Please allow me a little space in your newspaper to voice my concern on a serious matter that has me very upset over Government's stand to do away with the second primary one class that is currently in place at the St. George's Preparatory School.

I have one grandchild already attending the school and another will be attending in September, 2000. In three years I'll have another grandchild that will be five years of age. My question to Government is, will this child have to go to a school that is not of our choice or will she have to be bused out of area to attend a school? This is something that our Government will have to be accounted for. Why would anyone want to fix something if it is not broken, you have parents here in St. George's that attended St. George Prep, and their child did not get in the school and they only live five minutes away.

Why would Government give the school a two-stream primary one, and then the following year take it away? It makes no sense to me. If the Government's stand is to make the school a one stream and only take 15 children in September 2000 than in 2006 there will only be 90 children in the school.

Anyone that can add one and one can clearly see that 15 times 6 will equal 90, so where will we be then? Close the doors to the school? I don't think so, we will fight to the bitter end unless Government steps back and leaves the school with the two-stream class that it has. My grandchildren and every child in St. George's had the right to a good education and where we feel best that they will get it. These children are our future and yours, they will someday be the future voters in the St. George's area. Please do not let our children down, not now, not ever.

ROSEANN SMITH St. George's Rejected recruit speaks March 22, 2000 Dear Sir, Today, in The Royal Gazette , Sgt. Michael Jackman stated: "If someone makes a decision to lower the standard, then there could be a liability issue if someone suffers a heart attack on the job. Or should you keep the standard as it is set now?'' First of all, none of the older applicants are suggesting that the Police Service lower their standards for the training, only lower the physical requirements to enter the class. Just as there are no guarantees that someone aged 25, who passed the physical test with flying colours, but was marginal on the written test will graduate. In all fairness, with 16 weeks of training, one would expect some level of improvement from that recruit, as one would from the older recruit who was marginal on the physical test.

The Police spokesperson said: "the Bermuda Police Service has set a standard for physical fitness to ensure the general health and safety of the Service, as well as the personal health and safety of the officers.'' The spokesperson went on to say, "there is the issue of liability. We cannot require an officer to do what he is physically unable to perform.'' My response to the issue of physical conditioning and heart attack, is that all applicants must undergo a physical examination, including: having your heart checked, cholesterol and blood work, plus answer questions regarding your family medical history. While I can appreciate the statement, "We cannot require an officer to do what he is physically unable to perform'', one need only look at some of the officers on the street, and wonder which ones may be a future candidate for heart attack.

Based on physical appearances and what appears to be a lack of physical fitness, one wonders: If physical fitness is a priority in recruitment and training, why doesn't it appear that physical training is not a requirement after becoming a full time police officer? However I would like to stress that when I questioned who would be more effective in restraining a suspect -- a 210 pound male or a 110 pound female I didn't mean to disparage the role that female officers play. They are often very useful in calming down situations but I was just saying they might not be able to handle violent men who were drunk or high.

Finally, I did not in any way expect special treatment from the Service, nor did I at anytime indicate that I expected preferential consideration. I am an American married to a Bermudian, and was told that as a spouse I would be granted the same rights and privileges as any other local applicant.

I would like to thank my family and friends, friends on the Police Service, the staff and management from Caesar's Pharmacy, Somerset Pharmacy, Mangrove Bay Post Office, Triminghams' in Somerset, English Sport Shop in Somerset, Boyle's in Somerset, friends from The Bank of Bermuda, and friends from Marine and Ports in Dockyard, for supporting me in my pursuit of a career with the Bermuda Police Service. Sorry it didn't work out! Rejected Recruit.

GARY W. HUNTER Sandys Parish Tinted windows help March 20, 2000 Dear Sir, I was recently warned about the window tint on my car from a Police officer.

This brought up the question of why we even have a law concerning something as harmless as window tint in the first place. I can think of several good reasons for window tint and only one against it.

1. Tinting your windows help protect your interior from the harmful rays of the sun.

2. It keeps your car cooler. This is true especially in the summer. Those of you with air conditioning will use less gas cooling down the interior of your car. This one fact should hit home with most people in light of the gasoline price hike of late. Not to mention the combined effect of everyone using less gas, through this means, helps to contribute to the reduction of air pollution (Now there's something we should think about cracking down on!) 3. Helps to secure your car. The phrase "Out of Sight, out of mind'' rings true here. The best way to tempt a thief is to make something visible for him/her to pilfer. Window tint helps to keep things concealed in your car, plain and simple.

4. As we live in a warm climate, the rising or setting sun on our road trips has blinded us all. Much the same way as eye shades help you see outside, window tint does the same thing.

The only reason (which is covered by reason three above) against window tint that I can think of, is that people can't see inside the car. This, to me, does not constitute a valid reason for this law. From what I understand many Police officers were in violation of this law themselves.

Surely if the people who are charged with upholding the law see it fit to break this law, then it really does not harm anyone. I would also like to add in that I paid good money for my vehicle and I should have the right to have it looking however I want it to.

It's not harming anyone, it is safe to drive, and I pay my taxes like everyone else to use the roads. I'm not the only one who feels this way either. In closing I would suggest lobbying to the Ministry of Transportation, TCD or any other government department that could assist in wiping this ridiculous "law'' from the books. Surely our police have better things to do than spot check on window tints, and I'll bet most of them would agree with me as well! POINT Pembroke