It never ends

Surprise. The media takes advantage of a slow news period by stepping up calls for Public Access to Information legislation and, of course, that means a mass anti-PLP conspiracy must be afoot. Nevermind the fact that most people seem to agree that we need such legislation and have agreed since long before the Royal Gazette decided to run a series on it. Nevermind that it was the PLP themselves who originally proposed such legislation or that the UBP also thought it was a good idea and were willing to impose it upon themselves. No, it must be a mass conspiracy to bring down the PLP because an election is just around the corner, right?

So here we go again. The evil oppressive media is out to distort and manipulate the minds of the people. The race traitors are out in full force and anyone who doesn’t condemn those supporting PATI must be anti-PLP and likely racist. Nevermind the message, shoot the messenger.

Remember when there were those of us who wrote about the pointlessness of expressing independent thought? This is why.

It makes one wonder if people care about accountable government. If we don’t need PATI, why do we bother having the government report on anything at all? Should they not be allowed to do as they please? Should we bother having any rules or laws apply to government? Should it be acceptable for anyone to speak anything but praise for all actions of government?

Is it just me or did the PLP not just win the election? How then can this be a conspiracy to bring them down? Why is the present any less worthy of a time to pursue what most agree is the right thing to do? Ask yourself; if not now, than when?

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

7 thoughts on “It never ends

  1. Denis,
    I have yet to meet anyone, PLPer or otherwise who is opposed to the PATI legislation. The only concern is about why the RG has suddenly decided to launch this crusade of theirs, especially in light of their alleged anti-PLP bias.
    Thats all. PATI is a PLP initiative; it is PLP supported (albeit if not necessarily a top priority for whatever reason). No one is opposed to it, but many are wary of the RGs motives; thats all.

  2. I have to agree with Phil this time around. I had some doubts about why they are doing this but I sat back and thought about it.
    Not all Bermudians are aware of the PATI formula and why it has a need.
    I summise from the RG’s attempts that they wish to bring it to the front burner, keep it there and allow locals to be kept abreast of progress or lack thereof.
    I don’t always agree with the RG’s formula for everything but it makes sense this time around because Government says it wants it.
    My two cents……….(probabley less now due to inflation and bank rates. :+)

  3. Denis,
    I am not understanding your post. Who has said anything about this being anti-PLP. The PLP have never said anything about being opposed to PATI. I think more than anything you are trying to insinuate that they are against it than anything else.
    I agre with J Starling that the motives behind this at this time seem to be questionable. Why now? Why has the RG never ever seen the need for PATI? And I also agree with Senator Walton Brown, that while PATI is important and will be legislated, there are other government projects and initiatives that might be more important and more time sensitive.

  4. Ken,
    I’m not able to provide my typical links because I’m restricted to my mobile phone for a while.
    My comments come in response to both Jonathan and Vanz. I’ve done my best to explain my position over on Jonathan’s blog.

  5. Ken,
    One thing I didn’t cover on Jonathan’s blog: Walton Brown’s comments.
    My understanding of the royal gazette’s request is for the government to commit in the throne speech to implement PATI legislation within a year.
    Now while it is reasonably understandable that the PLP has other initiatives in the works, how is a year deadline not reasonable for a promise made 5 years ago?
    If not a year from now when? 2 years? 5 years? The problem is we were already promised 2007 which has passed so why should anyone accept another 4+ year promise? Otherwise perhaps people don’t support PATI as much as they suggest they do.

  6. 1 year may or may not be feasible. But what you have to remember is that with different leadership comes different priorities. it doesnt mean that one is necessarily better than the other. So while the present admininstration does believe in PATI they might feel that housing, education system, tourism, crime are areas that need more specialized aattention, and thus taking resources away from PATI.

Comments are closed.