It is very upsetting to hear Mr. Mottley, in his position as former Attorney General, accepting no responsibility for the fiasco of the Middleton case. If you are the head of a company or a department, surely the buck stops there! Mr. Mottley had two or three extensions of his contract and could have applied for another especially to take a case of this magnitude. Obviously, he did not want it. Failing that, if he felt that Mr. Calhoun should have taken the case, why then did he not personally appoint him? Perhaps Mr. Calhoun didn't want to take the case either.

The fact is a young girl is dead and no-one has been found guilty of this atrocity. Our (then) top prosecutor sits on the stand pointing fingers at the Police, at the Solicitor General and calls some of us "malicious Bermudians'' and at the same time taking absolutely no responsibility for what has happened.

How did he justify accepting the word of Kirk Mundy (a man with an extensive criminal record and on bail) as to his "consensual sex'' explanation with the teenager? The evidence even from that day showed she was viciously raped before she was murdered. Why didn't he wait for the forensic evidence at the very least before the charges were laid? Why is no-one asking Mr. Motley these questions? PAT HAYCOCK Pembroke Murdoch well off mark August 23, 2000 Dear Sir, The result of placing a sensational headline over re-worked portions of a letter which I submitted last week -- a rather easy form of journalism, forgive my saying so -- and delivering it as front page news has resulted in Fiona Murdoch "seeing red''.

She has committed her rage to paper in the form of an ill-informed attack on my integrity, which is I believe is a somewhat spiteful attempt to discredit my professional reputation. Why, I really cannot imagine. I have never knowingly met this person in my life.

That my husband and I are committed to improving animal welfare in Bermuda, is well known. Many of our kind, loyal clients, have been with us since I opened the hospital on Union Street almost 20 years ago. There were those then, including "friends and family'' who expressed the opinion, that I had more courage than they felt was sensible, but I was where I felt I was most needed.

There were those who mocked me then and were openly contemptuous of my decision to open a veterinary hospital in the "Back of Town''. It was a pretty lonely path but one I am glad that I stuck to, despite being effectively ostracised by many who no longer wanted even to be seen with me! I am proud of what I have managed to achieve with the committed support of my husband, who joined the Practice about 12 years ago, and of course the staff.

We know we have been able to bring a reasonably priced, solid veterinary service to a section of Bermuda's population, many of whom previously were unable to afford veterinary care for their companion and domestic animals.

This has benefited not just the animals concerned, but the humans who share their living space. We have contributed significantly to the education of the children and their parents with respect to socialising their companion animals and looking after their basic health (zoonotic hygiene). Overall there has been tremendous improvement but there are still some appalling situations to be addressed.

Ms Murdoch, you are either too young, too naive, too new to Bermuda or too closeted to know of the problems we have faced in establishing and maintaining the facility which we run...day and night in..day and night out. If after almost 20 years of this commitment, you feel that I should not be entitled to make my opinions known with respect to any issues which affect the continuing welfare of animals on this Island, then I respectfully suggest, that you leave your armchair, and go out and seek the services of one of our many eager mental health care professionals, or better still, roll up your dainty white sleeves, and go down to the SPCA and volunteer your time to help scrubbing down kennels, and if they don't need you, we'll put you to work.

Meanwhile, when you are snug in bed watching "animals E.R.'' and cuddling your "pet'' think of us, often working through the night to try and save a dog from the relentless progress of septicaemia and toxic shock, after it has finally been brought in for treatment to multiple bite wounds 5 days after the sustained injuries. Why Because the owner was fearful that someone at our hospital might think the dog was being fought. I cannot tell you how many of such cases have driven me to tearful exhaustion... Fluid therapy, electrolyte balance, kidney function, PH balance, which antibiotic?...etc etc...swirling around my head at 3 a.m. ...back onto oxygen therapy...wet lung?...A glimmer of hope! A frail weak tail wag!... Yes success? No.. .nature has reclaimed another pitiful animal? You have the nerve, Ms Murdoch, to tell me I am "copping out''! Next time I need someone to watch a drip all night, I'll call you and see just how many nights in a row during the summer months you last. No, Ms Murdoch, I am not in the least bit afraid of thugs: I have stood up to plenty in all colours, shapes and sizes, and so has my husband. Nor did I state to the Press I was afraid of thugs; that was their sensational spin. Had you read the letter as it was submitted, in its full context, you might have picked up on the fact that it was a concerned response to the Minister of the Environment's cry to the press, that veterinarians were enabling their rights to confidentiality when they walk into any veterinary facility. The standing of the profession was also under attack from a Minister who should know better, and to whom we had not long previously appealed for support. I care about the standing of the profession.

The public also needed to have explained that a vet is certainly going to be counterproductive if he or she picks up the phone to act as an informant because: a) No-one has ever been convicted of illegal dog fighting on the strength of bite wounds to their dog alone; b) Like it or not, the Police need strong eyewitness accounts and positive identification to bring a successful prosecution; and c) the vet is probably the last person who is going to be in a position to provide strong primary evidence, but can provide extremely useful supportive evidence if subpoenaed in a particular instance, where a case is brought, and it can be shown that repeated bite-inflicted injuries have required professional care. Alternatively the vet can add to the credible identification of the animal.

That evidence will not be available if a vet starts to waste mental energy in becoming an informant instead of carrying out their professional duties. As stated; many, many more animals stand to suffer a long and horrible death if their owners fear bringing them in. As it is, we have to deal with all manner of quackery: healing tars in wounds and various other unmentionable home remedies, before being able to treat injured animals in all stages of septicaemia.

Go and make a real difference Ms Murdoch! Start by taking a walk through Mill's Creek, Orange Valley, parts of remote Somerset and the old Club Med at night; take a camera and listen carefully for sounds of dogs. Then, during the day if you wish meander past the Tennis Stadium, linger a little before passing under the bridge and into some of the less accessible regions of Pembroke; open your eyes to the many miserable carriage horses, see how many dogs are tied up in their own excrement, with little access to shade or a decent existence befitting of a wealthy Island -- see with your own eyes how many puppies are whining in small little cages. Take a trip to the byways of Devonshire and Warwick. Then when you are utterly depressed, and disgusted, make an appointment to talk to the Minister of the Environment, See how you feel after that. He wants proof, give it to him and the rest of corporate Bermuda! Yes, I shall go on making my opinions known, for as long as it takes; and that, as you have shown, comes at a price. Do not presume to lecture me on taking a stand or being a responsible citizen, Ms Murdoch, or on repercussions! If you were volunteering at the SPCA, I would know you, and you would know just how difficult the inspector's job already is. Trust me, I am bitterly familiar with your ilk. I cannot act outside my code of professional conduct which sets out with good reason, exactly how to behave in these matters.

DR. A.M. WARE-CIETERS Pembroke It's Government's fault August 23, 2000 Dear Sir, With regard to Fiona Murdoch's letter published on August 21 which you entitled "`Argument's a cop out'', I respectfully disagree with Ms Murdoch's comparison of reporting animal abuse akin to child abuse, and to her description of Dr. Ware-Cieters' "...burying her head in the sand...'' First of all, child abuse occurs for a variety of reasons, but never for sheer entertainment and monetary advantage. The child abuser, more often than not, knows that what he or she is doing is wrong and probably feels shame. When confronted, either by family, friends, or neighbours, and eventually, the law, the child abuser will acquiesce to the punishment meted out to him or her, and may also even seek therapeutic counselling.

Animal abusers are of a different ilk. They, too, are cognisant of their actions, but the animal abuser is shameless. These abusers are heartless and at the core, evil. They care nothing of the consequences of their actions, whether to dogs, cats or humans. Their pleasure in witnessing the bloody death of an animal is, in my opinion, only a notch below witnessing or participating in a human death. These people wouldn't hesitate to throw their own mother into a pit for the dogs to maul.

There is no money to be had for abusing a child, but apparently for the animal abuser, there is not only big money but also drugs.

Clearly Dr. Ware-Cieters, and other Island veterinarians, are doing the best they can for the dogs they receive in their care. I believe there is a serious threat not only to the veterinarians on this Island, but to caring citizens who would dare identify animal abusers. Dr. Ware-Cieters and hundreds of Bermudians have appealed to Government and the Minister of Environment to take action against this barbaric and chronic problem. But what has Government done? Absolutely nothing.

Government has not taken the initiative to provide Police and animal control officers with the protective equipment needed to go into the fighting rings to stop the abuse. They have not enacted any laws making animal abuse a serious crime with serious consequences. Government doesn't seem to understand that animal abuse inevitably leads to violent crimes against humans. The Minister responsible denies that there is even a problem! So, while Dr. Ware-Cieters jeopardises her safety merely by speaking out about dog abuse/fighting, we have Government officials too busy to work on real-life issues because they are either: Busy drinking champagne and entertaining; Globe trotting with Gombeys; Importing large luxury cars for themselves; Passing the all-critical vanity plates law because they believe it will raise the self-esteem of Bermudians; Demanding that non-Bermudians give Government multi-million dollar homes to work and play in; and To add insult to an already injured population, we have a Minister of the Environment who thinks that a photo op with a Mastiff will make the problem go away! Dr. Ware-Cieters is indeed on the side of these abused dogs. Until this Government and its Minister of Environment enact laws that make animal abuse a serious crime with appropriate consequences, the abused will continue to be abused, and Dr. Ware-Cieters and other veterinarians have much to fear if they identify the abusers, as does each and every one of us.

MARIA M. ZAYATZ Hamilton Parish No always means no August 21, 2000 Dear Sir, The Women's Resource Centre would like to take this opportunity of recent events to speak to the issue known as `acquaintance rape'. Acquaintance rape is rape (legally known as sexual assault) by a perpetrator known to the victim i.e. neighbour, friend, co-worker etc.

The Centre sees several clients per year who are suffering from the trauma of having been raped by someone they know. Some do not seek help until several years after the attack. Many have not reported the crime to the Police, and most do not pursue legal prosecution of the offender. The primary reasons for this are shame, and the tendency of victims to blame themselves for the attack.

They second-guess the decisions they made at the time, and somehow feel that if perhaps they had done something differently, the assault could have been prevented. The problem with viewing the situation this way however, is that it takes the onus of responsibility for the crime off of the perpetrator and places it on the victim. Who would expect someone they know to hurt them? Why would you think that a person you're acquainted with would rape you? How are you to know this? In order to protect themselves women should not send mixed messages. The `no-yes' is employed when a woman wants to protect her reputation, when sex advances before she has had the opportunity to decide whether she wants it or not, or when she knows she doesn't want to have sex, but she's afraid to say no.

Women sabotage sexual clarity by allowing a situation to advance before deciding what they want. A woman might be mulling over the pros and cons of sex while continuing to return touch and kisses. The decision of whether or not to have sex cannot be made while clothes are being removed. It is difficult for a man to honour a woman's feelings when she herself doesn't honour them.

Likewise men have to realise that seduction is NOT making somebody do something they don't want to do. If you start with the concept of changing someone's mind how do you know you have changed it? If a woman says three times in as clear a language as she can that she doesn't want to have sex, and each time the man responds with another approach, another `method' of seducing her where is the space for choice? All sex should be the result of a `yes-yes' and that the `no-no' and `no-yes' are the expected reaction to a males seductive demonstration that he has not space for the joyous sexually expressive woman.

The responsibility falls on the seducer -- male or female -- to get spoken consent from the seductee.

The Women`s Resource Centre would like to reiterate and reinforce for the public that no matter WHAT, no-one has the right to rape you. Rape is a crime committed by a perpetrator on a victim. Don't be afraid to go to the Police.

It is only the courage of those victims who come forward, that society will begin to acknowledge and thus confront this crime.

PENNY DILL Chairman The Women's Resurce Centre Taxes and representation August 22, 2000 Dear Sir, The recent Green Paper on Long-Term Residents does not mention that stirring axiom of democracy, made famous in an obscure revolution close to Bermuda, namely "no taxation without representation''. About a quarter of Bermuda's working population pays more than its fair share of taxes, makes few claims on the public treasury, has contributed significantly to the prosperity of Bermuda but is denied the right to vote. This is clearly undemocratic, unjust, and seems to be at odds with the PLP's much-touted support of the underdog, its commitment to international standards of human rights, and its support of the United Nations and related organisations.

Those who have been resident in Bermuda for ten years or more should be given the franchise as well as the right to call Bermuda home. Anything else is immoral and undemocratic. I would have thought a party founded on human rights would have seized this opportunity to be consistent with its principles, rather than produce a grudging report which says nothing more than something should be done about "the problem''.

Those who have been resident in Bermuda for ten years or more should be given the franchise as well as the right to call Bermuda home. Anything else is immortal and undemocratic. I would have thought a party founded on human rights would have seized this opportunity to be consistent with its principles, rather than produce a grudging report which says nothing more than something should be done about "the problem''.

ROBERT STEWART Flatts