Do they ever listen?

April 7, 2003

Dear Sir,

Having just returned from a lovely vacation in Jamaica aboard a well organised charter flight by C travel , I was saddened to find that the arrogance of Government ministers in day-to-day life, continues over into their personal lives.

165 people managed to make it back to Montego Bay on time for the flight back to Bermuda , all except our Tourism Minister Ms Webb, who decided to show up 60 minutes late,( held the whole plane up ) because her ticket showed 4 p.m. not 2 p.m.

Actually everyone on the flight had been told 2.00pm on the way down to Jamaica, but I guess being a Government minister, you don't have to listen !!!

While sitting on the runway with the temperatures over 85f and all doors open as there was no air conditioning , we were actually told that we were waiting for the Prime Minister of Bermuda ( Does Jennifer know this I wonder ? ) .

Upon the Minister's entry to the plane, she laughed and told everyone she was going to buy us all dinner and drinks.

Once in Bermuda,165 people queued up at immigration with their passports and watched in disbelief as the Minister walked to the right side of Immigration and was escorted through and jumped the small line of people paying duty.

One question we all asked ourselves was “ Would they have held the plane for us and what's wrong with queuing up with the normal folk while on holiday ?”

As we didn't get our dinner or drinks Rene , as you had already left the building by the time we got through Immigration, maybe you could open a tab for us during happy hour on Friday at the Robin Hood ? Are you still listening minister?

JULIAN ROSE

Smith's

Angered by ‘fakery'

March 20, 2003

Dear Sir,

After reading the most recent comments of Ms Webb regarding the closure of a misleading and dishonest website, I felt it was even more important to go on the record regarding Bermuda's latest tourism/marketing mistakes, in which she opted to go along with the false images of other destinations, created by a foreign photographer, and provided by Bermuda's overseas advertising agency Arnold Worldwide.

I feel well qualified to make these observations. For those who are not aware, I have in fact been in the advertising, marketing and publishing business for over 40 years, mostly concentrated in the tourism area. I was one of the founders of the Island Press, a director of that company and the Bermuda Sun for many years. Additionally I assisted the establishing Bermuda's first professional advertising agency which is still successful today. Most of my career has been spent as Co-editor and publisher of Preview of Bermuda Limited, (a full-colour monthly complementary guide for our visitors) and Co-editor and publisher for the annual guide servicing our cruise boats. I have also worked independently as account executive for Shell, the Bermuda Paint Company, Bluck's, and both banks.

I should declare an interest: My son is Graeme Outerbridge, a local professional photographer.

There are two important issues involved in this unfortunate episode in our new tourism campaign: No. 1. The oft stated policy of the present government, that where qualified Bermudians are available - they would be considered first. Now we don't have a dozen qualified brain surgeons resident on the Island, but we do have more than a dozen qualified Bermudian professional photographers, who are tops in their field; most of whom I have worked with on a wide ranging array of assignments. These local photographers reflect the whole spectrum of colour, experience and political ideology. Many have their own portfolios of “stock images” of Bermuda, in addition to the massive files of “Superstock”, once located in New York city and now in Florida, who can produce authentic destination photographs of Bermuda in almost any category.

To achieve excellence in marketing Bermuda there has to be in place both short-term and long-term goals and a clear decisive plan to implement them. Fakery can never play in it! Three basic ingredients are required, integrity, intelligence and imagination. Add to that, knowledge and experience. Having made such a blunder, it would be a measure of comfort to believe that the Department of Tourism would withdrawn the fake photographs and immediately replace them with the “right stuff”.

I personally have received a flood of e-mails expressing anger, outrage and bewilderment - bad publicity for our beloved Island is never good at any time, particularly now.

In conclusion, there has not been to my knowledge any satisfactory explanation from Arnold Worldwide, or the Department and Ms Webb, other than some lame comments about saving money, and getting across “the feeling of Bermuda”. Maybe the wisest solution would be to remove both the offending photographs and the unenlightened decision makers.

ROXANA W. KAUFMANN

Sandys Parish

P.S. Please be assured that this letter is in no way partisan. I also strongly objected to the “Let yourself go” campaign initiated by the United Bermuda Party. The time has come to make the Department of Tourism independent, free of party politics and the civil service. This has been suggested for a long time but to date no one has acted on what surely must be the right way to go.

Gibbons needs to go

April 7, 2003

Dear Sir,

Whether one likes the Honourable Jennifer Smith or not the fact is that the Premier and the PLP were elected to be the government by the people in 1998. It has been apparent that the Gibbons opposition finds this fact galling. After all this was the UBP's first defeat of many to come.

The clearest sign of Dr. Gibbons' inner gall is his failure to accept or concede defeat. When the Gibbons opposition loses the next election, which they will, he will be forced to retire into his private life. It will be clear that Bermuda needs a new leader of the opposition party. Under the leadership of the then Gibbons government there was real concern that all reasonable precautions were not taken to properly safeguard the collection and handling of public monies in the context of the Social Insurance Department.

The misleading of the Bermudian people under the past UBP government may result in many senior citizens receiving less pension income.

RAYMOND RUSSELL SNR.

Pembroke

Solutions for youth

March 20, 2003

The following was sent to The Honourable Randy Horton, JP MP, Minister for Youth & Sports and copied to The Royal Gazette.

Dear Minister,

I refer to last night's very positive youth meeting at West Primary School hosted by Mr. Gerald Fubler who has been working many years in attempting to resolve some of the potentially negative recreational issues confronting young people throughout Bermuda. Mr. Fubler and his impressive committee of young people are especially anxious to secure suitable premises from which to permanently operate whereby constructive activities can then be regularly offered to the great majority of youngsters who are similarly positively motivated.

I understand that ideally Gerald's group would very much prefer a building at Morgan's Point which they have already identified to Government. However, if you are perhaps unable to release that building owing to special constraints, I respectfully suggest the very large building at Tudor Hill ideally able to accommodate the many diverse needs of an Island Youth Service which Gerald's group could reasonably be a precursor to.

In due course such facilities could also be made accessible to even the presently antisocial youngsters causing grant anxiety in the community once they have been brought back from the brink of self destruction via more stringently focused programmes such as those suggested at your National Youth Service Initiative Seminar in February, only one of which might comprise the following:

I most strongly support the creation of a Government sponsored compulsory Youth Service (e.g. “Bermudacorps”) with paid highly principled and trained youth leaders/mentors and involving both girls and boys, on the premise that character training for young people is at least as important as scholastic achievement. Under such a Youth Service every youngster would be obliged to satisfactorily complete a period of community service in the event that they were not already positively completing an alternative approved program (e.g. Girl Guides, Scouts, Sea Cadets etc..) this compulsory service would be based upon an “Outward Bound” type of format also including sail training whereby team building, life skills and positive problem solving would be principal ingredients. Furthermore, its leaders would be entrusted with a community assistance role similar to that of the Bermuda Regiment in the event of a National Emergency.

In particular I believe that such a compulsory youth service would automatically:

(a) Reduce racism by requiring all youngsters to constructively participate. (Unfortunately the Bermuda Regiment only conscripts/enlists a select few young men, and many are exempted for religious reasons. The “Bermudacorps” would conscript everyone not otherwise committed to some form of service.)

(b) Reduce drug dependency by creating a self disciplined positive outlook rather than a negative perspective among many youngsters, thus reducing their inclination to resort to drugs driven by both peer pressure as well as an inherent sense of worthlessness.

(c) Improve support for approved youth groups by those willing to volunteer rather than instead be conscripted into the “Bermudacorps” (however, the “Bermudacorps” would nevertheless have authority over anyone not satisfactorily conforming to other youth organisations' standards if they had joined simply to avoid the “Bermudacorps”).

(d) Improve work ethic, honesty and a “service above self” philosophy as a result of positive reorientation of youngsters' prospective on life, thus greatly improving the “value for money” enjoyment of the Bermuda Experience by our tourists.

(e) Reduce promiscuity, illegitimacy and advantage taken by the unscrupulous generally because each youngster would be trained to value others both before and as much as themselves.

(f) Reduce cycle theft, speeding, mugging, handbag snatching and foul language, etc., because those currently perceived ‘rites of passage' would no longer be accepted by their peers as such.

(g) Reduce littering and improve attitude generally in relation to the environment because no one who values others before themselves would not similarly value and protect the environment.

In the event that we are a society can ever become willing to support such a premise, then I believe that the future for all of us, regardless of origin, perceived advantage or lack thereof, would then once more comprise the realisation of dreams rather than simply wishes without hope for practical achievement.

TED GAUTLETT

Somerset

We are not alone

March 31, 2003

Dear Sir,

I came across this Editorial last week. It is from the Ross-shire Journal which is a far north of Scotland newspaper.

It seems to indicate that Bermuda is not alone when it comes to teenage hooliganism. I thought you might be able to use this as part of your editorial with perhaps the heading “Sounds Familiar”.

It seems to succinctly sum up the problem of juvenile delinquency very accurately. Hope this is of use to you.

“So You Want Kids?”

The journal carries the depressing aspect of widespread vandalism this week, of people's lives being made hell in Alness , of Dingwall squash courts being ruined and of such a vicious attack on property in Invergordon that even the perpetrator appears to have been injured (what a shame).

Debate is likely to rage about what retribution can be effected on these teeny tearaways , but the heart of the matter is that these vandals are the products ts of their elders and so-called betters. These are adolescents who have no role model to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Parents need not harp on about what the agencies are doing or not doing for their miscreant kids, they need to get themselves by the scruff of the neck and clean up their own act.

Respect cannot be bullied into children, it has to be earned. If a dad keeps himself fit, respects his neighbours and their property and deals fairly with his kids, that is the example his offspring will follow. Certainly there will be occasions when peer group pressure occasionally leads children off the straight and narrow, but a decent set of values lasts a lifetime.

It is not the job of schools, police, councillors or social services to mop up the devastation that a neglected child can cause. It is certainly not for people to live in fear in their own homes as a result of other people's pathetic disregard for positive parenting. It is up to adults to make a decision before they commit to having children, are they prepared to put time, effort, love and patience into encouraging their kids to be useful members of society? If the answer is no, they should be told to use a contraceptive.

ALASTAIR M. JOHNSON

Pembroke

Confusion over Register

1 April, 2003

Dear Sir,

A number of people have expressed concern about the accuracy of the Parliamentary Register, particularly having regard to those deceased, or who have left the Island, and those who have moved their residence to another constituency but have failed to change their registration. The great care taken by the recent Boundaries Commission to come up with constituencies having as nearly as possible equal numbers of voters could be diminished if such inaccuracies are not identified and rectified.

It is unclear whether a person is legally able to cast a vote in a constituency in which he no longer resides. It defeats the purpose of the Commission, however, if a person registered in (say) Smith's now resides in Sandys but continues to vote in Smith's. If the residence in Smith's originally occupied by that person is now occupied by another registered voter then we have the anomaly of two voters purporting to be resident at the same address. If this is allowed to continue unchecked, it creates the opportunity for people to be selective as to the constituency in which they cast their vote. An extra vote in a marginal constituency (and there will be some) could make a difference to the outcome there rather than being wasted in a “safe” constituency.

Some answers are offered by the Parliamentary Election Act 1978. For example, Section 14 (“Scrutineers”) provides for the appointment of two Scrutineers for each constituency. These are appointed by the Governor, one recommended by the Premier and one recommended by the Opposition Leader. The terms of reference for these Scrutineers include recommending to the Registrar (Sec 14(3) in part) “…to remove [from the draft register the names of any persons who have died, who have ceased to be ordinarily resident in Bermuda, who are disqualified by reason of serving a term of imprisonment or who have ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency for which they are registered as electors”.

This process affords a (small) window of time - some three weeks - which should result in the cleaning up of the majority of the errors that are causing concern. It falls to the Scrutineers designated by each party, presumably backed up by their respective branch organisations, to undertake this task in the manner prescribed.

Furthermore, Section 17 (“Objections to registration”) provides for objections to be raised by any person and defines the protocol to be followed by such objectors. Each objection has to be submitted in writing and accompanied by a $5 fee (refundable if the objection is upheld). This provides all of us with an additional mechanism whereby we can raise specific objections if we wish to do so.

What does not appear to be specified in the Act is the consequences that may befall the person who changes his residence but fails to change his registration.

Section 68(b) (“Personation and voting if not qualified”) of the Act says that a person commits an offence who “applies to be registered in the parliamentary register of a constituency knowing that he is not ordinarily resident therein;” There is nothing that declares failing to register a change of address as an implicit offence, that would seem to be a matter of legal interpretation.

Finally, Section 71 (“Disqualification”) specifies that a person convicted of an offence under a number of different sections may be disqualified from voting for a period of six years. So, if failing to register a change of address were to be deemed an offence, a person could theoretically suffer that penalty.

If, however, no recognisable offence is committed by a person failing to update his registration following a change of residence then this, in turn, throws all the responsibility on the shoulders of the Scrutineers, whose job it is to validate the parliamentary register in each constituency and on those of any concerned citizen. Is there not some better mechanism available whereby deaths, departures and changes of residence can be captured without the intense effort that such scrutiny demands?

PETER NASH

Smith's Parish