SDO: Government “Acted Unlawfully”

February 10, 2012

The Ombudsman for Bermuda, Arlene Brock, issued a statement saying Government “acted unlawfully by failing to require an Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] prior to sending the draft Tuckers Point Special Development Order [SDO] to the Legislature.”

Ms Brock delivered her 88 page report – Today’s Choices- Tomorrow’s Costs – to the House of Assembly today [Feb.10]. In it she set out the findings of her systemic investigation of civil servants’ fact-gathering and analysis in the lead up to the Parliamentary approval of the SDO in March 2011.

“In September 2001 Bermuda signed on to the UK Environment Charter. By so doing the Government committed to carrying out an EIA prior to approving any major development,” Ms Brock said.

“The UK is responsible for Bermuda’s international affairs, and this Charter extends to Bermuda the UK’s international environmental obligations under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity 1972 and Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992.”

“EIAs ensure there is broad public disclosure and consultation prior to approving such developments. They produce a thorough analysis of the risks posed as well as methods of mitigating such risks,” she said. Ms Brock noted that there are Privy Council decisions binding on Bermuda that also lay out the requirements of EIAs.

“EIAs are vital procedural tools and Bermuda is required to carry them out for good reason. EIAs are internationally considered best practice for development proposals that are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the environment.”

“Beyond our legal obligations,” Ms Brock said, “Government did not pay heed to the fact that proper administration demanded a robust and open information gathering process. Ministers and legislators needed a full analysis of all the likely ramifications of developing such an environmentally important area of the Island. Further, the public controversy surrounding the Tucker’s Point SDOs alerted me to the dearth of good data and process in the lead up to the approving the SDO.”

“In the case of the latest Tucker’s Point SDO, there was a collective failure of due diligence on the part of civil servants. This was not a question of whether or not tourism development should be encouraged. Rather, this was a case of whether development should be carried out on one of Bermuda’s most environmentally sensitive pieces of land. In such a case, decision makers must have comprehensive information and the best advice from their advisors – the civil service.”

Ms Brock said. “After carrying out a comprehensive investigation I concluded that senior civil servants failed to review the applicable law and did not seek to apply international best practices.” The report does not find fault with individual civil servants, emphasizing that this was a collective failure.

“Some people may be disappointed that I have not taken the usual Ombudsman approach of naming, blaming and shaming specific individuals. In this investigation, it was hard to say that only one or two persons were responsible for the maladministration. Therefore I think it is sufficient to illuminate the problem and hope that everyone will apply the lessons going forward.”

Ms. Brock said: “I am empowered, through the Ombudsman Act 2004, to investigate only the actions of the Civil Service. I cannot investigate Cabinet decisions or the decisions of the MPs or Senators who, in this case, approved the SDO. This report focused on the information gathering process of the civil servants. They must be empowered and resourced to provide Ministers and Legislators with advice that is based on a firm foundation of fact.”

The Ombudsman applauds the 2011 amendment to the Development and Planning Act 1974 that requires SDOs to be approved by the Legislature instead of a Minister. “This is an important improvement with respect to who makes the decision to grant SDOs,” she said. “However it is critical for us to understand that a less than optimal fact-gathering and evaluation process cannot be cured by an improved decision making procedure (the amendment to the DPA).”

“In reviewing the data that would have come to light in an EIA for the Tucker’s Point application, I was astounded to see how much time seems to have stood still. Almost exactly the same arguments for each issue and on all sides of the issues were raised in 1995 and 2001 that we heard in 2011.” Ms. Brock noted “The more things change, the more they seemed to stay the same.”

“Government officials have claimed that the conditions attached to the 2011 SDO were stringent enough to ensure a balance between development and protecting the Tucker’s Point site” Ms Brock said. “However, over the course of our investigation, several of the experts who I consulted questioned the adequacy of these conditions.”

“The reserved matters in the Tucker’s Point SDO – to be determined by the Development Applications Board [DAB] – provide no comfort that the full risks of the proposed development will be analyzed.” Ms Brock pointed out

“The reserved matters deal with the kind of development that is allowed (design, engineering, landscaping, height, etc.). Information gathered at the reserved matters stage may be too late to inform the preliminary determination about whether development should take place at all. Should such information indicate that a proposal should not be approved, it would be awkward for the DAB to overturn ‘in principle’ approval already granted by the Legislature.”

Ms Brock noted that the 2011 debate over the merits of the SDO had been infused with fears that Bermuda would appear unfriendly to foreign investors and drive them to competing jurisdictions, especially in the Caribbean. “During our investigation we interviewed officials from the UN, the Organization of American States, CARICOM and several Caribbean governments.

“It was interesting to discover that there is a groundswell across the Caribbean for protection of the environment. Caribbean officials are extremely well aware of the value of conducting EIAs – for the benefit of investors, governments and the public.”

“As an UK Overseas Territory, Bermuda is not well integrated into the international vernacular and standards. We are in danger of lagging behind.” Ms. Brock added: “We also discovered that as an Associate Member of CARICOM, Bermuda has agreed to promote Sustainable Tourism in addition to conservation of forest and marine environments,” she said.

“Bermuda does have a Sustainable Development Strategy and Implementation Plan and a related department of Government,” she said. “However, the reach of the Strategy and Department has not yet permeated policy and operational decisions throughout the Government.” “The fact that ‘it costs money to be green’ should not deter our standards or creative thinking about how to develop the tourism product.”

The Ombudsman Act 2004 authorizes the Ombudsman to carry out an investigation on her motion (notwithstanding that no complaint has been made from the public) when she is satisfied it is in the public interest to investigate. “Public outcry and unsubstantiated allegations at the time of the 2011 SDO Parliamentary debates made it clear that we did not learn much from previous controversies over the Southlands and the Botanical Garden Hospital proposals. The evidence pointed to an absence of a process for sound and respectful discussion of the issues.”

“By fulfilling our obligation to require an EIA before a major development, Bermuda is not saying ‘No’ to development. Rather we are ensuring that decision makers and the Bermuda public are fully informed before approval is granted,” Ms Brock said.

Ms. Brock extended the statutory period for the Government to notify her of its response to the recommendations to May 1st, 2012. “I will not make further public comments until after receiving the response. I am hopeful that two existential questions for Bermuda arising out of the report will be carefully considered: Is our word our bond? Do we wish to be in the 21st Century of good governance?”

The full report is below [PDF here], click ‘Fullscreen’ for greater clarity:

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (82)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Cancer says:

    Ha ha ha what else is new ? What else is new? I keep saying – always something with this government – now so bad that it’s becoming laughable! I’m so sorry Bermuda but someone has to apologize for the PLP mistakes. Look forward to more excuses from their blind loyalist. Now they’ll be saying the ombudsmen is working against the government. Today is one thing. Tomorrow be something else. We need to get rid of PLP

    • True Bermudian says:

      I remember when some UBP (now OBA) fat cats wanted to build on catchment hill and wanted to build a McDonalds in CoH.

      Guess what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander…

      • Bewildered says:

        So basically you are saying the PLP is now all that was bad about the UBP. So much for progress and the promises made in 1998. Time for the PLP to go back to being an Opposition Party so they can reflect and reform.

        • Voice of Reason says:

          Progress is the fact that we have an Ombudsman, you have the PLP to thank for that.

      • Mad Dawg says:

        You know, I can remember when, in 1998, the PLP said it was ‘time for change’. It promised an open government, where there would be fairness and accountability.

        here we are, 13 years later, and even PLP supporters have given up any expectation of integrity, honesty, or accountability. Whenever a new scandal comes out, all you have to say about it is a childish whine about how you think it may have happened under the UBP, a couple of decades ago.

        You, and people like you, are pathetic useless wimps. You have no expectation of honest government. You hold political leaders accountable for nothing. The PLP is a bunch of idiot buffoons, ruining the country more every day, and what do you say about it? Nothing. I have to believe anyone that still supports the PLP is a brain-dead sycophant.

        • Voice of Reason says:

          Allow me to disagree. As I PLP supporter I have every expectation of honest government.

          What we see above is, A PRODUCT OF THE PLP, who established the office of the Ombudsman. So us in the PLP are all about honest government.

          The headline is very sensational to say the least, “Unlawful” is not doing an EIA before sending an SDO to parliament is quite a stretch.

          What is interesting however is in her very long report the word “Unlawful” appears ZERO times.

        • star man says:

          Welcome to the Third World.

      • Ms.0ba says:

        I agree! time for another election!

      • Yabba Dabba Do! says:

        The difference is that wanted to but the people said no and the end result was that they didnt. Were you not at the Tuckers Point march?

      • Whatever says:

        What is your point? Something the UBP may or may not wanted to have done nearly 14 years ago? this has nothing to do with this article. Stick to the facts.

    • 65 Thieves says:

      You people are not balanced. I do not support the PLP but in all fairness, check the press articles and recordings from the debates in the House over the Tuckers Point SDO issue>

      If you are being COMPLETELY HONEST, you will remember that the SDO had to be rushed through to ensure that Rosewood or other hotel groups would have pumped funds into the project and so that there was potential for future jobs and employment for BERMUDIANS.

      If the Government neglected the “process” to satisfy the oppositions demands for the SDO to be passed for the greater good, is this really worthy of these posts?

  2. Truth is killin' me... says:

    How dare she question a PLP Government!!!!!

    • Triangle Drifter says:

      Thats right. Does she not know the 11th Commandment?

      Thow shalt not criticize the PLP.

  3. Mad Dawg says:

    It’s pretty much every day that a new scandal emerges isn’t it.

    • Voice of Reason says:

      You really call this a scandal?

      1) SDO in National Interest Needed for Tucker’s Point
      2) Government passes an amendment to ensure SDO is debated
      3) SDO goes to parliament
      4) After it passes the House, Senate amends SDO
      5) SDO Passes

      1 year later the Ombudsman (Created by the PLP) points out that according to her, Civil Servants should have had an Environmental Impact Assesment done. This from some 2001 UK Convention.

      This is what you call scandal. LMAO

      • Mad Dawg says:

        Yes, an unlawful SDO rushed through against the tide of public opinion, is a scandal.

        But not by your standards, evidently.

        I guess that, for the PLP, this type of thing is something you just laugh at, as indicated by your attempt at ‘cool text message speak’ above. The Ombudsman issues an 88-page report that is extremely critical of something the PLP does, and you think it’s a laughing matter.

        For the rest of us, the ones who like to see things done legally, ethically, morally, above-board, fairly, honestly, and competently, this is all yet another example of what this government is really about.

        • Voice of Reason says:

          LMAO, A vote of Parliament is unlawful.

          Do you have any idea how dumb you sound?

          • Rick Rock says:

            So you quite happily take credit for the fact that the PLP created the Ombudsman position, but when the Ombudsman reports that something unlawful happened, your response is “LMOA”. What are you, 14 years old?

        • Maddog says:

          A local construction company wanted BLACK Bermudians on the job site in order to justify work permits, but had no real intentions of promoting or training BLACK Bermudians for the job. That was the crux of a board of inquiry ruling handed down yesterday on the human rights case of Pernell Grant against Apex Construction Management Limited.

          Mr Grant, a Bermudian carpenter by trade with 30 years of experience, claimed he was discriminated against in a complaint first filed with the Human Rights Commission in June 2008. Nearly four years later the board, headed up by Paul Harshaw, made their ruling known at a brief hearing held at the Department of Human Affairs.

          The complaint lists three respondents, Apex Limited, Andrea Battiston, the company’s operations manager who essentially was Mr Grant’s boss and Kevin Mason, the site superintendent, or second-in-command. He never appeared before the board for the inquiry at any stage. The evidence was taken over three days in October last year.

          The crux of Mr Grant’s case was that he was offered employment on terms less favourable than the terms offered to others employed by Apex. The others consisted of groups of Polish and Canadian contract workers. WE TALK A LOT OF CRAP WHEN SOMETHING HAPPEN TO A BLACK PERSON IN THI

  4. Bewildered says:

    Perhaps the Government will reply along the lines of:

    “For the (Auditor General) Ombudsman to think that she is above the law is shameful. It seems as if (Ms Matthews) Ms. Brock is on a personal witch hunt and to suggest that any wrong doing took place is outrageous and clearly an attempt to malign the integrity of those implicated in her report.”

    Saves a lot of time and effort.

  5. Longtail says:

    As her travel expenses will show, Cog Cox is great at all the photo ops for signing on with various international agreements – living by them is another matter!!!

  6. navin johnson says:

    I must say I am truly astonished that the PLP Government has acted unlawfully and has rushed through another poorly thought out and concieved document…..has that ever happened before…..or perhaps more to the point have they ever done anything right? rush things through but never correct their mistakes…..Tuckers Point, or so we were told, was crucial to the tourism model and just about everyone involved with the SDO is out of the picture….trippe retired shortly thereafter…..Roban out as Minister of the Environment…nothing they do should be allowed to become law unless the people say so…..you are totally incompetent in every possible way…..all they have done is carve up the land into unsold building lots…..

    • Bermudian@heart.. says:

      unsold for now…..

      • Navin Johnson says:

        At $1,000,000 per lot I think it’s safe to say unsold….they need that price to pay the bank loan…

  7. Weldon Wade says:

    Definitely going to give this document a read.

    • Lazy Fools says:

      It’s a great document! I haven’t read it but I can sum it up in three letters:

      PLP

  8. PDB says:

    The only people who can steer Bermuda away from this style of leadership are PLP supporters. The irony is that it is the same style the UBP used when they had a virtual hegemony on political decision making for 30 years (or 400 even). It was not good then and it is not good now.
    There is a difference between a leader and a ruler. This lot have adopted the behaviour of the former rulers. Bermuda needs leaders. Whether or not that is the OBA i don’t know, but at least they know the margins are slim and if they act dopey they WILL be voted back out. The PLP need the opportunity to understand that they can be voted out. It will benefit the party, and the country, in the long run, but it will have to come from PLP supporters with the courage to face what the leadership of the PLP has become – rulers.

    • Voice of Reason says:

      You can’t be serious, Ombudsman reports that she believes that an Environmental Impact Assessment should have been done PRIOR to the item going to Parliament, and you feel that warrants a change of government.

      Please remember the SDO that passed called for multiple impact assessments BEFORE planning permission was given.

      • PDB says:

        So everything’s hunky dory then? Much ado about nothing? Did they adhere to the agreement they signed? It’s a simple question. All i’m saying is if you want a gov’t that plays by its own rules then keep voting for them. I think there’s enough track record to give them boot, it’ll be good for the country in the long haul.

    • Bermudian@heart.. says:

      you have hit the nail on the head …..thank you..

  9. My two cents says:

    It is no wonder Bermuda is chalk full of people that don’t respect the rules.
    Hopefully she does an investigation for the new government housing development in Warwick that required an SDO and was also void of an EIA. I hope everyone understands that these SDO’s are highly unethical and just as our government is highly unethical so too shall the people of her country be. The OBA/BDA/UBP members that agreed with this decision should be ashamed of themselves as you are no different than the PLP when it comes to Bermuda’s environment.

  10. sticky says:

    dAMN , MY PARTY SURE KNOWS HOW TO F##K themselves with dumb shyt.

  11. Truth is killin' me... says:

    “Whaaaaat have you done for me lately!!!!”

  12. verbal kint says:

    Why should we think this will be any different than anything else. No one will be punished because there is no accountability for Government, the courts, or lawyers under the law. This will disappear just like everything else. It is truly shameful, not that people do this, but that they will be allowed to.

  13. LaVerne Furbert says:

    Let’s us not forget that the Ombodusman has written“I am empowered, through the Ombudsman Act 2004, to investigate only the actions of the Civil Service.”

    I wait with bated breath for a response from the experts in the Civil Service.

    Also remember, the Ombodsman, like the Auditor General, is only giving her opinion.

    I haven’t read the report in its entirety, but I’m interested in reading which experts she used to form her opinion.

    • Mad Dawg says:

      LaVerne, you write more and more crapola every day. Enough of this BS about “It’s only her opinion”. She is the OMBUDSMAN! She is appointed to find out and report on the TRUTH, not an opinion. You call it “just an opinion” because what you want is a murky ‘grey area’, rather than the unvarnished truth. Well it doesn’t work.

      And the fact that she says she can only investigate the Civil Service, but not MP’s and Senators, is extremely interesting, and very unflattering for the MPs and Senators involved. (Weren’t you a Senator then, LaVerne?). Between the lines, the implication is that had she had the power to report on the activities of Senators and MPs, she would have been reporting on wrongdoing by them as well. But for that group, we have to rely on them policing themselves. And we’ve seen how well they do at that.

    • My two cents says:

      Seriously, Tuckers SDO WAS UNLAWFUL. You should be ashamed of the desecration you have allowed this government to commit on Bermuda’s environment! The SDOs are wrong, period end of story. Everything the PLP touches turns to dust. Totally not capable of running the government successfully for whatever reason. I know not everyone in the PLP is stupid but one has to wonder about the decisions being made up there. I mean a bunch of 12 year olds could run this country. The dirt continues to come up and I believe only the surface has been scratched. Bermuda government is a total joke. I mean a construction company boss as the Health Minister? What a laugh that on is! I hope you rest well a night knowing what you and the rest of the friends and family have done to Bermuda. You may not have to take responsibility for actions now, but what excuse will you use when you meet your maker?

    • Whatever says:

      Learn how to spell, LaVerne. It’s OMBUDSMAN.

      and until you have “read the report in its entirety”, you’re not really in the position to give an opinion, now are you?
      So please do us all a favour and p!ss off! Please.

  14. ooops... says:

    “Sen. (LaVerne) Furbert had begun her speech by labeling protesters “disingenuous” for saying environmentalists have not been consulted over the amendments to the SDO.

    “I would consider myself to be an environmentalist,” she said.

    “One day you can come to my yard and see I’m concerned for the environment. I speak for the birds. I’m sure other people around this table speak for the birds.”

    http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20110326/NEWS/703269975

    • Family Man says:

      I think she got a bit confused. She meant to say “I’m for the birds” not I speak for the birds. It must have been all the car horns that threw her.

  15. Clinton J. A. Paynter OBA Affiliated says:

    The Ombudsman for Bermuda, Arlene Brock, has
    found that Government “acted unlawfully by
    failing to require an Environmental Impact
    Assessment [EIA] prior to sending the draft
    Tuckers Point Special Development Order [SDO]
    to the Legislature.”

    Need I say more? “Specialgirl4you” come on and spin this one away. I could use a laugh from the PLP/BIU cheerleader…

  16. Cancer says:

    Come on PLP loyalist (you know who you are) I’m calling you out. You have an excuse for everything PLP does – you say they practice good governance! You defend defend defend but all you are is a blind loyalist. This shows once agin PLP don’t play be the rules and that they are incompetent. This PLP flipPLoP party needs to be resolved. Come on SPECIALGIRL give me your blind excuses once again!

  17. Cancer says:

    The thing is everytime the PLP make her put her foot in her mouth. They’re actions contradict everything she tries to defend and it makes both of them look quite foolish!!! Lol !!! PLP once again – Please Leave Politics! Actually your better as an opposition!

  18. Skeptic says:

    What is an OmbOdsman?? Birdlike spelling maybe?

  19. Ms.0ba says:

    We really need to get PLP out of office! Even Stevie Wonder can see this!

  20. sticky says:

    if the civil servants were not so caught up on impressing the ministers thay would give them the best advice on all issues or if the civil service hired the best and most qualified people we would not have to go through this week in week out.

  21. Cancer says:

    Does anyone have a “count” on the number of times the PLP have screwed up, flippedPLoPped, done something unethical, been acused of corruption or deceived the people? It would be interesting to find out what the numbers are!

  22. Hmmmmm says:

    Calm down all ye zealots. The “unlawful” act appears to be non-compliance with some obscure UK treaty or convention that no-one’s ever even heard of. Well done Arlene. You will not allow yourself to be outdone by Heather. Berkeley days revisited.

    • Mad Dawg says:

      So anyone that wants things to be done legally is a “zealot” now?

      An SDO was rushed through, against the tide of public opinion, with the help of Ministers and Senators. And it turns out the SDO was unlawful.

      And your point is that the law was one that you “haven’t heard of”? Because you’re an expert in environmental law? Or because as a know-nothing layman, you choose to ignore laws that you have never heard of?

      • Hmmmmm says:

        Wipe the foam from your mouth and think about what the report says. In your world the impact assessment could’ve been done and the Government’s action still wouldn’t be kosher.I came off of King Street the other night and rolled through and didn’t stop as the sign commanded me…..unlawful but I don’t think I’ll lose my job for it. Its a question of perspective and degree. That’s precisely why she needs to include the snippet in the report about finding no corruption lest folk like you start oiling the locks at Westgate. Calma.

        • Rick Rock says:

          I see what you mean. It all fits. Derrick Burgess has no problem with doing things that are ‘unethical’ as long as it’s not actually ‘illegal’. You just extend it a bit further.

          • Shaking the Head says:

            I think what Hmmmmmm’s saying is it isn’t unlawful to break a law unless you are caught doing it at the time. Or that it isn’t unlawful if you didn’t know about the law.

            • Rick Rock says:

              ….and it isn’t unlawful if you didn’t like the law at the time you were breaking it.

    • My two cents says:

      http://forestry.about.com/od/treephysiology/tp/tree_value.htm

      In case you forgot your basic science as is the case with most of our government. Stop watching tv and read!

    • Soooo says:

      So your saying that the Premier signed (or had signed) something without reading and undersanding it?

  23. Hmmmmm says:

    Page 73: ” There are members of the public who believe that something untoward went on with the Tucker’s POint SDO……I have found no evidence to support such suspicions of corruption”.

    Sorry guys. This isn’t the smoking gun you’re looking for.

  24. Tommy Chong says:

    “After carrying out a comprehensive investigation I concluded that senior civil servants failed to review the applicable law and did not seek to apply international best practices.”

    “In this investigation, it was hard to say that only one or two persons were responsible for the maladministration.”

    Why is it that anytime there’s more than one involved in any misconduct in Bermuda there can not be a blame in all individuals involved. Instead of solving an issue it causes fallacious arguments. Wouldn’t it be better to name all in fault then to blame a government that have newcomers that may have nothing to do with the transgression? Is she not naming the guilty because her job may be at stake? I’d rather see a mile long list then blame a bureaucracy.

  25. star man says:

    We are still waiting PLP/BUI Party for the SPIN….

  26. sticky says:

    Though i find this alarming, the PLP with not have to Spin anything,this is her report it has been tabled we accept it and move on. I hope your not looking for any corruption with this as it appears non has taken place.

  27. Graeme Outerbridge says:

    It does not matter what Government is in place…just follow the process fairly…END OF STORY^^

    • Coli says:

      Where’s the ‘like’ button for Graeme’s comment. That’s all I ask for in my Government – follow the process fairly.

  28. Hey Bye says:

    I have said it before,time for the UK Government to dissolve the current Government.
    Step in,put the books back in order,a clean slate like what was done in the Turks and Caicos.
    Otherwise, we will continue reading and talking about the same thing over and over again,with nothing being done to correct it.
    Bermuda’s image and reputation will be for ever tarnished.
    I suspect that the current Governor has not initiated anything as he is out the door soon;collecting his civil service pension and does not need the headache.

    • Hmmmmm says:

      ARe you for real ? The UK has its hands full with real problems. Bankers stripped of knighthoods, Ministers resigning for lying and collusion, and Turks is a complete shambles thanks to them. The people like you who called for the British to come and save them are now saying it was a mistake. Every post, position, contract and the like in Turks is now going to Brits and their friends. Careful what you wish for.

      • Rick Rock says:

        Hmmmm, not sure if you really know what goes on. if a Minister in the UK commits a relatively small infraction, he resigns in a cloud of ignominy. And rightly so.

        Here, if a Minister commits a relatively small infraction, like self-dealing, or wrongful diversion of taxpayer funds, the BIU goes in to the Premier and reminds her to keep her mouth shut and leave the Minister alone, or she will live to regret it.

  29. longtail says:

    What happened to the many, many asbestos containers stored at Government’d quarry right next door to Tucker’s Point???? Last we heard (some years ago!) the containers were rusting out exposing their contents to the elements – and anyone nearby. Is this what the EIA might have picked up on, and why this Government was wanting to look the other way in case it might be held accountable???? To think that Government’s own recycling facility is just yards away from these containers……

  30. Itsaboutallofus says:

    I am confused as to how the headline can say “unlawfully” when nowhere in the Ombudsman’s report is that even stated?

  31. Think a little deeper says:

    This is what happens when the powers that be place expats in the Senior Civil Servant posts!

  32. Triangle Drifter says:

    Say it isn’t so! Not another unethical, but not illegal scandal brought to you be the PLP.

    What will it take for their blind supporters to open their eyes & see how they, along with the rest of Bermuda are being screwed over by the PLP?

  33. shirley Richardson says:

    Here we go again, looks like Bernews just wrote the RG’s next attack on the PLP.
    The headline’s tomorrow, will most likely read,”GOVERNMENT ACTED UNLAWFULLY”.
    It really does’nt matter, that there is not one line in the report that says that
    but who cares about the facts around here, just more red meat for the haters.

    Many of these comments, sound like FOX NEWS/TEA PARTY/REPUBLICANS.

    • Shaking the Head says:

      Are you joining the ranks of adding Bernews to the “combined opposition”. Very interestting if you are and you may want to make some more enquiries. Incidentally it was the Ombudsman who said the Government acted unlawfully. In her report she states that the law requiring an EIA was not complied with. That means it was unlawful. No wonder there is such a problem within the PLP/Government as to what unethical/unlawful/illegal means. Apprently it is as simple as it means what someone decides it means.

      • Rick Rock says:

        Apparently if you expect things to be done ethically and legally you are a “hater”.

        I remember when, 4 or 5 years ago, anyone that said Bermuda had better prepare for a downturn in the economy was “making mischief” and a “hater”.

  34. True says:

    How much of this can we take!

  35. Cancer says:

    Oh Shirley Richardson take a back seat – all you do is come on the radio and defend defend defend. You are another great blind loyalist defender of the PLP. Your just as bad as specialgirl4you and Laverne Furbert who come on Bernews and talk all this crap. The PLP have been a MAJOR I say again MAJOR embarrassment to this country. In my eyes they have ruined the title “Proud to be Bermudian” ! This PLP flipPLoP party must go! The people want the election called now! P lease L eave P olitics.

  36. Real Talk says:

    oh my cancer, you’re losing it. can you please spell out what exactly the scandal is?

  37. Navin Johnson says:

    Bhc,Bldc,TCD,TPsdo how many more do you want…of course they are all sheer coincidence ..

  38. Cancer says:

    Ya the fact that there is scandal after scandal which have been named above is sheer coincidence or a conspiracy by the white man against the government. I guess someone is a mole within the PLP placed there by the OBA which is trying to ruin the party. (similar to what Chris Furbert said )Sounds like an excellent movie plot! Get ready “24″ !

  39. OBA=UBP says:

    What i find so confusing, is how can an act of Parliament be Unlawful?

  40. Jim Bean says:

    Hey OBA=UBP – found you! you shoot the messenger on one page and now question the ombusman! you are a joke

  41. Latrine Fruitbat says:

    Shirley – stay strong to your convictions, we must stand against the fifth columinist OBP/ UBP / country club elites who keep us poor and dispossesed and want to sell us back into chains just like my poor darlin momma.