What kind of country are we becomming?

Is it concerning to anyone that our Premier feels our country has become so unsafe that he needs a personal police escort and security fencing around his property?  It isn’t like we’ve got Al-Qaeda lurking in wait to assassinate our Premier, so what exactly is so concerning to warrant such increases in security?

The Premier has his protection from ‘mentally ill’ people who could slice him up with box cutters, but what of us common people?  Who is going to protect us?  Is the Premier getting security an indication of just how unsafe Bermuda has become?  Should we all look to put up fencing around our properties, bars on our windows and stay in our homes after dark?

Are these signs of the Bermuda we live in today?  If our Premier feels unsafe among our small population of 60,000, how should we feel?  Do you feel safe?  Is Bermuda no longer what it used to be?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by . Bookmark the permalink.

4 thoughts on “What kind of country are we becomming?

  1. I really truly do not have a problem with the Premier having a plains-clothe police officer (that was recommended not requested by the police), especially in light of past events, and furthermore it seems to be a rational perfection of the existing system (might I ask, does the Governor not have security at Government House, and is he not accompanied by an ADC who is in charge of security and protection of the Governor, and I bet he even has a British MI security personnel as well).
    I do think that Col. Burch is just being silly in not revealing the cost of such a person, but I think the RG is being exceptionally silly focusing on the whole issue, as I believe are you and Christian. As such the RG is being the greater idiot, and the Col is reacting to an idiotic request.
    I do not fully understand or agree with the fencing at the Premiers private residence as, as I understand it Clifton was desigined with security in mind, and is protected. Therefore the State is offering protection to the Premier, but it is the Premiers choice not to accept it in this situation, and therefore I do not really agree with the fence at his private house.

  2. As long as the Premier is paying for the fencing at his private residence I have no direct issues with it. He can either live in the supplied residence or pay for his own repairs and upgrades to his own private residence and live in it. However I do have concerns as to what these changes imply about the state of the nation when such actions are deemed necessary when they were not in the past.
    The governor having security is more understandable considering that the Bermudian people murdered a governor in our past. We have no history of having done so to our Premiers so what has changed? Is our Premier really so hated that he is at risk of being murdered?
    Silly to focus on the issue? Have you ever been in a situation where someone has come running at you with a machete? I can tell you from experience that it is not cool. If this had happened to the Premier, then by all means get him personal security. However, don’t bother even telling the press about a box cutter in the pocket of someone who’s shaking hands with the premier. You’re asking for ridcule.
    If a box cutter is considered a weapon, then the guy should get 3 years manditory imprisonment for having a bladed weapon in public and I’ll have to start thinking twice the next time I’d like to transport a set of nail clippers or shaving razor.

  3. I also have no problem with the fence if it is coming out of his own finances, however if that is the case then the planning process should not be ‘expedited.’
    As for the precedent of the Governor, firstly I think you will find that the then Premier (when the Governor was assasinated) was also on the hit list. I do not believe that the Premier is ‘hated’ to the point that there is a large plot to assasinate him. If anything you will find that the Premier is largely quite popular. Do I think that there are some crazy people who, for whatever reason, who may pose a threat, such as the person at the airport whom you belittle the fact of his possessing a weapon (box cutters, which incidentally were all that was necessary to execute 9/11, and if assasinating someone, its easier to smuggle in a small knife than a machete, and furthermore), as well as the fact that he has a history of assualt, has a history of mental illness, and for all either you or I know, is known to the Premier and his staff for whatever reason.
    Have I ever been in a situation where I was being chased with machetes? No, but I have been chased with bottle, rocks, lead pipes, chains, gassed with tear gas and hit with rubber bullets (in a non-regimental training situation). I don’t really see the point in this little distraction though – are we going to have a competition to see who’s faced the most danger? The Premier is the leader of the country, and in the current war on terror situation (which I oppose) the precautions taken by the Premier are nothing compared to some other small states. Besides, let us remember that the precautions are recomended by the police, not requested by the Premier.
    I really cannot get over your misrepresenting of the situation at the airport. You make it sound like the guy was having a friendly chat with the Premier during a social moment of the event, and just so happened to be pulled aside and found to have a box utter in his pocket. The guy walked up in the middle of a speech by Loius Brown-Evans, approached the Premier, said ‘I love you’ and was then intercepted. It is impossible to tell whether this individual was intercepted before he could do anything more. There have been a number of assasinations where the assasin has said something more or less innocent to the victim just before executing the deed. Had it occurred during a social meet and greet event (a citizen being pulled aside for saying I love you, then you would have something, but the situation was quite different).
    The box cutter as I understand it does not fall under the category of bladed weapon in a criminal sense in that its blade is too short. However, most objects can be used as a weapon, and a box cutter certainly can. To make a weapon out of a shaving razor you have to be a bit more ingenuitive.
    I say you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, as is the RG, because that is how I see it. So what if the Premier accepts the reccomendation of the Police to certain levels of protection. There is nothing wrong with that. The situation at the airport was handled correctly. I’m sorry, but the press here really is suprisingly banal and weak at times. There is so much important questions that the press should be focusing on, investigating a lot of practices here, exposing corruption and other such issues, really questioning the hard issues and benefitting the people as a whole, but instead they reduce themselves to manufacturing a non-issue such as this, and you jump on the bandwagon in this situation at least.
    We do not live in the past and things do change. Just because in the past we did not do x, y or zed, does that mean we should not change ever? The change may be good or bad, but to argue the inherently conservative position that you have I find suprising for you.

  4. Denis, I found this report and thought it was exceptionally relevant to the case in hand, or rather the airport incident. The essential part, relevant to our situation, is that it says that about a quarter of assasins fall into the category of having a mental illness, with about two thirds of intercepted assasins falling into this category, that two thirds of assasins have previous convictions (such as for assualt) and just under half had experienced severe depression. I think that the description is a pretty good fit for the airport incident, and I’m of the opinion that this report forms the foundation of some of the police reccomendations concerning the Premiers security. Here is the link:

Comments are closed.