A good place to start would be with the BIC report itself.