He always gave his best

February 6, 2007

Dear Sir,

I have just read the shocking news about the death of Alan Oliver. My wife and I extend our sincere condolences to Alan's family.

I remember Alan as one of the most jovial rugby characters. I remember a tour we organised to Europe in 1995 where Alan was the focus of the social side of the tour and bought beer for our long train ride from Luxembourg to Geneva. He always gave his best both on and off the field.

Jon Dodd, our senior coach at Narberth RFC over in Wales, also fondly remembers Alan and expresses his condolences to Alan's family

Thank you to the hospital

February 1, 2007

Dear Sir,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff at KEMH for the wonderful care I received on January 3 as an outpatient. Since I had not been sedated for many years I was a bit apprehensive about the procedure, a colonoscopy. My sincere thanks and appreciation is extended to the emergency staff, to the lady in the outpatient admitting office, the pre-operative staff ? especially Mrs. Lovell whom I had not seen in many years, the male anaesthetist whose name I did not remember but was comforted by his conversation about spotting whales in March emergency. To Dr. Warner and Dr. Cindy Morris who I heard acknowledge their presence as I drifted off to sleep. All too soon I heard the gentle voice of Anthony, the post-operative nurse waking me up in the recovery room. As my vital signs were checked, it was a pleasure to glance around and observe the diverse nationalities working to give expert care to their patients.

If all of the staff at KEMH are as professional as those I thanked earlier, we are in safe hands here in Bermuda.

PS: I can't forget the nursing assistant who wheeled me out of the hospital. I was able to leave the Island the following day for a short vacation and experienced no complications.

God Bless You All.

Self-serving rhetoric

February 5, 2007

Dear Sir,

Mr. Christensen and his other investors at Southlands would like us to believe that they have a "determination to be responsible custodians for the magical setting not only for today but so future generations might also be able to enjoy its uniqueness". Is it really responsible to bulldoze environmentally protected cliffs and shoreline so they can build hotel rooms and entertainment facilities right smack on top of the newly expanded beach? Do they really expect us to believe their "we had to do it because of the erosion" argument. Not only that, they want to completely dismantle the substantial protection to this "magical property" provided by current zoning regulations. In the "doublespeak" that fills all of their public statements, this is described as "mixing and matching of various zoning on the site to allow a tourism project to go ahead". There are parts of that property that are already zoned for tourism. What they really mean is that this "mixing and matching" is required to give this completely over the top, 300 room tourism development the go ahead. It is all so patently self serving you would think they would be embarrassed at their rhetoric.

This, and other similarly over the top proposals (eight- to ten-storey apartment buildings, also masquerading as "hotels", at Stonington and the old Bermudiana Beach Club, to say nothing of the Fairmont proposals which would chop up the golf course and put a raft of condominiums on the hills overlooking Horseshoe Bay) are nothing more than property development projects designed to maximise profits for their owners by overturning well thought out planning policies designed to keep Bermuda looking like Bermuda rather than Miami Beach or Newport Beach. If Neletha Butterfield and the rest of the PLP caucus do not stand their ground, they'll have sold Bermuda out. Then we'll know what "sustainable development" really means for the Brown Government and the Progressive Labour Party.

Preserving our rights

February 5, 2007

Dear Sir,

In today's RG, in connection with his proposal to develop the 37 acres of Southlands, Mr. Christensen makes much of his and his "fellow developers' ?. determination to be responsible custodians of the magical setting (Southlands) ?so that future generations might also be able to enjoy its uniqueness".

He goes on to say, "Why should we not have our ? people (presumably referring to their fellow Bermudians) enjoy this and open it back up?" Later on he says, "When we build the resort, they {ordinary Bermudians will be able to come and enjoy the beach view ? or ? come and have lunch and enjoy a walk up the hillside." Forgive me if I sound a little cynical, (after all, Government has over-turned other restrictive covenants designed to protect Bermuda) but the picture that this conjures in my mind is of us Bermudians gazing down on a beach that we are not allowed to use and enjoy, and to walk up through the property, so long as we are on our way to spend money in the 5-star restaurant, probably offering a fare that the average Bermudian will not be able to afford.

May I suggest that, if Mr. Christensen does indeed wish Bermudians (as well as tourists) to enjoy Southlands "into the next century and maybe forever", that he and his partners enter into a covenant with a non-Governmental institution (such as the National Trust, or perhaps a special trust with Trustees drawn from the environmentalists amongst us) setting forth the inalienable right of Bermudians to enjoy Southlands in perpetuity. After all, Mr. Christensen is asking us (through our Government) to reverse a sacred trust (known as a "Section 34 Covenant", also entered into on our behalf by our Government some years ago) whereby a large part of the Southlands property was declared undevelopable.

Incidentally, what is the differential in value between Southlands in its present state, subject to the Section 34 covenant and a Woodland Reserve zoning that would not lend itself to the sort of development that the developers wish to undertake? I am sure that it must be considerable. In which case, presumably (?) the developers will be reimbursing the Bermuda public for that value upon receipt of the SDOs that they are requesting the Bermuda Government to grant to them on behalf of the people of Bermuda.

These thoughts do not address the subject of the economics of the proposed development, whether it makes sense to undertake such a project that, in Bermuda's present state, would appear will only benefit foreigners (other than the developers) in both its construction and its operation, since we do not have enough people of our own to fill the ranks of the workers that it will require. But that is a far more complicated topic than can be addressed here, but one, nevertheless, that must be done, if we are to get this decision right. Perhaps another day.

LOOK-OUT

Devonshire

Institutional racism

February 6, 2007

Dear Sir,

The United Nations (in a similar way to others) defines racism as:

"..

The Government has said that they want to promote an integrated community with unity and equality but, by the above definition, the new Bermudians only line at the airport appears to be an example of institutional racism based on " It may seem a little thing but I suppose that where one sits on a bus was most important to those that were denied seating.

The current law denying basic rights to many children unlucky enough to have been born in Bermuda after July 1989 also appears to be institutional racism based on "."

It seems that every socially oriented government around the world (i.e. labour or socialist) has tried to eliminate these sorts of inequities. Please, Mr. Editor, can you find out whether the Government believes that all institutional racism is unacceptable or just some and, if none is acceptable, what do they plan to do about it.

Show us the evidence

February 5, 2007

Dear Sir,

I write in response to Gareth Finighan's excellent article in the Mid Ocean News on Friday, "Patients will suffer if Indigent Clinic is closed". Thankfully Mr. Finighan has seen the need to open up debate on this topic. Nestled within the throne speech of 26 November 2006 was the brief comment that the "Government will move to abolish the Indigent Care Clinic". The reason given was that the Clinic undermined patient dignity.

Before we start destroying facilities where a great deal of resource has been so effectively utilised, the dignified thing to do is to open up debate within the population it serves. This is those Bermudians unable to afford Health Insurance. This then would give those patients a voice, instead of making decisions which affect their life in such an enormous way without even asking them if this is what best serves their interests.

We need to consider why people attend this clinic. Why have they no insurance? Many have lost their jobs due to the complexity and multiplicity of their medical problems. Some are seniors without insurance, others are of no fixed abode. The lack of dignity that the Premier refers to in his speech is not specific to the Medical Clinic. It is rather a symptom of the way in which the poor are treated within society in general. They have no voice, they are not empowered. Thus, the Premier has only compounded this problem by making decisions about this clinic without consulting its clients. This is where the lack of dignity lies.

Dr. Brown suggests that the clients of the clinic should join up with a General Practitioner and that the GP will be reimbursed by the government for the consultation. This sounds easy to those of us with a phone, with transport and with money to pay up front should it be requested. But this is not the people we are dealing with. We need to put ourselves in their shoes and stop and think for a moment.

It is not only in Bermuda where we have trouble deciding how best to provide health care to the poor of the population. Even in the UK where there is free healthcare for all, it has been shown time and again that those in poverty do not have access to the services they need. The gap between the health of the rich and poor is wide even in this setting.

Bermuda has every reason to be proud of its Medical Clinic. It is an excellent resource providing health care to people who most need it. It is an example that Bermuda should be shouting about, not trampling under foot. The doctors who are working in the medical clinic are the same doctors who see those with insurance in private healthcare. They are doctors with a specific interest in ensuring that the underserved of a population get provided with excellent healthcare despite their lack of means.

Before closing this clinic I would like to see Dr Brown provide concrete evidence that its patients want to see it closed and want to be forced to move to a different doctor. I would also like to see evidence that the Family Practitioners of Bermuda are happy to accept these clients with no insurance.

I am very concerned that the population that we are dealing with here has once again been denied a voice and is being manipulated for political gain. Dr. Brown is a physician himself, so I am sure if he is convinced that this will work, he must have many examples of how the policy has worked in other countries. Let him provide us with the evidence and then the medical fraternity will work with him to ensure that the policy works.

We have seen an ENORMOUS debate on the future location of the hospital in order to protect the Botanical Gardens and its trees. I believe that Bermudians would be just as concerned about the plight of their brothers and sisters in need if only they knew of how this decision would impact them. It is time for true democracy to shine through. Ask the patients.

Regiment: a positive force

February 6, 2007

Dear Sir,

I am 18 years old and face a high possibility of being conscripted into the Bermuda Regiment. Although I don't currently live in Bermuda, I plan on returning after university, and fulfilling my service to the island if I am conscripted.

Personally I feel that the regiment gives not only young people, but other men and women a sense of belonging to their community and encourages responsibility in people which is positive for their help in the development of the island.

Not only am I appalled at people's attitudes towards the regiment, I feel that the BAD is further encouraging their attitudes towards a Regiment that helped not only Bermuda but the entire western world during the First and Second World Wars. If those men and women gave service to the island they loved in order to protect the future generation, the least we young men could do, is repay them by showing our dedication to Bermuda, through only three years of service in the Bermuda Regiment.

Standing up for Regiment

February 6, 2007

Dear Sir,

I write in reference to the article "Regiment is in 'parlous state'...." published on February 5, 2007.

I'm glad that Mr. MacKinlay pointed out the relationship that the Bermuda Regiment has with the Gibraltar Regiment. According to documents on file with the Regiment, they are entitled to the same budgetary allowances as the Gibraltar Regiment. I wonder whether the Regiment sees the fruits of that. Probably not ? judging by the state of their vehicles and equipment.

I'm glad that Mr. MacKinlay pointed out that the policy about recruits using the bathroom after a certain time involved them being escorted by a superior rank. I wonder whether he's aware that if they're not escorted, they can usually be found smoking marijuana all night in some dark patch of bushes. In spite of searches by Police, and military Police, and drug sniffing dogs. Resourceful, aren't they, Mr. MacKinlay? I guess that's the type of behaviour we want to encourage, then?

I wonder if he's aware that some of the members of BAD are only using the Regiment as a scapegoat for the fact that they didn't want to serve their country, at all, anywhere ? not just in the Regiment. I'm sure he's aware that some of the members of BAD exercised their right to serve with the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, rather than serve in the Regiment. And then, they never showed up to St. John's Ambulance. I'm sure he's also aware that St. John's Ambulance isn't the only alternative people have, if they don't wish to serve time in the Regiment. So the fact that some of these people showed up for nothing at all says what ... that community service as a whole is wrong?

Maybe it's just that we should excuse all that behaviour, since they're conscripts ? is that right, Mr. MacKinlay? Since they didn't volunteer, it's okay, right? Maybe the Bermuda Regiment should start a campaign to uncover the truth behind why the UK Gurkha Regiments get sub-standard pay, sub-standard benefits, and do the brunt-work throughout all the training schools in the UK military, not to mention what they do on the ground during operations. Could it be that they do it out of pride for their Regiment? Probably. Shame they're not paid for it. Closer to the truth is the fact that, where they come from, a life of military hardship is preferable to the alternative, which is poverty in many cases. So, yes, they're willing to work incredibly hard for terrible pay, because at least it beats working incredibly hard for no pay. Hopefully, if Mr. MacKinlay wants to stamp out the vestiges of slavery and mistreatment based on cultural background, he'll rush off to fight the Gurkha's battle right after he's finished with ours.

Let's be honest with ourselves. The Bermuda Regiment has turned out some of the best individuals this country has to offer. Many of them are leaders in all levels of industry and the government. Yes, there are plenty of people who spit on the idea ? but they're probably the ones that couldn't be trusted to go to the bathroom on their own.

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that the Regiment has been flogged like a dying horse lately and very few things have been said in its defence. Those of you who served your country, whether initially as a volunteer or a conscript, past your mandatory three years of service ? it is time now to stand up for the organisation that once stood and continues to stand up for you.