left out yesterday. The paragraph should have read: "These services should be placed under the direct command of the Premier's Chief of Staff. This would validate the title as he would then have some staff of which to be Chief. It would also place all the services under the dircet control of the Premier and Cabinet, thereby improving efficiency (re: that Scissorman initiative). This would now leave the Governor with nothing to do but sign legislation, however, given that there is the chance that he might actually refuse to sign a piece of legislation, thereby frustrating the Government's agenda, such power should be removed.'' Farmer has burger idea August 10, 1999 Dear Sir, I have been in the beef business for a couple of years now but I don't seem to be appreciated enough where I am here in England, and it seems as though I have not been serving the right kind of food to the right people. At least that's what my wife Cookie says about it. So anyway, we were looking at an atlas the other day and saw the small speck of Bermuda all on its very own in the middle of the Atlantic and we got to wondering if you get any decent hamburgers out there. You probably just eat a lot of fish and onions, we thought.

Anyway, after the recent beef scare here in England, all that rubbish about British beef not being good enough for French people and Europeans in general, well I still have some herds left over that would make superb hamburgers. Any chance my wife Cookie and I could start a hamburger franchise going where you are? It could be a big conversation piece.

FARMER BUCKS Buckinghamshire, England Why not fire all non-PLP August 20, 1999 Dear Sir, I have been thinking about the comments expressed by Senator Hon. Milton Scott recently, regarding the Independent Senators and how frustrating they have been to the Government's Agenda.

First, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that anyone should be allowed to "frustrate'' a member of the new Government, particularly a Cabinet Minister.

Putting a Cabinet Minister under such stress is distracting and prevents them from getting on with the "people's business'' and enjoying the perks of the job. Legislation should be drafted banning such behaviour.

Now, Minister Scott's suggestion to replace the current Independent Senators is, in my view, short sighted as it still leaves so many frustrating steps in the process of Government. Therefore, I have a few suggestions for the new Government, which would allow them to govern without such frustration. The steps that follow are progressive starting from the current, very frustrating system to one that is virtually frustration free.

As a start, I say get rid of the Independent Senators altogether. If the requirement is that they always vote with the Government, it would be a waste of money having them. This would fit in well with the Premier's programme to appoint a "Scissorman'' to root out and eliminate all forms of Government inefficiency. I am not sure where this initiative is, but it is possible that there is a civil servant who is frustrating progress here.

I would then suggest getting rid of the UBP Senators as there are only three of them and without the Independent Senators, they can have no effect at all.

Furthermore, Senators Burgess, Swan and Pettingil have been far too vocal and are surely an annoyance to the Government Members in the Senate. So be gone with them. Alternatively, the Opposition Leader could be forced to seek the approval of the Premier for those persons she wishes to appoint to the Senate, but elimination would seem to be the most effective route to take here. Why force another decision on the Premier? She is already finding it difficult to find time to communicate with the people.

Now this will sort out the Senate and assist Minister Scott in his efforts to have an easy life. It would be foolish to get rid of the Government members in the Senate as the Premier needs a pool of people from which to select Cabinet Ministers as the current 14 Government backbenchers would appear to be incapable of holding such position. On to the House.

The House of Assembly must also be frustrating for the Government, as the 14 UBP members have also become far too critical of the new Government and must be silenced. Having such opposition in the House is definitely a flaw in our system. Plans should be formulated immediately to eliminate such annoying detractors. It must be frustrating to have them raise questions on behalf of the 45% of the population they represent. It must certainly be frustrating to have to explain where money will be spent and about the excessive travel bills. In any case, who do they think they are, the PLP is the Government and they have the right to travel.

With regard to the Government back bench, surely, it is frustrating for Cabinet Ministers to have to justify proposed legislation and programmes to their Caucus for approval and support. This is certainly a problem that must be addressed and my suggestion is that we move to twelve single seat constituencies, thereby allowing the Cabinet to run the Country without such a frustrating process. Also, it seems that when backbenchers disagree with something, they leave the House before the vote, so why have them there in the first place.

Of course, there are other positions within the system, which could prove to be frustrating going forward, thereby preventing the Government from getting on with its agenda. The Police Commissioner, Regiment Commander and Fire Chief should all be removed. These services should all be placed under the direct command of the Premier's Chief of Staff. This would now leave the chance that he might actually refuse to sign a piece of legislation, thereby frustrating the Government's agenda, such power should be removed.

Now Mr. Editor, there is one more process that will have to be addressed before the Government's agenda can be free of frustration. Nothing can frustrate a Government's agenda more than a General Election, particularly if the Government were to lose. This democracy thing should cease immediately, thereby freeing the Cabinet to get on with the "people's business.'' In any case, it seems that there is a change in Government only once every thirty years and given that there are some that feel that the PLP were elected for life, why bother with such a frustrating process.

So there you have it, Minister Scott, a frustration- free Government process.

Alternatively, you may wish take the view of your Cabinet colleagues, Ms. Cox, that the recent vote in the Senate was democracy in action.

RONALD VIERA (JR) Devonshire P.S. Could you please tell us the page number in the PLP Platform, which mentions the limousine issue? What about democracy? August 23, 1999 Dear Sir, The review and amending of legislation by an upper house of the legislature is a centuries old and essential part of the "checks and balances'' of the British bicameral parliamentary system which was emulated by the United States, albeit in a slightly different form.

That the Government Leader in the Senate, no less, fails to comprehend this fundamental tenet of parliamentary democracy would lead -- in the real world -- to his party leader requesting his apology or resignation and -- in a perfect world -- the face missing from the Senate at the next parliamentary session would be his own.

OMBUDSMAN City of Hamilton Scott should apologise August 20, 1999 Dear Sir, It was with a certain degree of trepidation that I read your lead article in Wednesday's paper concerning Senator Milton Scott. I have known the Senator and his siblings for a number of years and always respected his common sense and oratory.

Bermuda, thank God is still a democracy and not a dictatorship. We are an enlightened people living in the Western Hemisphere not the unfortunate, underprivileged elsewhere. His most recent outburst at the close of the Senate stating "They should get the hell out of the chamber and shouldn't be playing footsie with each other frustrating the people's business is alarming to say the least. My respect is beginning to wane. Perhaps the stress of his recent appointment is too overwhelming. Senator Scott needs to remember to listen and learn; he was appointed by the Premier, not elected by the people, and in fact has lost every election he has contested whilst running against the UBP.

I respectfully suggest that the Senator make a public apology to the Independents he has rebuked and moderate his thoughts and ideas.

AN INDEPENDENT MIND Smith's Parish