Dear Sir, I would be grateful if you would allow me the space to respond to my critic, Guilden M. Gilbert Jr., who seems to have been most upset by my interview opposing Independence for Bermuda that was printed in The Royal Gazette on December 13, 2000.

I will ignore the personal attacks and insults made by that gentleman and just respond to the specific points raised.

First, he states that the move to independence by the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, "was not Sir Lynden's doing''. This is a curious statement as Sir Lynden Pindling is universally credited with being the father of that nation, even by our Premier on her return from his funeral in her glowing tribute to Pindling in the House of Assembly.

Secondly, he states: "At the time that the Bahamas became an independent nation, July 10, 1973, there was little or no opportunity for black Bahamians to participate, let alone prosper, within their own country and economy.'' This is a strange statement because guess who had led the Government for the six years before independence...wait for it ...none other than...Lynden Pindling! Thirdly, he says that Bahamians, black and white, hold the key corporate positions and implies that the difficulties were worth going through for the success being enjoyed today. However, the integration and success that exists today is owed largely to the FNM Government of Hubert Ingraham, who took office after Pindling and the PLP were thrown out in August 1992. Furthermore, Professor Michael Craton in his essay, `Bay Street, Black Power & the Conchy Joes' states: "The rhetoric of Black Power and the prestige of having overturned Bay Street and created an independent Bahamian nation were no longer compelling to a people awakened to the reality that they were effectively ruled by a new black elite that outdid old Bay Street in its acquisitiveness and indifference to corruption, and in a declining world economy that had saddled the new nation with a national debt of more than $1 billion.'' Fourthly, he accuses me of suggesting the Bahamians are "a bunch of gangsters''. This I did not do. I was referring to Pindling and his cronies.

There is no doubt but that the Bahamas is home to gangsters as are a number of other Caribbean islands. James Ferguson in his 1999 book, The Story of the Caribbean, states that: "Territories such as the Bahamas, containing hundreds of small cays and islets, are all but impossible to police, while a powerful cigarette boat, named after its aerodynamic shape, can reach the coast of Florida before coastguards can react to radar information. Several islands have been the subject of critical reports from the US Drug Enforcement Agency which is at the forefront of the so-far unsuccessful `war against drugs'. Politicians in the Bahamas, for instance, are alleged to have collaborated closely with the well-known Medellin Cartel of cocaine smugglers, and similar accusations have been made concerning Antigua, St. Vincent and St. Kitts.'' Also in March 1997 a cover article ran in Business Week over two issues entitled, "The Mob on Wall Street; Why You Can't See It''. This article referred to one Philip Abramo, alleged to be a capo in the DeCavalcante crime family, who set up a number of shadowy Bahamian companies to launder mob money, commit criminal fraud and brutal intimidation on Wall Street. Guess who was alleged to be the front man in the Bahamas? Business Week stated as follows: "Also playing a pivotal role is a prominent Bahamian, the son of the island nation's former Prime Minister, Lynden Pindling.'' This refers to L.

Obafemi Pindling.

I could continue and regale you with the facts about the hotel and casino business in the Bahamas, or the skullduggery of Vere `Me No Go'' Bird in Antigua (also the father of his country), or the criminal exploits of Charles (Little Nut) Miller in St. Kitts, but I think the point has been made for those who are listening.

I trust that your readers will find these facts interesting, as they consider the mythology being created to suggest the benefits of independence.

TREVOR MONIZ MP Smith's Parish Opposed to cellular tower The following was sent to Minister of the Environment Terry Lister and copied to The Royal Gazette .

December 16, 2000 Dear Sir, Please accept this as my formal objection to the proposed BTC Mobility tower at Lusher Hill East.

The reason for my objection is obvious. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that continuous exposure to low levels of radiation from cellular towers does not affect the health of humans. Until there is, cellular towers should not be erected in such densely populated areas as Lusher Hill in Warwick.

Further, there is already a tower site at Warwick Camp that can be used. I would also advocate there should be a public meeting before The Planning Department gives consideration to the application.

QUINTON L. EDNESS Warwick