UBP: Deaf, mute & blind

December 20, 2007

Dear Sir,

The UBP and its supporting cast remind me of those three little Monkeys. Who never saw, heard or spoke any evil. Now that they have lost their third straight election. They are putting it down to a nasty campaign. Of course they themselves ran a squeaky clean campaign. It was only the PLP who was nasty.

The last time I checked, The Royal Gazette, Mid Ocean News and the Bermuda Sun were owned by UBP supporters and/or members. Were they not the ones who for the last nine months or so ran nothing but negative, unsubstantiated front page stories on PLP candidates.

The so-called BHC scandal which occurred about four years ago which has been closed since then resurfaced. Did not the Scotland Yard and a US intelligence agency look through those files and say no other persons had anything to answer for, other than Mr. Terrance Smith, who was originally found guilty and sentenced to eight years in jail.

The UBP is always quick to go to England and get a second opinion on certain issues. The Scotland Yard are supposed to be that country's top Police investigation agency, right? So who else do they want to look into this so-called scandal? God himself?

They have the nerve to decry Ewart Brown for helping Patrice Minors beat the milkman. But admit campaigning with and for the milkman. The nerve.

You were not running against just Ewart Brown, Zane Desilva and a few others. You were running against 36 candidates and all of their members and supporters. And as the saying goes, mess with one, you mess with us all.

So if you ever buy your own headquarters and change your name and logo, I suggest you use the statue of the Three Monkeys. One covering his ears another his eyes and the last one his mouth.

Last but not least. If you keep your hand over your mouth you might just stop putting your foot in it.

LESLIE JAMES SMITH

Sandys

Editor's Note: The Royal Gazette is owned by Bermuda Press Holdings Ltd., which is publicly traded on the Bermuda Stock Exchange and has about 600 shareholders. The Royal Gazette does not run stories that have not been checked and every effort is made to get both sides.

The Gazette is biased

December 20, 2007

Dear Sir,

The people have spoken and re-elected the party that best represented their interests, the Progressive Labour Party.

However, it is quite clear from your editorial from December 19, along with similar comments and a blog from Christian Dunleavy in the same edition, that there is a belief that the majority of the electorate were somehow fooled or "hoodwinked" into voting for the PLP.

This is the same attitude which resulted in the first win by the PLP, and which will guarantee that the United Bermuda Party will never win again, that the "grass-roots" supporters of the PLP (and let's be quite clear here, mainly black), are not capable of thinking for themselves and making rational decisions.

It is quite amusing that for months we have been hearing from UBP politicians and their supporters that race doesn't matter within their party (or in Bermuda from some of them), but once they lost the election, they were quick to use racial bias, or "polarisation" as Mr. Dunleavy states, as the reason for the PLP victory.

Lastly, you report on Page 2 that a question was posed to Dame Jennifer Smith on whether she backed Dr. Brown? It was reported that her response was: "I'm fully behind the leader of the party, as I would expect all of our members to be".

Apparently, this wasn't good enough for the reporter, who then felt the need to re-pose the question to get a different (negative) response, and then the story finished with the snide remark" "A ringing endorsement? Hardly."

Do you honestly expect us to believe that this newspaper isn't biased?

DAVID WILLIAMS

Sandys

No bad dogs, bad owners

December 20, 2007

Dear Sir,

I recently returned to Canada after a contract in Bermuda. I love your islands and all the people on her.

On December 15 there appeared an article on dog fighting in Bermuda which claimed dog fights were growing less frequent. This is great news and I hope you continue to fight this terrible 'sport'.

But Dr. Burnie spoke up on the list of banned dog breeds and rightfully said that banning dogs doesn't solve the problem, it only penalises good dog owners. I live in Canada, in Ontario which has passed laws banning pit bulls, even though in actual fact there is no such breed.

Most dogs classed as pit bulls (and I'm sure it's the same in Bermuda) are cross breeds that 'look' like pit bulls, or the public perception of pit bulls. Since I once owned a red Doberman with uncut ears that people mistook for a pit bull I can testify the average person doesn't have a clue what a pit bull looks like. Imagine if this same policy was applied to people – oh well he looks dangerous so he must be, let's toss him in jail.

Instead of banning a host of breeds that are not inherently dangerous, the law should concentrate on those people who own and encourage viciousness in dogs. When you paint all dogs of a specific breed as bad you are not serving justice, but prejudice.

PAT BROWN

London, Ontario

Ft. Hamilton concerns

Dear Sir,

This is an open letter to the Mayor of Hamilton, Mr. Madeiros. Every year the Corporation of Hamilton hires out "Fort Hamilton" to certain people, especially for Hallowe'en, with no regard to the people that live in this area of Fort Hamilton.

These people think they have the right to park on private property (disregarding signs), even on the grounds of Elizabeth Hills Road.

The noise goes on after midnight. They stand in front of people's property swearing and shouting at one another. Beer cans were left on the road to the entrance of Fort Hamilton and still there Sunday morning. Hallowe'en is for children.

Also while on the subject of "Fort Hamilton", it has been reported time after time that the road leading from Fort Hamilton's entrance down to King Street is in a really filthy condition. Tourists travel on this road every day. Please have your road cleaners look into this matter. Thank you.

CONCERNED RESIDENT

Property Owner

Think of the victim

December 13, 2007

Dear Sir,

As an 81-year-old visitor from the USA, it is with some trepidation that, on the occasion of my 31st visit to Bermuda, I write this epistle in response to Mr. Julian Hall's letter published on December 12th on the subject of "Double Jeopardy". So, unlike Mr. Hall, let me first state that I have no political or vitriolic points to make.

We are all well aware of the tremendous advances in forensic science in recent years and in particular DNA testing. These developments have, in numerous recent cases, established facts/proofs of innocence that were previously unavailable to defence lawyers and have now been used to reopen their cases and effected the release of wrongly convicted persons.

I note that Mr. Hall is writing to you from Atlanta, Georgia, and it is singularly coincidental that on the day you published his letter, you also ran a report on page 91 concerning the case of Mr. John White who was released from prison following a rehearing occasioned by new DNA evidence.

It is also mentioned in that report that Mr. White is the seventhth conviction in Georgia that has been overturned by the previously unavailable DNA evidence.

I feel sure that Mr. Hall is aware of these cases in the USA state where he is currently residing/visiting and, I presume, that he joins the majority of us who welcome the overturning of a wrongful conviction and miscarriage of justice.

Why then, may I respectfully ask, in this day and age of forensic science/DNA would he object to the same type of evidence being made available to a prosecution lawyer to redress a wrongful acquittal? The circumstances, although in reverse, are the same — the DNA evidence was not available to the prosecution at the time of acquittal.

Obviously each submission for a retrial should be subject to a rigid evaluation/approval by a Court of Law before allowing a retrial and perhaps should be restricted to extremely violent crimes, e.g. Murder/Rape/GBH.

To deny closure for a victim of a heinous crime when DNA evidence would now prove the guilt, is, to my mind, clearly wrong — the spirit of Human Rights Legislation should also embrace the victims not just the aggressors.

The principle of Double Jeopardy should, in the wisdom of retrospection, be allowed to be overridden by a Court of Law and a retrial allowed — and this then meets another "hallowed" principle viz. that "Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done".

R. SYDNEY

Florida

If you can't beat 'em...

December 19, 2007

Dear Sir,

Given the third consecutive loss by the UBP would it not make sense for all UBP MPs to cross the floor and join the ranks of the PLP? Doing so would result in the end of party politics in Bermuda. We would then have all MPs working together to govern the Island without the adversarial friction we've lived with in the past.

PAGET PRC

It didn't happen

December 14, 2007

Dear Sir,

Thank you for allowing me the space to respond to the letter from Wendell Hollis, December 10, 2007. What a wonderful opportunity! The UBP never "forced" any Bermudian to Independence! Mr. Hollis states that "in the lead up to the General Election of October 1993 the UBP never once proposed an agenda to proceed to Independence."

He then states that after the victory, Sir John Swan announced an initiative to pursue Independence for Bermuda. Two years later a referendum was held, according to Mr. Hollis, in August, 1995, where the initiative floundered.

So why is Mr. Hollis implying that the UBP forced us to Independence? This certainly did not happen! All Bermudians were given the chance to choose by way of a Referendum some two years after the election! Bermudians chose against Independence! Pretty obvious.

By the way, if Mr. Hollis resigned from the UBP and "fought the initiative against independence? I am curious to know where he stands now!

PEGGY COUPER

Pembroke