This evening I was having a chat with a good friend of mine which turned towards the topic of the poor coverage offered by local papers and their lack of investigation into their stories. His example was the recent case of accused Cronyism where UBP Senator Richards accused the government of unfairly creating specialized permits for limousines only weeks before the exact cars specified were brought in after having preordered them months ahead.
My friend had some interesting remarks which have left me wondering about this specific case. His argument is that some 6+ months ago, the government put out ads in the newspaper and radio for those interested in acquiring licenses to operate limousine services. Of which, he was one of only 6 entrepreneurs who turned up for the advertised meeting.
By his recollection, further information regarding limousine service was only shared with those 6 as originally the government had expected a greater turnout and did not feel it was worth continuing expensive advertising for such a small turnout. Apparently, the specifications of the specific cars were provided in these original meetings.
My colleagues comments raise questions in my mind as to the validity of the claims of cronyism. On one hand you have the undisputable coincidence of how entrepreneur David Durham knew months ahead of time what specific make, model and color of cars were required for the official announcement of regulations. On the other, I have someone claiming that those specifications were made public in a meeting months ago which was well publicized.
Thus, it is hard to draw solid conclusions without hard evidence. In the government’s denial of cronyism, there is no mention of publicized meetings. Also, there are no records I have found of which such meetings were advertised in the paper. Thus, it would be helpful if the government could provide some evidence to support the argument that such meetings were organized and publicized some time ago.
Without such evidence, unfortunately just about everything falls under the category of hearsay and can only be taken with a grain of salt. It would be helpful to find more evidence supporting either side of this case in order to get a better picture of whether cronyism really plays a part.