Recently in Crime Category

A reader extends the Parental Responsibility legislation to the political arena:

Statutory provision will be made to make the voters civilly liable for the actions of their Ministers in circumstances where the voters have failed to exercise reasonable care, supervision, protection and control towards their Ministers when it is found to be a contributing factor to the offences committed by the Ministers.

The annual Regimental stories begin this week with boot camp, but this caught my attention:

"There are individuals who come here in gangs or people who just don't see eye to eye in the civilian world.

...and then three sentences later:

During those 13 days, the recruits will be trained in drill, firearms and survival skills.

Are we sure this is a good idea?

Add two new members to the media conspiracy against the PLP. This time it's gone global, with New York's (liberal) Village Voice, Post, Gothamist and Cityfile gaining new member status for reporting on Mayor Bloomberg's offer of the NYPD to help Bermuda.

Over to the PLP for your daily laugh as Vexed points out:

While the media may prefer to focus on manufactured "controversies," the PLP Government will continue to focus like a laser beam on combating the crime crisis.

Like a laser beam? And the controversy is in the US not Bermuda.

The PLP like to lecture the local press about being careful what they print because news travels overseas thanks to Al Gore inventing George Bush's Internets; but of course it was they who ran out to crow about the outgoing Premier's 'friend' Mr. Bloomberg offering support for Bermuda out of his concern 'as a Bermuda resident'.

I'm sure Mr. Bloomberg and other friends of Bermuda will think twice after Minister Burch and the outgoing Premier thanked him for his offer by racing to the press to rehab some credibility on the back of the Premier's billionaire 'friend' by teeing him up for a beating in the NY press, who already love to slap him around for his Bermuda affiliation.

Next time I'm sure the phone call will end with a 'I know you want to boast that I'm your friend, but please be discreet. Our press actually are tough on us. Unlike yours."

I should say, after my last post, that I don't see the need to cut the PLP any slack on the crime issue for a number of reasons.

Setting aside my belief that the lawlessness and culture of silence stems in part from an anything goes political culture with its own code of silence, primarily I have not forgotten the way the topic of crime was treated during the election by the PLP.

They chose to engage the UBP on this core issue in a deeply irresponsible way, vilifying their proposals to crack down on an obviously escalating crime problem as 'draconian'; likening the UBP to 'neo-fascists'; the 'they want to lock us all up' comment from now Senator Bean; last minute 'renovations' of the St. George's Police Stations, all wrapped up in the Premier's speech on the eve of the election.

It was the most extreme kind of short term electioneering at any cost.

It struck me at the time as shockingly shallow, opportunistic and dangerous. Today, I find that to be even more apparent, as evidenced by the post election amnesia of everything they'd argued with a sudden turn around with talk of curfews, 'drawing lines in the sand' and 'we have had enough' speeches; although you get the sense they really are just throwing anything at the problem to see what sticks.

That is because the Government is playing catch up, rather than getting in front of a problem and stopping things escalating (not unique to crime). That was what the UBP's proposals on preventative detention and three strikes laws were about: taking known individuals off the street in the short term to stop a cycle of revenge. We could use that ability now in the tit for tat gun war which is raging. It was about removing prolific repeat offenders from society, not permanently, but for an extended period to give some room to breathe and focus on rehabilitation and prevention.

These ideas were not ideal, but they demonstrated a realism, a recognition of where things were heading, and showed a seriousness of purpose that was glaringly absent on the PLP's side. They were legitimate proposals worthy of genuine debate, rather than ridicule, vitriol and scare-mongering. They weren't all or nothing ideas, but a starting point for reversing a worrying trend.

We're paying the price for this lack of seriousness now. It felt to me at the time, and still does today, that the PLP sent a message - intentionally or not - during the campaign that violent criminals didn't have to worry too much. It seems to me that the PLP was campaigning for that vote, and that of those who knew what was going on but were looking away, those who Ceola Wilson today describes as providing consent through silence.

I understand some will find that suggestion inflammatory, but what else was the message behind the "criminal offenders we are talking about with these laws are our children, our nieces, nephews, and cousins" comment on the eve of the polls opening?

The consequence of this is that we've lost two years of time to the gangs who ramped up while Cabinet fiddled. This was exacerbated by the Premier and Minister Burch's strategic choice to focus on crime as a wedge issue to manufacture a case for independence while the machetes were being exchanged for guns.

So I'll admit to not having much time for the PLP on the issue of crime (and the economy - another area they've ignored many warnings over many years), and am somewhat cranky every time I hear Minister Burch, or the outgoing Premier, give another speech about getting all draconian on criminals 2 years after they savaged the UBP for wanting to confront the problem head on.

Maybe my tone is a bit harsh, but that's where it comes from.

When comments from the outgoing Premier generate headlines like this - Bermuda leader says island safe for tourists - people will obviously read that as the exact opposite.

Cue the old Nixon "I am not a crook" quote. Come to think of it, our Premier has one of those too: "I'm no coward."

When you've got to make a statement like that it's game over. The target audience for this is presumably whatever few hotel developers and investors are still in the mix and getting ready to cut bait. I still think you don't go out and say this. You act and demonstrate this as true rather than try and press release your way out of a problem.

Dunkley's right. It's the old No Bad News Brown routine again; he keeps a very low profile while problems escalate around him. Brown cuts the ribbons. Ministers deal with the flak.

Now that the outgoing Premier has lost in trying to make the Governor the issue rather than crime and violence, he quickly becomes disinterested. I'm convinced that a fundamental problem in the PLP as a governing party is that they are far more interested in the politics of issues than the policy. The UBP are the complete other extreme.

We're way past that now though. It's policy time. Minister Burch is belatedly getting with the program and Mayor Bloomberg's offer is very helpful I'm sure.

With the shooting war going on across the island, the Police have all that they can deal with.

While technically within their remit, it is unconscionable that Police resources are being wasted looking for someone who leaked a benign Cabinet memo.

Get a grip.

In response to the islandwide shooting gallery of the past couple of days Mr. Burch said the following:

The fact is that we are fast becoming an Island known for its lawlessness, instead of a Country known for its pink sand beaches and international business prowess. This is not a reputation to be proud of.

I agree.

But here's the thing: we were known for this before the shootings began, we were becoming known for this because of our political leadership.

It starts at the top.

• The Premier threatened to physically assault a member of the Opposition in Parliament several years ago
• The Premier secretly made a deal he did not have the legal authority to make with the US to bring the 4 Uighurs here
• The Government, while decrying gang turf wars, has been reveling in their own turf war with the Governor over control of the Police
• The Auditor General was forceably and without warning moved out of his office space by Minister Burch several years ago and dumped into smaller quarters for doing his job.
• The election campaign of 2007 took on the tone of a gang war with the PLP declaring that the Opposition leader was a drug dealer and wanted to 'flog' and 'lynch' black Bermudians.
• Contracts go out untendered and run massively overbudget without explanation or anyone held accountable
• Government alleged that the Auditor General was a racist for qualifying an audit opinion, and challenging the Berkeley overspends and construction bond (which history has proven he was entirely correct on)
• The Bermuda Cement Company was all but stolen out from its shareholders and handed to a Government crony
• The political broadcasting regulations were disregarded during the election campaign by the PLP's radio station

I can go on but I'm tired of being outraged.

The tone, the culture of lawlessness, the attitude that no-one should be accountable for their actions comes from the top. The very top of our political leadership. I'm not surprised other segments of the community are acting out and emulating this behaviour, albeit in a violent manner.

Until we start seeing some improvement at the top, we're not going to see any further down the chain. This didn't start overnight and it won't end overnight. This isn't just about policing. It's about an erosion of values and an anything goes culture.

Mr. Burch is right. But he needs to get his own party's house in order too.

Rules matter. Laws matter. Accountability matters. Process matters. It all starts there. At the top. The very top.

12 months ago you could never have convinced me that in 2009 we'd have more shootings (14+) than road fatalities (12).

Never. The escalation in gun crime is shocking.

In my previous post I said that Government is playing politics with the police. Right on cue the Premier, after issuing a joint statement with the Governor, comes out with his own and re-politicises things.

Dr. Brown said: "While we've taken action to address the crime issue, we are not yet satisfied and are calling for more reforms. Unfortunately, despite being in government, we are hamstrung in our abilities to act. In spite of the fact that the Bermudian taxpayer pays for our police service, an unelected Governor has full control over operational policing.

"We have repeatedly called for reform in operational policing strategies. Specifically, we are calling for a greater police presence in known hot spots. We are calling for greater community policing to build trust between the people and the police. And, we are calling for international experts to be brought in to help train our police in best practices for reducing gang violence.

"The people of Bermuda expect results. They're going to hold the people they elected accountable. Bermudians are rightfully outraged by the recent violence and are demanding action. We are taking action. We are pleading with Government House to adopt new operational policing strategies. And, we are making the case that those who pay the operational policing bill should have a say over operational policing strategies. We are making the case at the Overseas Territories Consultative Committee while we are in London. We believe that policing in Bermuda must be reformed, not more of the same.

It is clear that the Premier is more interested in the argument than the issue.

As the UBP, the Governor, Larry Burchall and others have pointed out, the Governor doesn't have operational control of the Police; the Commissioner and his Assistants do

That is the way it is and should be.

So this appeal, this 'plea' for operation control, is either disingenuous or demonstrates a willful ignorance of good governance.

The conspiracy theorists claim Government wants operation control to block investigations of themselves. I don't share that view. As I said earlier, Dr. Brown likes the politics of this argument.

I'm convinced that the issue of the Police is simply a convenient way to:

a) breathe life into the dead independence issue by trying to fabricate antagonism towards the UK;
b) draw the UK/Governor into a more active governing role to create the impression that we are under a colonial thumb and that the elected Government is powerless;
c) deflect responsibility for the escalation in crime during the PLP's tenure

The simple truth is that Bermuda has been self-governing in every material respect for decades; and modern democracies have separations between operational policing and politicians.

No amount of political brinkmanship can change that.

There is an ongoing campaign by the Government to try and increase the day to day role of the UK as a means to emphasize colonialism. The hope being that they can start chipping into the huge opposition to independence, issue by issue.

Present our status as a colony as an impediment to managing the island, rather than a neutral factor or even an asset, and hope that over time you can change hearts and minds.

I don't see it happening. But what I do see is a lot of issues getting worse rapidly while Dr. Brown revels in the politics and neglects the policy.

In fact, if the Governor is to blame for not letting the Police get all "draconian" on criminals, then the PLP should be supporting him. After all that was the crux of their election campaign.

This will continue to worsen. Not because the Police need to be told how to do operational policing by politicians, but because the Government are obsessed with using the Police as a pawn in an outdated dogmatic political argument that the overwhelming number of Bermudians are on the other side of.

Amid all the comment on the apparent free fire zone that has spread across the island, Dale Butler was quoted as saying the following in response to the latest shooting:

Government MP Dale Butler said he is still trying to digest what happened: "When there is little or no discipline and basic values and institutions are ignored, you reap what you sow."

That applies to the way the island is governed as well. The lack of (fiscal) discipline and basic values (truth) and institutions being ignored (or in the case of the Auditor outright attacked) from our politicians shouldn't be ignored either.

This has a trickle down effect. The tone has been set at the highest levels.

Bermuda's criminals are not dumb. They know that the Government are playing politics with the Police rather than supporting them, and they'll take advantage of a lack of political will to crack down.

They surely noticed during the election campaign that the incumbent party declared that getting tough on crime was "draconian".

Message received. You reap what you sow.

Here's the email I mentioned earlier that looks at what the sudden political escalation in anti-crime measures might mean on a macro level.

I'm going to follow up with some thoughts of my own, as sometimes running this blog I get caught in the day to day movements rather than stepping back and pondering the bigger picture.

Look at the language in the Premier's speech on crime the other day.

"Last night I convened a special session of the Cabinet and there was only one-item on the agenda – ending the anti-social behavior among young people that is threatening our country’s very way of life."

Yes, violent crime has increased, and yes, it's a problem that needs to be addressed, but I wouldn't say that it's something that is "threatening our country's very way of life" (and I say that as someone in the law-enforcement field, who has first-hand experience with these issues). For me, this kind of hyperbole is uncomfortably reminiscent of how George Bush talks about the "War on Terror" - hyping-up a legitimate but compartmentalized problem into an all-encompassing existential threat, all so the government can have an excuse to become more draconian and centralized.

That's why, although I unreservedly support the Premier's suggestions regarding improving our social programmes, I feel wary of the Premier's comments about the Police. We've known for ages that this government is looking for a way to take over all Bermuda's armed forces, namely the Regiment and the Police. Of course, this wouldn't be problematic in the case of a government with a track record of respecting the rule-of-law, but it is problematic when the government has shown itself willing to pressure the (supposedly independent) Police Service into protecting the government's political interests, as it did when the Auditor General was arrested.

My concern here is that this government - which has shown itself enamoured of Republican-style tactics both during and after the most recent election - will continue to follow the Republican playbook to its logical conclusion, and will use a threat against the community as an excuse to get tough not just on criminal threats but also on political threats. I wouldn't be surprised if, over the next while, we see the Police force get better armed, then, after some terrible shootout or some failure to reduce violent crime, we hear the government passionately insist that these problems are all the result of the Police not falling under the government's direct control. Then we'll be told that only our own government is capable of keeping us safe, and the independence talk will kick in under the guise of domestic security concerns. And then, with independence, we'll not only have a government that thinks only in terms of politics and not in terms of governance, but one that now has an entire Police Service and Regiment at its beck and call. And then it'll be more than Larry Dennis who'll have to watch their back if they dare to expose things that the government wants to hide.

Maybe it sounds paranoid, but that scenario is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Anyway, a citizenry paranoid about its ruling class is a healthy citizenry - the foundations of western democracy dictate that its the people that keep the government in check, and not the other way around. Look what happened in the US - because of the "War on Terror", the American citizenry forgot to fear its government's intentions, and now corruption has become institutionalized. That's a big worry, considering how much our Premier loves copying the tactics of American Republicans like George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove.

This morning's VSB radio news had a real gem in it from Court Reporter and PLP MP Ashfield DeVent.

Mr. DeVent read (as only he can) a court report on a case where a man gave police a false identity after a traffic stop, only to then find that the individual whose identity he had assumed was the proud owner of a number of outstanding warrants.

The judge fined the man $400 or thereabouts for attempting to 'pervert the course of justice' (seems small) and then another $200 or so fine for the traffic offence.

So that's the setup.

Mr. DeVent ended his report with the following quote:

"The moral of the story: Before you give a false name to the police, know if the law is looking for them."

Yes, you read that right.

For Mr. DeVent the moral of the story wasn't to tell the truth to the Police, but to be make sure that when you lie about your identity you pick someone without outstanding warrants?

I'm not making it up. A classic.

I have a couple of reader emails to post on the latest 'anti-crime' moves. The first, which follows below, focuses on specifics. The other, which I'll post later, puts the bigger picture together in a way that I think is quite shrewd and accurate:

The Premier's anti-crime measures announced today were as much intriguing for what it contained as what was left out. There was little "creativity," meagre traces of originality and a dose of "he said what?" Let's break down the measures he announced:

1. Increase Police presence.
#1 on every politican's anti-crime plan. We've heard this before.
2. Legal review.
Sounds interesting but didn't former Attorney General Larry Mussenden complete a review and implement new laws?
3. "Clergy against crime"
No disrespect to the clergy, but if you've attended church at all in the past 20 years you can guess what they'll say. Nice to have a mention, but nothing novel will be heard here.
4. Amnesty.
Been there, done that.
5. School intervention.
Nothing new here. Teachers, counsellors, Police, social workers, probation officers are on this beat daily.
6. S.W.A.T. (Special Weapons and Tactics).
He said what? More on this below.
7. Review of the Department of Child and Family Services.
When the crime tide is working against you, every politican's favourite past-time is to launch a review and somehow insinuate that maybe those civil servants just aren't getting it right.
8. Improve parenting skills.
On everyone's New Year's list.
9. Parental responsibility laws.
Interesting. Probably cross-Party support for this.
10. Mirrors programme.
No problem with that although I think the Mirrors message lacks clarity and reflects Government bureacracy.

But Premier, I have a few questions.

Where was the Commissioner today? Why wasn't he there as a sign of solidarity and support?

Why no mention of sweeping anti-crime legislation? Legislation that leaves criminals in no doubt that crime involving weapons, firearms, violence and drugs will result in substantial prison time.

Why was there no mention of the Black Male study? By no means am I suggesting that blacks have an exclusivity on crime but the links between disadvantaged black males and crime is clear. Every voter sees it, feels it and knows it.

You want creativity? Get a recognised criminologist involved in developing strategies and solutions.

Now for the "He said what?" category. The reference to a new Bermuda Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) was puzzling. The Police already have the highly trained Emergency Response Team. The problem might be that these same very well equipped and firearms trained Police Officers who should be on the front line in any anti-crime tactics are the same ones providing armed escorts for the Premier. Seriously.

A reader writes on today's crime press conference, and points out that if we're increasing Police on the streets why wasn't there one present at today's announcement:

Did you notice the lack of police presence at that photo op? Wonder who forgot to invite the Police?

I'm also reliably informed that armed police have been on duty every night since December 2007 - ERT trained - aka 'SWAT'.

Breaking news, we're getting more American imports, this time a SWAT team to tackle violent crime. And in related news, the Premier says "We've had enough".

Where've you been? The Vineyard? Welcome back.

Here's my 3 point plan:

1) Pay the police what they were awarded.
2) Turn on the CCTV cameras.
3) Forget SWAT. (Don't we already have an Emergency Response Team anyway?).

As usual they're late to the party and respond with - if I may borrow a phrase from some of Senator Burch's pre-election attack the UBP's tough on crime plan language - "DRACONIAN" headline grabbing reactionary plan.

Start with the basics. Recruit good Police Officers. Pay them well. Offer them a rewarding career. Develop them well. Use the existing resources which are being developed rather than reinvent the wheel.

Sort out the judiciary. Toughen up sentencing.

Oh, and stop playing to people's fears during elections saying that the UBP are draconian, 'out to get you' and 'are neo-fascists who want to lock everyone up'. What does Senator "They're neo-fascists" Bean think?

We don't need armed street wars between police and gangs. This isn't South Central. We don't need another import from Los Angeles.

I'm all for getting tough with crime, but this feels like a typical horse has left the stable knee jerk response.

A reader had an immediate and interesting take on the development:

SWAT tactics? Is Ewart for real?

I'm flabbergasted. Floored.

Ewart Brown, respected member of the Black Power Movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s - which its members say still exists but "inside the beltway" - is advocating SWAT tactics?

SWAT was first formed by the Los Angeles Police Department in the late 1960s in response to the 1965 Watts riots and the formation in late 66 and early 67 of the Black Panther Party in Oakland.

We now know that the LAPD instigated riots in the 1940s, numerous brutality incidents in the 1950s and the Watts and Rodney King riots.

The man who first approved Special Weapons And Tactics units was none other than Daryl (Blacks' blood vessels don't open up as quickly as normal people so that's why they die in choke holds) Gates.

Ewart Brown lived in LA for a good 20 years. He knows all about LAPD. Will someone remind the public about the PLP attack advert last December in which the UBP was attacked for being "draconian"?

And what happened to SRT? What happened on Monday? Was SRT and other armed officer's performance not up to standard? How do we know? Was it that bad that within three days the Government wants something new? Is it really new thinking?

There's one important reason missing in the Gazette's article today about the lack of use of the Police's snazzy boat for drug interdiction etc.:

Police had researched the purchase of a new boat for four years and top brass had travelled several times to Australia before buying the 54-foot craft — which can travel 200 nautical miles out to sea.

But its effectiveness in drug interdiction has been questioned as it is a fixed-hull and cannot come alongside another fixed hull without risking sinking one or both craft. A small inflatable was then put on the boat but Police are reluctant to use it in rough seas typical further out to sea.

What about the safety of the officers?

There's no law 200 miles offshore. It's the wild west. Drug runners shoot first and ask questions later. Unless our officers are packing some serious weaponry, that is one dangerous game to play in the open ocean.

A former marine police officer who was a friend once explained that to me as a reason the previous vessel would never get involved in any serious offshore drug interdiction.

Don't forget that the US Coast Guard is an arm of the military, not the police. They have massive firepower on board to provide some muscle and military training for the crews.

A 200 foot Coast Guard Cutter with artillery approaching a vessel is a whole different kettle of fish than a little 54 foot boat with a handful of police officers a long way from home with no backup.

The idea of using Regiment soldiers for this also strikes me as a really, really REALLY bad idea from this perspective; these 'soldiers' would be totally out of their depth (pardon the pun).

Police Officer and blogger Allan Palmer, who helpfully pointed out the fudged crime statistics, to subsequently remove that post under pressure, and follow up that post about some internal pressure that was being applied, has today posted that he is on suspension:

By now the world should know that I am on suspension from the Bermuda Police Service, pending the outcome of an investigation which was initiated, after I posted the last article on this blog. That article was posted as a last minute ditch to abort a devious plans which was orchestrated and initiated for my demised [sic]. To ensure that my character and integrity was bring [sic] into disrepute. It was also in defense of my parent’s [sic] legacy. I will explain later.

As I said previously, PC Palmer was breaking new ground as a serving Police Officer with a blog, as officers are prohibited from speaking in the media (ie. interviews, Letters to the Editor etc.), and it appears this is now being tested with new media.

Recently, the Royal Gazette published an article on a new blog called Crushing Fools written by Police Officer P.C. Allan Palmer, and drew attention to some of the on point observations and analysis that his first few posts contained.

Well, one of his first posts (Let the Stats Speak to you), which pointed out that some classifications of crimes were omitted from the stats, has now been removed with a comment as follows:

This Post was removed for reasons that will not be discussed.

Hmmm. Strange that. Obviously some pressure was brought to bear. Evidently he was not PC enough.

P.C. Palmer walks a fine line, as Police Officers are restricted from speaking to the press, writing Letters to the Editor etc., so he's charting new territory with a blog.

But, for posterities sake, here is his original post in full (nothing is ever deleted from the internet):

Crime and Violence the Bermuda Story for 2005-2006

After addressing the community’s reluctance to cooperate with the police
to ensure that the environment in which they live continues to be
conducive for living, without the element of fear for one’s safety, the
safety of our families, friends and the protection of our properties; It
is fitting for me to review the crime statistic according to the Bermuda
Police Service (BPS) as is posted on the BPS very informative webpage
(http://www.bermudapoliceservice.bm/)

In analyzing the statistics I will attempt to not only reveal the
discoveries I made but I will also try to explain what some of the crimes
constitute in a very simple form. It is also my hope that the revelations
found here would only help to motivate concerned Bermudian into action and
enable a greater community consciousness. Thus will inspiring a greater
level of collaboration between the community and the police in keeping
this very small Island safe from the criminal that is waging war against
all who live and visit this Island that is synonymous with tranquility.

Although the page shows an overall decrease in the number of actual crimes
reported, (which is far different from the number of crimes committed) I
could not help but to notice there were some very important categories
missing from the stats sheet. The categories are as follows:

1. Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm;
Physical assault on an individual that leaves on the victim’s body any
swelling, discoloration and or abrasions/bruising;

2. Willful/Criminal Damage,

This is an offenec where an individual or group of individuals acts in
such a manner, they not having any lawful authority or reasonable excuse
damage any item (it matter not the value) but as long as that property
had/has an owner;

3. Drug related offensives such as possession, importation, etc.

These discoveries lead me to ask the question, would the exclusion of the
above categories of criminal offences in anyway change the statistics and
affect the general outcome of the crime rate? This is a question for you
to answer.

The discoveries:

Reported Theft:

There was a 24% rise in report of theft when compared to 2005 and 2006.
This means that there were 24% more victims who had been deprived of
enjoying the pleasures of the sweat of their brow. Their hard earned
monies and other personal possessions were taken from them by another
whose intention was/is to permanently deprive the owner of such.

Burglaries

Crimes of intrusion also saw a leap in 2006 when compared to 2005. Our
home, business premises and schools had become less safe, in that to
secure these premises was not enough to ensure there safety.

The increases were as follows:
. 11% increase in unlawful home invasion.
· 19% increase in unlawful school invasion.
· 73% increase in unlawful shop invasion.
· 47% increase in unlawful office invasion.
· 20% increase in unlawful unclassified premises invasion.

What does this mean to us as citizens who are the main stake holders of
this rock, residents who are only here in most cases at the pleasure of
their employees, and visitors who comes to enjoy the peace and stability
of this tranquil Island?

Assault Causing Grievous Bodily Harm

We have seen a 34% rise in assault offences that may have resulted in
possible broken bone and other injuries that may or could cause improper
function of one’s limbs or organs due to nerve damage etc.

Sexual Assault:

Crimes of sexual assaults are normally crimes that are committed against
females but not restricted to females. Another class of individuals who
are increasingly becoming victims of such crimes are children of both
genders. Bermuda has seen a 22% rise in such crimes for the period
2005-2006, and a 43% from 2004-2006.

Murder
The offence of Murder has seen an unprecedented rise of 50% every two
years. This can quickly become a frightening number.

These are serious times. I know most people may say we are not as bad as
some other jurisdiction, and that may be true. But the question to ask
yourself is this, are we as good as we use to be. It is extremely
important to note, that the prosperity of most country, state, Island etc.
is vastly dependant on the following:

Political stability
A low or a controllable crime rate
Infrastructural development
A trainable workforce

But there is nothing that can drive away investors and potential investors
like an environment that have become criminally unstable. The ball is in
your court. And you must play it with common sense and with intelligence.

In service to Humanity

Allan H.F Palmer

David Burch sounds rather, well, shall we say UBP-ish, or to put the PLP spin on it, "Draconian", in his comments on a crack down on crime.

Seems to me that he's saying he wants to 'lock us all up':

“As I stated only days ago, we have begun the process of transforming our approach to crime prevention to address this latest round of immediate challenges. We have declared an all out war against crime and criminals. And I am again putting criminals on notice that we will pursue them, apprehend them, and place them before the courts. In the coming days, weeks and months, residents will see tangible evidence that the Bermuda Police Service is unrelenting in their efforts to rid our society of crime.”

If someone in the UBP had said 'We have declared an all out war against crime and criminals. And I am again putting criminals on notice that we will pursue them, apprehend them, and place them before the courts' the PLP would have run a full page ad the next day saying 'UBP makes solemn promise to round up and execute black people'.

[Sigh]

Oh. Pardon me.

I forgot the campaign is over, hence the UBP's hardline stance can now be adopted by the party who spent 2 months vilifying them for getting tough on crime.

Neo-fascists.

The only person convicted in connection with corruption at the BHC, Terrance Smith, has had his conviction successfully overturned on appeal and will face a retrial.

Amazing.

A former police officer raises some interesting questions:

Whilst it is correct that the Commissioner of Police reports under the Constitution to the Governor (the whole separation of powers to prevent corruption & abuse thing), there is a whole lot this Government is NOT doing.

To illustrate this point, I pose the question to your readers “HOW DO ILLEGAL DRUGS AND GUNS ENTER BERMUDA?” There is not one industry professional that would dispute that they are coming through our Ports of Entry (docks, yachts, cruise ships, and planes). There is also very little doubt that guns and drugs are at the center of what is tearing this society apart (in addition to increasingly rampant corruption).

Who Controls Customs directly? The Collector of Customs reports directly to THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.

Have you been to any of our Ports of Entry recently and observed the part time staff manning critical posts at peak times, with nary a Customs Officer to be seen? What about the hired help in the form of Security Guards hired to man cruise ship terminals in the dead of night when the expert drug courier is just waking to offload his wares to local suppliers?

The Police cannot be everywhere. The Customs arena needs to take on more responsibility, and obtain more resources. They currently do not investigate anything other than minor Customs infractions. Anything more serious than illegal porn is farmed out to the Police to investigate – further preventing the Police from devoting resources to more pro active and intelligence led investigations (i.e. the Big Boys).

I’m sorry. The Government CAN, and should be doing a lot more. If this is a time for reflection on our societal woes, then some in Government should look in the mirror. THEY are part of the problem.

Security guards at cruise ship terminals?

A veteran Police Officer writes in [Ed. Note: links added]

Christian, excuse me but I need to rant..........

I am getting sick and tired of the ongoing nonsense which this Government and especially the Colonel spout in regards to the Police.

I am absolutely sick of the lying.

Its bad enough that they lie constantly about a new police station in Hamilton but now they want to (again) blame HE [The Governor] for police response times etc. The people of Bermuda are being fooled,. all of the operational stuff is governed by things that Govt can influence. i.e. funding for equipment (not enough cars for the new CAT patrol units, or the extra people in the station during the overlap created by the new shift system). They can only put more uniforms on the streets if they have cars to get there!

Adequate buildings (other than Southside) every one of them is patched together with duct tape and the biggest one of all...PAY. The people of Bermuda surely aren't aware that the police pay contract expired in Oct 2004. This is supposed to be a three year contract expiring in Oct 2007. They haven't even come to the table yet.

The only thing this govt has said is that they will consider more pay if the police give up their free health care and go onto basic GEHI. The only good thing they have going is the health care.

The pay is less than teachers without a 10 week paid holiday every year, shift work and personal violence YET the day they go out of contract they are on strike and get huge pay increases!! And that's after a review has said they are at fault for our children's education.

Why on earth would any Bermudian with any brains want to stay in the Police?? No wonder they are leaving in droves. It makes me sick to listen to how it is the Commissioner's fault or the Governors fault when the fault lies clearly at the feet of the Government.

Nuff said.

A legal reader writes in on the decision to abruptly end the corruption investigation:

Since we all know Ratneser's "decision" to not allow the Police to proceed againt the multiple politicians had NO basis in law, I ask you why is no one asking - indeed shouting for the case to be reviewed again by a Crown Prosecutor?

These are offences which are indictable, hence there is NO time limit for expiration, and since no trial yet either, no double jeopardy!

I say we get a second opinion other than Ratneser's dubious (at best) recommendations...

In light of today's story in the Mid Ocean News where a contractor alleges that antique Bermuda cedar beams were milled and used for finishes in Dr. Brown's home, I thought it worth actually backing up a second.

Surely the first step here is to establish whether the whereabout of the beams are known or not. Of course, one can conclude that this is not known or it would have been declared sooner, but someone in an official capacity needs to be on record.

If it is a given that the historic cedar beams - property of the people of Bermuda - are missing, then surely if the Premier wants to refer to the leaked Police Report as 'stolen' the beams are in fact also 'stolen'.

The closest that we have come to an official acknowledgment of the theft of the cedar beams is today's comment from the Mayor of St. Georges:

St. George’s Mayor Mariea Caisey yesterday declined to answer questions on whether or not the work was completed as planned. Asked whether the beams had been restored to the site she said: “I’m not touching that one with a ten-foot pole. It’s water under the bridge. The renovations were completed years ago.”

Or is it a 10 foot beam? Water under the bridge? Is that what we call thefts now? Ms. Caisey is the Mayor of St. George's. That comment is a dereliction of duty. Her job is to look out for St. Georgians and it's historic designation, which has been damaged by the loss of the antique beams - a piece of the heritage of St. George's.

The obvious questions then become, and surely the press have an obligation to ask these:

1) Can the Mayor and/or the Minister of Works & Engineering confirm the whereabouts of the antique cedar beams from the St. George's post office.

2) If the whereabouts are not known, do they consider them to be stolen?

3) If the whereabouts are not known, has an official complaint been made to the Police by the Corporation of St. George's and/or the Minister of Works & Engineering?

4) If the whereabouts are not known, and a complaint was not made, why not?

A reader writes on the 'stolen document' question:

It's interesting, this. There are really only two places on the table as places the documents could have come from - the Police and the Auditor General.

If they really were stolen, as the Police and the Government insist they were, then the auditor general must be off the hook, except if he failed to report the theft.

It might be unpleasant for the proud Police Service to think that they might have been leaked by one of their own (and this is no doubt the reason people are saying they were stolen). But how much more unpleasant is it to think these documents, subject of a special 'take care' notice from the Governor, might have been stolen from, presumably, the most secure place in Police HQ. That really is an assumption that says volumes about Police competence, isn't it?

The obvious absurdity of the witch-hunt and arrest of the Auditor General is....that the Police should be focusing first and foremost on themselves. Surely?

Mr. Dennis has always said he had copies...which I've come to the conclusion based on the input of my rapidly increasing cadre of legal advisers, cannot possibly be considered stolen property unless it is the original. And even then it's probably not more than a petty theft.

As one reader put it:

As regards the question you pose on this topic - there is NO Data Protection Act in Bermuda therefore the issue relates to the paper and ink alone.

So at worst the individual who has the original copies - if it hasn't been destroyed (or misplaced) can probably only be legally charged with stealing $20 worth of paper and ink. The confidential nature of the information printed on the paper appears to be something of little interest under the law.

Any other lawyer types disagree?

When you see the language of a scandal trying to be manipulated, then you know that it has legs, and manipulating language is indeed what is occurring with the Premier's press secretary, and the Premier himself within the oh so friendly confines of Hott 107.5 this morning, describing the BHC Police report as 'stolen' as opposed to leaked:

On Sunday Dr. Brown's press secretary Glenn Jones issued a media advisory saying the police files were not leaked, they were stolen.

Secondly, the Chief Justice himself during the Gag order proceedings cast doubt on whether the report had been 'stolen' or whether the Police just can't locate it:

12. By concentrating on the confidentiality of the information contained in the documents rather than the documents themselves, the amendment to some extent meets the difficulties which the plaintiff [Police] might face if they were unable to show that any documents were in fact stolen, rather than simply being copied and the copies removed.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly when you now have the accused trying to demonise the Auditor General for acting on documents which allege financial improprieties by public officials with the public purse (aka doing his job), the Auditor has always been open about the fact that he had copies of the report. Copies of the report, not the report apparently.

This raises a very interesting question: Can you even accuse someone in possession of copies of a 'stolen' document to be in possession of a stolen document?

My crack legal team have given me answers that range from "No, it is not a stolen document" to "almost certainly not" to "maybe some stolen toner and paper if it was copied at the Police station". (That doesn't mean you can keep copies of a confidential document, but whether you would be in possession of a stolen document if you possess a copy is far from settled.

As an example, if you possess a photo of a stolen article, are you in possession of a stolen article? The answer is clearly no. Now in the event of a document I think it probably gets a little messier, but the point is that firstly it is far from confirmed that the report is in fact 'stolen', by whom is also up in the air and the answer to whether a copy of a leaked document can in fact be considered one in the same seem seems to be "No".

Interesting legal questions for sure, but don't be fooled by the attempt to control the language during the cover up.

So the Auditor General can be arrested for further questioning and spend a night in jail but the Police were prevented from requesting an interview with Dr. Brown with respects to the BHC investigation?

I've spoken to a number of lawyers who have told me that the following statement by then Acting Director of Public Prosecutions is just plain wrong:

Before a person can be questioned by the police there must be reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has or may have been committed.

“On the evidence placed before me I see no criminal offence disclosed or suspected. Neither have the police been able to identify any suspected criminal offence. That being the case, the police have no authority in law to ask Dr. Brown to answer any questions at this stage and I advise accordingly.

Firstly, the Police notes as reported suggest that they suspected an offence may have been committed, hence their request for an interview. Secondly, isn't questioning people how you build a case? My very capable and experienced legal team have described those quotes as "complete crap". Apparently you can't arrest someone without a suspected offence, but you can certainly invite anyone for an interview as the investigators wanted to.

Of course if you are invited for questioning you're absolutely entitled not to participate, but to say that the Police cannot question anyone who is not suspected of a crime is apparently "utter nonsense".

One would think that with the sad spectacle of Bermuda accused murders, drug-dealers and gangster thug wanna-be's being cheered on their way into court, that if ever there was a time that this would be appropriate it would be now, for the leakers and/or the Auditor - if they are ever formally charged that is.

They should be applauded for their actions not targeted.

It is a sad day when 3 people who appear to have been attempting to protect the public interest have been arrested (including our Constitutionally designated financial watchdog) while those at the heart of the scandal continue to occupy positions of public trust.

A legal reader provides an interpretation of the libel suit this morning, which appeared to be all queued up pending rejection of the gag order:

It would, indeed, appear to be a ploy. There's no way these guys would pursue a libel suit. None. They have too much to lose if they do not succeed. Plus, there's the problem of the leaked documents themselves being entered into evidence during a libel trial, which would then entitle the media to publish them as accurate transcripts of evidence in legal proceedings. The judgment relating to Julian Hall's attempt to sue the Royal Gazette for publishing transcripts on tapes entered into evidence in the Ted Ming drugs trial is authority for this in Bermuda The bottom line is that they appear to be attempting to prevent the Court of Appeal from upholding Ground's ruling and removing the injunction. I would bet that they've done nothing more than file a Generally Indorsed Writ, claiming damages for libel, which is simply a two page document, most of it completely pro-forma, which contains no specific allegations, but just a general claim that the Plaintiffs have been libelled. It's five minutes' work. Literally. And they can issue it, sit on it for a year without serving it, and let the whole thing die away without ever being penalized in costs.

Any other lawyers? I've got a good article on the dangers of libel suits that I'll post shortly.

A reader writes:

On Julian Hall's article ... is the leak of Police communications/emails to Alex Scott (then a Shadow Minister) any less scurrilous than the leak of Police BHC documents to the press? Is the misappropriation of public funds not as heinous as racist remarks?

Spot on.

Nor is attacking un-named Police Officers as part of the KKK (are they even around anymore, other than in Dave Chappelle skits?). If we do have cops like that, let's have the Royal Commission look into that too. We don't need racist cops in the same way we don't need unethical politicians.

I'm waiting for the Attorney General to take Mr. Hall to task for bringing the legal system into disrepute, as he did Michael Dunkley for his Independent Commission request.

These sentences in his attack on Michael Dunkley seem appropriate in Mr. Hall's case:

I am offended and I expect hundreds of our country's police officers, prosecutors, and judges are likewise offended.

Together all of us are tasked to make sure the laws of our land are adhered to and that our democracy is protected.

It is a job carried out day after day and thanks is not required or expected, but brutal and insupportable criticism is also not expected - especially in a thoughtless political speech delivered by a politician who clearly does not recognize that the responsibility of policing lies with the Governor's Office.

I'm not holding my breath, but perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Two arrested last night in relation to the BHC Report leak investigation.

Here's a clue: They ain't white. They ain't white supremacists. They ain't UBP. Julian Hall - Mr. It's a White Supremacist Conspiracy - is about to look really silly.

A police officer writes in on the [phony] argument about control of the Police:

I watched with interest some of the arguments put forward by Minister Burch regarding ‘wrestling’ control of the Police from the Governor.

It was with interest because he noted that he did not think the Police were effective enough, he would do things differently, and some in Government have commented that they want more Police on the streets.

Well, you may be interested to know that the Commissioner put forward multiple requests for increases in the number of Police Officers and other significant areas of the Service.

EVERY single request for additional manpower for the current financial year was turned down by Cabinet. EVERY LAST ONE.

I guess that is what we could expect if Government ‘wrestle’ control of the Police into their hands.

The converse of that argument is the fact that in many ways they DO control the Police, and their effectiveness. This is ironic, because the fact that they control the purse strings as per above, is evidence of that.

The Royal Gazette is reporting that the Police appear to have lost the original documents comprising the BHC report. Very nice.

I was forwarded an email this morning, several times in fact, sent by someone claiming to be the leaker, as reported on ZBM news some nights ago. The email address is 'Son of the Soil' and it is clear that this document has been sent far and wide.

I have been advised not to re-publish it for legal reasons [the email has surfaced at Bermuda Sucks. You can read it here].

But I will say that as I said in the Gazette this morning, the BHC genie can't be put back in the bottle. Welcome to the internet age. Gag orders are useless.

[UPDATE: I originally posted the full email, but it was suggested to me by a lawyer that I not post it in it's entirety as it could invite a lawsuit, although other lawyers have told me that that is unlikely. So I removed the post while I ponder my options here. Judging by the frequency with which it has hit my various inboxes this morning, I can't see it staying quiet for long.]

[UPDATE 2: [the email has surfaced at Bermuda Sucks. You can read it here.]]

Candidate for most ridiculous political release ever is exhibit A from PLP.bm:

This week, Premier Ewart Brown and the PLP stood up for the best interests of Bermuda. When it became clear that someone leaked confidential documents to the media, the Premier and the PLP stood up for the rule of law. The Premier skillfully dealt with the situation. He didn't back down from his principles and he cordially came to an agreement with the Governor and Government House.

Give me a second while I compose myself. This one is just too ridiculous to not be intended as a complete joke. Surely.

Dr. Brown stood up for the rule of law? That's right after the police recommended further pursuing their fraud and official corruption investigation only to be questionably overruled by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Oh yeah, and the whole saga with the Governor and now a gag order was 'standing up for Bermuda' not trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

I believe the media injuction would be termed as an exercise in 'Covering Your Ass'. After the Premier was implicated in potential corrupt and arguably criminal behaviour they're spinning this as 'standing up for Bermuda'.

I'll agree that the Premier 'skillfully dealt with the situation' - if you consider head faking the press into covering the non-story of the confrontation with the Governor so he didn't have to answer the allegations themselves - which remain unaddressed and he now hopes to kill media coverage of.

And lastly, in one real classic of an example of Orwellian political doublespeak in one paragraph, the Premier 'cordially came to an agreement with the Governor and Government House'. Cordially? They really have no shame denying reality.

It gets worse though. Read the whole thing.

You see last week saw the UBP play political games (better than corrupt ones I suppose), and the UBP engaged in name-calling (gasp, versus allegedly lining themselves up for backhanders), and it was the UBP who escalated the issue (versus threatening to cut off relations with the Governor), and the UBP who will say anything to win an election (versus nothing to counter allegations of corruption).

And I'll hazard a guess that the quotes from John Barritt in the last paragraph are taken completely out of context.

My God. Tragedy or farce? I'm going with farce at this point. A tragedy is apparently what happens when a PLP MP is arrested and charged with official corruption and theft (versus an outrage I suppose).

PLP MP and former Cabinet Minister Nelson Bascome has reportedly (ZBM radio news: arrested at 8PM last night, bailed on two charges) been arrested.

UBP to make a televised broadcast tonight at 8PM on VSB, ZBM and ZFB at 8PM.

Don't worry, Oprah will still come on afterwards.

A police officer writes in on Dr. Brown's insecurities:

As a police officer I have assisted in securing convictions against murderers, rapists, drug dealers and many other types of crime.

I am regularly threatened and I go out into public with my family and children.

Do I feel I need personal protection? No, I don't. I wonder why Dr Brown feels he needs it more than any of us who are truly on the front line.

Aa reader with some familiarity with the criminal code sent this enticing tidbit in:

Interfering with political liberty

151 Any person who by violence, or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise of any political right by another person, is guilty of an offence, and is liable on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction to imprisonment for twelve months:

Provided that if the offender is a public officer and commits the offence in abuse of his authority, he is liable on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction to imprisonment for twelve months and on convic­tion on indictment to imprisonment for two years.

An reader in the know sends in a refresher on what constitutes official corruption under Bermuda's criminal code while suggesting some at the top could use a gentle reminder:

Official corruption

111 Any person—

(a) who, being employed in the public service, or being the holder of any public office and being charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of such employment or office (not being a duty touching the administration of justice) corruptly asks, receives, or obtains, or agrees, or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or for any other person on account of anything already done or omitted to be done, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done, by him in the discharge of the duties of his office; or

(b) who corruptly gives, confers, or procures, or promises or offers to give or confer or to procure or attempt to pro-cure, to, upon, or for, any person employed in the public service, or being the holder of any public office, or to, upon, or for, any other person, any property or benefit of any kind on account of any such act or omission on the part of the person so employed or holding such office, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

Minister for Drug Control Wayne Perinchief seems to have found something to do, re-raising the topic of de-criminilisation of marijuana.

This issue is one where I tend to be quite conservative (generally I'm more of a libertarian) but the idea of relaxing our drug laws makes me uncomfortable.

I'm familiar with all the arguments in favour of decriminalisation (many being hashed out at Limey in Bermuda today), but for some reason they just don't seem all that persuasive. I understand them, and intuitively they make sense to me, but I just can't get comfortable with the idea of decriminalisation.

I'm not sure why, but one reason is the slippery slope that will likely entail, combined with the not particularly uplifting image that persists of the impact marijuana use has had on some of those I grew up with. I keep hearing it's not addictive, but I'm not convinced based on what I see around.

This isn't a particularly insightful post either way on the topic I know, but I continue to struggle with the whole idea and am yet to hear a compelling argument to change the status quo.

A funny thing happened in Bermuda's courts yesterday. There was a guilty verdict in a high profile murder case.

Who'da thunk it?

I must confess to being more than a little bewildered over yesterday's policing changes. While George Jackson, a genuinely good guy who was my neighbour for many years in Prospect, was appointed Commissioner and Roseanda Jones Deputy, the Governor - presumably with the approval of the Government - went on to add a new position:

“I will be appointing a senior officer from the United Kingdom to fill this post, with responsibility for Crime, Narcotics and Intelligence and for providing support to senior officers, by way of mentoring and training, so as to ensure smooth succession planning in the Service.”

Can someone help me out here. If the new Assistant from the UK is responsible for crime, narcotics, intelligence, training and mentoring, just what will the Commissioner be responsible for? Isn't that about everything the police deal with? The only thing that it really excludes is traffic.

It may indeed be the right move for the reasons outlined at the end of the article, but if I was the new Commissioner I'd be wondering who's working for who and who's setting policy here.

After Alex Scott claimed again today that Government is hamstrung in dealing with drugs, crime and public safety due to the Governor's oversight of the Police, two must-answer questions for the Premier spring to mind:

1) Name one instance when the Governor of Commissioner have ignored a request for action regarding a law and order issue?

and

2) Define 'the following' in this statement: "I can't direct the Minister for Public Safety to direct the Police Commissioner to do the following because he answers to the Governor."?

Here you have it, from an interview in today's RG:

"We want to fight crime, drugs, and have a society that is safe for everyone. I can't direct the Minister for Public Safety to direct the Police Commissioner to do the following because he answers to the Governor. He responds to and respects the Minister but we don't control the chief cop in this community.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. More on this later.

"The Government stands solidly with the Police and will make available those resources that are required in order to guarantee the kind of safe and secure society that all of us have a right to expect."

Labour and Home Affairs Minister Randy Horton, 29 Dec. 2004

One Week Later

(Paraphrasing here) The inability to deal with crime and law and order lies with the Governor who is responsible for policing and internal security.

Premier Alex Scott, 06 Jan. 2005

So according to Alex Scott, just yesterday, the Government is helpless to get involved with the Police until we go independent. So was Randy Horton the Governor's puppet on New Years Eve?

Or are we again being played for fools by the Premier - on so many levels?

It felt like more than just a coincidence to see the story in today's RG about counterfeit money.

I think I'm becoming clairvoyant. Yesterday I bookmarked this piece on Slate, as something to link through to over here. The article discusses the move in a number of jurisdictions away from paper and towards plastic money.

Surely with such a small circulation of notes, Bermuda could easily implement this. This would improve the durability and security limitations of our current paper currency as well as achieve cost benefits.

Here's the Court of Appeal Amendment Act 2004 tabled by the UBP's John Barritt today.

"The purpose of this Bill is to give the Crown (prosecution) the same right of appeal as defence counsel in criminal cases."

We've come a long way haven't we.

Today's Mid Ocean News (page 3) asked people on the street:

"Were you satisfied with the findings of the police investigation into the Bermuda Housing Corporation scandal?"

One response:

"Kevin Isaac, 33, owner of an air conditioning business: 'I'm glad black people did it. White people have been doing it all this time.'"

That just about says it all.

I've intentionally filed this post under the "Crime" category because everyone, including those MPs who are still hiding the truth, know that what was done at the BHC was criminal even if the law is outdated.

I also intentionally held off commenting on this for the past few days until the Premier made a statement, which he did last night. The Premier's position at the press conference, although not surprising, has brought Bermuda to a new low, cementing Alex Scott as someone completely unsuited to hold any public office.

His obstruction and accusations that the Opposition's call for naming names and releasing the details are "unethical' is a sad indictment of the hollowness of his claim to be for openness, transparency, accountability, a Freedom of Information Act, blah, blah, blah.

The prior and continuing actions of elected officials have forever tarnished the reputation of successive PLP administrations and us all. Evidently Mr. Scott has calculated that this damage is less risky than to be honest with the public about what went on.

Every PLP MP and member who was not involved should be demanding that the Premier clear their own names by holding those who were involved accountable The public should be outraged and demand that this information be released and those who ripped off every Bermudian be fired and never allowed to hold another elected office.

Don't be fooled into thinking that this type of corrupt, unethical and yes - criminal by any other standard - behaviour won't continue. It will merely be done more discreetly than before as the same mistakes won't happen twice.

The only way the Government can regain any sense of credibility is not to engage in another cover up but to let the public decide for themselves.

Just in on ZBM radio news - both Amenemhat Tamerry (Clarke Godwin) and Maatkai Tamerry (Regina Woods) were convicted of manslaughter (after 4 hours of deliberations) in the death of 9 month old A'Maya Tamerry.

Just a quick clarification that the last post was not a comment on the dropping of charges against Mr. Smith (of which I don't claim to know the details) but on the DPP constantly saying that things will be happening in another few weeks, to only say the same thing in another few weeks.

Ok, this is past ridiculous and is now into something more like incompetency:

Let's work through the BHC lack of prosection empty promise saga. Today the DPP said (although not a direct quote) that 'he would inform the public about how the proceedings were going to develop over the next couple of weeks'.

I was going to do this a few weeks ago but today's repetition of the delaying tactic has put me over the top. How long are we going to buy this? The lack of resolution on the BHC scandal is getting as bad as the scandal itself. How long is this going to go on for?

- January 04, 2004: Royal Gazette: 'Murder trial may delay BHC probe', Jan. 04, 2004
Key quote:- "Any further movement in the Bermuda Housing Corporation inquiry is unlikely until the end of next month, The Royal Gazette has learned."

- March 5, 2004 (1 month later): Mid Ocean News: 'DPP to move on BHC probe when murder trial ends', Mar. 05, 2004
Key quote:- "DIRECTOR of Public Prosecutions Kulandra Ratneser says he will turn his full attention to the Bermuda Housing Corporation (BHC) inquiry 'within the next couple of weeks'."

- March 26, 2004 (exactly 3 weeks later): Royal Gazette: 'BHC scandal: DPP now examining files', Mar. 25, 2004
Key quote:- "Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Kulandra Ratneser expects to make recommendations next month about whether criminal charges should be brought arising from the Bermuda Housing Corporation (BHC) scandal."

- May 06, 2004 (1 month & 1 week later): Royal Gazette: 'BHC scandal: DPP says charges to be brought', May 06, 2004
Key quote:- "He will be charged shortly, within this month. There are other possible charges against others but I cannot give a definitive answer at the moment."

- June 03, 2004 (Today, 1 month later): Royal Gazette: 'Charges dropped against BHC man', May 06, 2004
Key quote:- "He said that he would inform the public about how the proceedings were going to develop over the next couple of weeks".

That's 5 promises that something was going to happen within a few weeks starting in January. Well we're now in June, that would be 6 months later, and we're still getting the same excuses and delaying tactics.

Where's the public outrage? Why does no-one care? Is it because everyone thinks politicians are all crooked anyway - so what's the big deal, or is it because we're just a bunch of dopes who'll allow no-one to be held responsible for this.

Today is the first day of a regular weekly op-ed (normally Tuesdays I think) that I'll be writing for the Royal Gazette.

It's very different writing with a deadline and a word count I must admit! That'll take some getting used to.

RG Opinion (April 21, 2004)

-----

When it comes to crime, we're in denial, Wednesday April 21, 2004

Two months and one day before the Wellington Oval attacks, the Royal Gazette ran an article entitled �Horton to meet US Consul General over controversial website on Island�. What was the controversy? Public Safety Minister Horton was taking issue with a US State Department website which described Bermuda as having a growing crime rate. The Minister wasn�t taking issue with the facts, but the �tone and emphasis� of the report.

Therein lies the problem.

Too many of us, for too long, have treated our rising crime problem as something that should be addressed through a different �tone and emphasis�, preferring to put our heads in the sand than develop a comprehensive plan of attack.

In fact, the Government seems decidedly schizophrenic when it comes to crime. Minister Randy Horton regretted �the fact that Bermuda's unacceptably high crime rates warrant inclusion in the travel advisory. We as a community must work together to eradicate this problem." Fair enough I thought, Cabinet is treating this problem with the urgency it deserves. Then to my dismay, Tourism Minister Renee Webb was quoted blaming �the way the media, in particular The Royal Gazette, reports crime�. Care to revise your statement Ms. Webb?

If our Government leaders didn�t want to acknowledge that we have a crime problem two months ago I�d bet a Pro-Active construction bond that they do now. Not only is the frequency of crime a problem, but the severity has escalated beyond anything we expected to witness in Bermuda.

I certainly don�t have all the answers but there�s a few simple steps that each of us can take to put us on the path to achieving results.

We must acknowledge that Bermuda has a serious crime problem. Referring to the problem as �youth violence� is counter-productive. Bermuda doesn�t have a youth violence problem, we have a violence problem. The ages of the four people who recently appeared in court for the Wellington Oval incident were 21, 25, 26 and 27! Those are men not boys. Continuing to use the term �youth� is an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the issue. That�s akin to saying �boys will be boys� and dismisses violent behaviour as nothing more than a youthful indiscretion. I couldn�t think of a worse way to characterise it.

Stop denying that gangs exist in Bermuda. Once �Town and Country� stopped invoking the image of a carpet cleaning company I knew that things were out of control. We must accept that something exists before we can start working on it.

Our parents and community leaders must send a consistent message that our laws are to be respected if we expect our children to become productive adults. For years we�ve let our standards slide, tolerating �minor� offences and excusing anti-social behaviour. We�re teaching our children that laws don�t matter and actions have no consequences. This problem exists at all levels of our society. Potentially criminal behaviour at the Berkeley construction project and BHC were denied, excused and then obstructed by those we�ve charged with creating our laws!

We must enforce the �minor� victimless crimes. Our roads have become a race track. Rampant cycle theft is accepted as a way of life. Stop signs long ago ceased meaning stop. We�re an island of double-parkers. No Parking signs or No Entry signs in our parks and on our roads are routinely ignored. If we don�t respect our rules and laws we shouldn�t feign outrage when the children we raise no longer respect them either.

One approach we should consider is New York City�s �broken window� style of policing. Former Mayor Rudolph Guiliani and his methods were not without their critics, but he stated that "�murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes. But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other." We�d do well to take that quote to heart.

Our roads, bus shelters and sidewalks are littered with the remains of stolen motorcycles, household garbage and graffiti tributes to victims of violent crime.

That�s as good a place to start as any.

Nigel Regan of the Sun has a good run down of the highlights of Tuesday night's Violence Forum. The headline is a little charitable as there wasn't much if anything in the way of solutions discussed before I left.

You might have noticed that the Sun counted 100 in attendance where the Gazette had 60. While reporters are better with words than numbers that isn't the problem here.

The explanation is actually quite simple and very Bermewjan.

Even an urgent problem like discussing violence in our community happens on Bermuda time. The event was due to start at 6:30PM but didn't really kick off until closer to 7PM, and even then the crowd was a little light. RG's reporter had to meet his deadline for Tuesday's paper and left early. Nigel Regan of the Sun on the other hand had the whole of Tuesday to work on his story for Wednesday's edition.

My count at 9PM was 95 people, but at 8PM it was closer to 60.

A strong theme throughout the violence forum tonight was religion and it's lack of place people's lives.

Now, I know this might upset a few people but as soon as someone starts talking about God that should set off alarm bells that they don't have a clue what to do and have resorted to prayer.

This theme made me think of the lyrics from the great Arrested Development song Fishin 4 Religion from the '3 Years 5 Months & 2 Days in the Life of' album. (If you don't have this album you're missing one of the greatest ever)!

Here's a snippet of the lyrics where Speech is talking about prayer and churches. Makes me think of Bermuda:

"They�re praising a God that watches you weep
But doesn�t want you to do a damn thing about it.
When they want change the preacher says shout it.
Does shout bring about change?
I doubt it.
All shout does is make you lose your voice.

Passiveness causes others to pass us by
I throw my line until I made a decision, until then I�m still
Fishin� 4 Religion"

I spent tonight at the �gang violence� forum at Bermuda Institute and will defer to tomorrow�s RG and Wednesday�s Bermuda Sun for more comprehensive coverage of what each of the (too many and too longwinded) panelists said.

I left after 9PM when someone in the audience said that the legalization of homosexuality in 1995 is part of the problem. Strange, I�m yet to see a bunch of gay guys hacking each other with machetes at a football game! But you know, everyone is trying to attach their pet hate to this one rather than actually dealing with the problem.

Anyway, here�s a few details.

� It only started half an hour late and after two unnecessary musical interludes by Shine Hayward
� 10 panelists was too many. None of them stuck to their 6 minute allotted time and the moderator didn�t enforce it well enough. Actually it was more like 10-15 minutes each one which took us to 8:45PM before the audience could contribute
� 3 UBP in attendance (4 if you include me): Sen. Rev. Leonard Santucci and Shadow Youth Minister Jon Brunson were speakers and David Dodwell was in the audience
� 2 PLP in attendance: Dale Butler rolled in 45 minutes late and walked to take his seat at the front (that�s an old political trick at public meetings and funerals to make sure everyone sees you - come in late, walk to the front) and Rev. Larry Lowe who didn�t last very long. One panelist gave apologies from Southampton MP and Labour and Home Affairs Minister Randy Horton, Southampton candidate and Sen. Raymond Tannock and Attorney General Sen. Larry Mussenden (also head of Bermuda Football Association). That should clear up any confusion of the Government�s level of interest in this issue I suppose.
� No gangsters present, a few gangster wannabe's appeared to be dragged in late on but strangely they had other things to do (sharpen their machetes maybe)

My general feeling on this event was what I had expected going in. Unfortunately that wasn�t a good thing.

I�d sum up the forum panelists and audience as a group of genuinely well intentioned people who are stuck in a diagnosis psychosis. We seem to be in a competition to see who can provide the most profound and all-encompassing diagnosis of the problem without actually being interested in starting to deal with it.

Not one proposal for how to approach this issue was put forward, just the same tired platitudes and clich�s that we hear every day. They all have some validity I�m sure, but one of the worst characteristics of Bermudians is that we complain and don�t actually do anything about the grievances we have. Just more talk, talk, talk without action.

Every panelist bar one wasted their opportunity with tired clich�s and overused anecdotes about single mothers and �it takes a village type� comments.

Who was the one you ask? Rolfe Commissiong, of all people.

For the record I almost never agree with Rolfe. However on this occasion he was the only panelist willing to challenge the audience and not cover the same old territory with overused arguments. He did eventually deviate onto his pet themes of independence, race and the evil black woman. (Rolfe can�t help himself and couldn�t pass up the opportunity to promote his own clairvoyance showing an op-ed he wrote in RG once about violence - even having someone hand out copies of his brilliance after he spoke! It was such a shame. He started so well but just devolved into his usual histrionics about black women alienating their children from their absentee fathers.)

Anyway, I left with a profound disappointment that not one person proposed a single potential solution to start dealing with this problem.

So in the spirit of solutions here�s a few ideas for addressing violence in our community (in no particular order). This is an off-the-cuff brainstorm, I wouldn�t necessarily do all of these or would modify some:

� acknowledge that gangs exist in Bermuda
� stop using the phrase �Youth violence�. Most of these guys are men, in their mid-20�s.
� background checks before you can buy a machete (just kidding)
� return the �Force� to the Police Service (I always thought changing the name to �Police Service� was a bad idea. They�re a Police Force.
� increase the Police Force staffing by 33% (real cops on the street, not ones sitting in offices)
� ban or place time restrictions on broadcasts of BET (and Fresh TV music videos) which promotes misogyny, violence, materialism, drugs and alcohol to kids
� search spectators at all sporting events
� increase sentences for violent crimes and crimes with weapons
� curfews
� courts to punish parents if children under 18 involved in a serious crime (this one would be very tricky but worth thinking about)
� improve the public education system by raising standards and enforcing strict discipline
� stop teaching 18 year olds how to use weapons in the regiment

Feel free to email me other ideas which I�ll post later.

Bermuda's got to be the only place in the world where we call a public meeting with gang members (link to come soon)! If it wasn't such a damning condemnation of our unwillingness to face reality it would be laughable.

Let's get real. It's time for action not talk.

We've got to take back control and make the rest of us safe before we can start changing people.

There's no better way to show the idiocy of Renee Webb's latest diatribe against the media than using a sketch I've never forgotten by the brilliant Chris Rock (excerpts from Rock This! by Chris Rock):

"'Man, why you got to say that? Why you got to say that? It isn't us, it's the media. The media has distorted our image to make us look bad. Why must the media come down on us like that, brother? It's not us, it's the media'

"Oh s#%t. It's Mike Wallace. Run!"

Several days ago her own Premier, spin-doctor Alex Scott, even acknowledged what everyone knows - that there is an increase in lawlessness in Bermuda.

The PLP are leading the charge as I've said before. They've condoned lawlessness in Bermuda by their own actions since Nov. 1998 yet somehow expect Bermuda's criminal element to not up the ante!

What does Ms. Webb want to do about it? Get the press to stop reporting it!

There's leadership for you.

Well, if I'd started my Gun Amnesty Pool I'd be out already! My money would have been on zero as the number of guns (not weapons) likely to be turned in.

ZBM news reported this morning that the first gun, complete with a loaded magazine and additional bullets, was turned in at a Police station in a brown paper bag. It's not just liquor we transport in those baggies!

So the amnesty can be declared somewhat of a success, although I'm sure the Police are ultimately hoping for a larger number.

As discussed on A Limey In Bermuda and Bermy Adventures, the real solution is better policing and tougher sentencing.

Better policing doesn't mean sitting around while the Cops try and track down the criminals. It means that we have to stop protecting those individuals who possess weapons and are committing crimes.

Until the community stop protecting the criminals and give the Police the information they need, we won't make much progress.

I'm thinking about starting a pool for predicting the number of guns turned in during the amnesty. While the Government has decided that the UBP's proposal is worth a shot - and it is worth a try - I can't claim to be optimistic.

There's a few obvious problems here:

1) The guns are to be turned in at one of the Police Stations. How many people, in such a small community where everyone knows everyone, are going to risk being identified while turning in a weapon. Even if the Police claim to not be taking names, they can't help but make a mental note.

2) The people who have the guns, overwhelmingly don't care about the repurcussions of their actions. The attacks that have sparked this have taken place in very public places with TV cameras around. What makes us think they'll give up their weapons without being sure that their enemies have?

I'd suggest setting up a more neutral location than the Police Stations. Have someone other than a police officer there to handle the turned in weapons, if any indeed materialise.

Unless of course the idea is to lure people in to be casually identified for future reference!