CAYMAN ISLANDS BEEF UP SECURITY SCREENING

Cayman Islands security authorities are beefing up customs security at all entrance points amid rising fears that criminal and narcotics gangs from other regional locations are targeting the Caribbean territory.

The Cayman Islands, a British overseas territory with strong EU connections, is a major global offshore financial center.

Neighboring territories in the Caribbean and Latin America are facing increased criminal activity as armed drug gangs relocate to the area in response to a vigorous crackdown on their activities by the United States, Mexico, Colombia and other regional countries.

Cayman Islands include the islands of Grand Cayman, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman, south of Cuba and northwest of Jamaica.

The islands' total population of about 55,000 has one of the highest annual gross incomes at $47,000 per capita.

Help with the tougher customs entry measures will be provided by Canadian security technology firm Smiths Detection, which said the contract covering the service was its largest so far with the Cayman Islands Customs Department.

Among preventive hardware chosen for installation are the HCVM, a high-energy X-ray cargo inspection system designed to cut the flow of weapons, narcotics and contraband in and out of the territory.

"The acquisition of the HCVM is the most advanced technology procurement of its kind in the Caribbean to date, demonstrating our commitment to combat drug smuggling and other prohibited/restricted items and safeguard customs revenue," said Jeff Jackson, assistant collector of the Cayman Islands Customs.

The HCVM uses the viZual threat identification technology and can distinguish between organic and inorganic substances by using color-coded material discrimination.

The company says the system allows the detection of narcotics and other suspect substances hidden in standard commercial shipments.

Coupled with other HI-SCAN Cargo Inspection Systems, the full array of scanners will help reduce the need for manual inspections by showing customs officials that goods in containers match those declared on the manifest.

Smiths Detection Director of Sales for Latin America and Caribbean Eduardo Parodi said the Caribbean installation would be Smiths Detection's fifth High Energy System deployment in the region.

"All our systems have had a strong history of return on investment for their end users in terms of narcotics seizures as well as revenue collection," Parodi said.

"The effective use of advanced technology supported by our investments in regional service capabilities truly allows Smiths Detection to stand out among competing manufacturers," he said.

Cayman Islands' sensitive status as a financial hub has meant that government, politicians and law enforcement agencies have faced criticism they all try to play down crime on the islands.

The Cayman News Service Web site warned "violent crime has become commonplace and there can be no hope of reversing the trend without an honest assessment of what went wrong in the first place."

The U.S. State Department in a travel advisory warned of increased criminal activity involving Jamaican gangs, including gang and drug-related shootings. The department warned U.S. citizens to stay clear of traffickers dealing in soft and hard drugs.

By: UPI

IN BED WITH US TORTURERS

Like "ethnic cleansing," the term "extraordinary rendition" is already a notorious euphemism, dressing up barbaric behaviour in the most banal language.

The latest batch of state documents from the US sheds further light on the torture network orchestrated by the CIA and spanning at least four continents.

For the past 10 years, people suspected of planning, executing or possibly knowing something about anti-Western acts of terrorism have been freighted across the world in unmarked aeroplanes, trussed up and delivered for torture in Cuba, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Romania, Poland, Egypt, Morocco, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and elsewhere.

These vile operations make a mockery of US pretensions to be fighting a "war against terror" in defence of civilised values, democracy and freedom. Equally disgusting is the way that Cuba, itself a victim of US state terrorism, has been dragged into the web because the US military still squats in Guantanamo Bay.

But the biggest issue for the people of Britain must be our own government's complicity in US Torture Inc. Admissions that British airports and overseas territories such as Diego Garcia were hosting rendition flights had to be dragged out of former foreign secretary David Miliband. To this day, ministers and intelligence chiefs deny any complicity by British agents in torture sessions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

Only recently, the Gibson judicial inquiry into these matters set up by the Tory-led coalition imposed such restrictions on its own proceedings that British victims of US Torture Inc. are withdrawing from the process.

The International Criminal Court is very quick off the mark to indict political and military leaders who fall out of favour with the West. It will do its own failing credibility a power of good when it indicts George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon and their ilk who have waged unprovoked war and organised or covered up "extraordinary rendition" on a horrendous scale.

By: The Morning star

HANDS OFF OUR SLEEPING HABITS

The sleep police are at it again, telling us where, when and how much we need.

The Sleep Council has just produced figures reminding us that ­six- to 12-year-olds need
on average 10 hours sleep. Photograph: Alan Powdrill/Getty Images

  

Sleep, it seems to me, is a bit like alcohol. Everyone is an expert on how much other people should get, while being a rather poorer judge when it comes to deciding what's good for themselves. Only this week we've had assertions that the "right kind of sleep" can improve your exam results and help women live longer than men, and that the right amounts of sleep can be assessed and doled out to schoolchildren as if they were portions of fruit and vegetables. So there are views not only on how much you sleep, but where, when and how you do it.

Just before I get on to these academic studies, I can give you an example much closer to home. I'm dozing peacefully in my favourite armchair, gently lulled by Newsnight or yet another repeat of New Tricks, when a voice cuts through the tranquillity like a knife: "Why don't you go to bed, Pete; you'll be so much more comfortable there?"

It's framed as a question, but it isn't one, nor is it intended as a basis for debate. It's an order, founded on the belief that there is a time and a place for sleeping, and that 11pm in your favourite chair isn't it.

The problem is, as any habitual armchair sleeper knows, that although I might indeed be more comfortable in bed, I will no longer be asleep. The mere act of rousing myself will have banished sleep for the next couple of hours. It's evidence that my first premise about alcohol is right, though, because I do exactly the same to my wife when it is she who is peacefully stretched out on the sofa, while I'm awake taking my turn at being the "sleep police".

I guess it all goes back to childhood – both yours, and then, as you seek revenge, that of your own children. First, before they can answer back, because they wake us in the middle of the night; then because they won't go to sleep when we want them to; then because they wake up before we want them to. We like to think this is all based on what's good for them, when in fact, it's based on what's good for us.

I'm sure the Sleep Council would disagree with me (I think my wife may be a member). It's produced figures reminding us that six- to 12-year-olds need on average 10 hours sleep, and teenagers an average of eight to nine hours. It bemoans the fact that not a lot of parents seem to know this. Its researchers saved particular astonishment for the fact that only 19% of parents who participated in its survey seemed to be aware that electronic gadgets in the bedroom might "distract from sleep".

Didn't know, or didn't care, I feel compelled to ask. Or perhaps some of us have reached a point where we're more in tune with the way children think, act and sleep? People such as Paul Kelley, head of Monkseaton school on Tyneside, who has catered for the apparent bodyclock shift forwards experienced by teenagers, so that instead of needing their 10 hours from 9pm, we've now discovered they need their eight to nine hours from midnight. I have to say it's a cunning biological clock indeed that allows for the fact that there are far more interesting things for teenagers to do between nine and midnight, than between seven and 10 in the morning.

Anyway, Kelley has achieved this by putting back first lessons at his school until 10am, achieving an average 19 per cent improvement in GCSEs between A- and C-grades. He's achieved similar or even more impressive rises in all the core subjects, so this is clearly a result that takes a lot of explaining away, although the naysayers have had a try.

It's a measure of the difficulty of their task that the bravest effort was "that teachers relish innovation, and therefore perform better when asked to carry them out". Pardon? All I can say is that I could have done with a few more Paul Kelleys in my youth. My experience has been that fixed ideas about acceptable periods of sleep work against those who don't need very much, of which I was one. My parents, liberal in most respects, could not be convinced that when I said I didn't want to go to sleep, I meant it; but it became far worse when I went off to boarding school, where the entire system was based on conformity. The first punishment I received was for waking up too early, and demonstrating the fact by moving around. I had to write out 100 times: "I must not wake up before the bell goes", convincing me for all time of the idiocy of adult authority.

The lesson I learned was not how to sleep for my statutory 10 hours, but how to lie perfectly still. It's also when I discovered all those wonderful mind-expanding activities that can get you through the hours of darkness, perfected and so beloved by hostages. In my case this included counting down a quarter of an hour, 900 seconds, between the regular tolling of the school clock; reciting the 92 English football league teams in alphabetical order, and when all else failed, tracking the syncopated snoring patterns of my room-mates, and predicting whose breathing rhythms would change first (surprisingly, I didn't grow up to be a bookmaker). With the discovery of Braille, a system you could read silently and undetected under the bedsheets, my victory over sleeplessness was complete, and I've always felt sorry for those people who fret about being awake: there is, after all, so much you can do.

I'm sure genuine insomniacs will tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do still find myself wondering just how much the horror of wakefulness experienced by so many people is caused by the bean counters who have always rushed to tell us for how long, where and when we ought to be asleep. And now I see that, not content with harrying us in our cradles, the bean counters are set on hurrying us to our graves. It emerges that light or non-sleepers like me are not only not getting the right amount of sleep, we aren't getting the right kind, either.

Harvard scientists, God bless them, have discovered that on average – here we go again – men are missing out on the more relaxing, slow-wave sleep, which keeps us healthy, and that we are almost doubling the risk of high-blood pressure, and all that goes with it. Suffice to say that it's just one more reason why women tend to live longer than men. They, it seems, get truckloads of this priceless slow-wave sleep. I'd like to discuss with the scholars of Harvard whether my relaxed attitude to sleeplessness would help in any way. With the five-hour time difference, it would be something else to do in the long watches of the night, but as I've already been diagnosed with slightly high blood pressure, I guess I'll save the phone bill and accept my fate.

By: Peter White   

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IS FOR BUSINESS TOO

Is scientific research endangered by Philip Morris's freedom of information request? Not when we all benefit.

A request by tobacco giant Philip Morris International to the University of Stirling has reignited concern about the use of freedom of information laws. The data it was interested in was collected as part of a survey of teenagers and smoking carried out by the university's Centre for Tobacco Control Research.

The UK's FoI law is meant to be applicant blind. This means anyone can ask a public body for official information and there should be no discrimination based on the identity of the person asking. In the case of scientific research conducted and funded in the public's name, there is a strong argument that the underlying data and methodology should be disclosed. It is precisely this transparency that grants research reports their status as robust investigations.

Some universities, however, are balking. Stirling is one of nine universities that form the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, and is the premier research institute for investigating smoking behaviour. It receives funding from the Department of Health and its findings are used to formulate anti-smoking laws. So it's probably no surprise that Philip Morris is interested in its data. The tobacco company made its first FoI request anonymously through the London law firm Clifford Chance in September 2009. It put in a further two FoI requests in its own name: all seeking underlying data and methodology for the centre's report, which was called "Point of Sale Display of Tobacco Products". In particular, it sought information from a survey entitled "Cancer Research UK CTCR survey of adolescents' reactions to tobacco marketing" which was referred to in the introduction to the report.

The university provided some data but refused the bulk by claiming the requester was time-wasting. It would have been better off dealing with the request openly and using those exemptions in the FoI law which protect privacy or expending excessive resources. Instead, its appeal to the Scottish information commissioner was rejected. This is not the first time a university has tried to hide from FoI. The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests by climate change sceptics (the university escaped prosecution because the case came to light outside the six-month time limit for cases to be brought).

Other universities claim researchers will feel inhibited or endangered if forced to reveal their methodology or primary data. This strikes me as unlikely. The arguments reveal a discomfort with the higher level of accountability that exists in the digital age. There are plenty of exemptions in the FoI law for genuine issues of cost, privacy and confidentiality. Stirling's attempt to refuse the request, calling it "vexatious", smacks of fear. The research in question is funded with public money and conducted in the public's name. These reports often go on to become cornerstones in creating new legislation, so we should be allowed to interrogate the underlying facts.

Several FoI officers complain it's unfair to the taxpayer to provide such data to a rich company like Philip Morris. Indeed there may well be concerns about what Philip Morris will do with the data, but if it's available to all then we can see for ourselves if any attempt is made to "spin" it.

In the US, businesses are one of the biggest users of FoI and new industries are built on this universal access to official data. The ability to use and re-use official government data is a factor behind the remarkable growth of the US knowledge economy. The satellite navigation industry grew out of free GPS data obtained from the US government.

There's a unique anti-business attitude in Europe in relation to FoI. Prof James Boyle of Duke University Law School told me: "European attitudes towards private commercialisation actually work against the idea of openness. In the US if the government hands out weather data for free and people make a ton of money off the back of it, everyone says, 'Great! it's good for the economy, good for us, good for the company' … In Britain there's a sense that the company has got something for free and now they're making money out of it. 'How terrible! They're free-riding.' They don't see the overall economic benefit that comes from sharing information."

I'm in favour of businesses using FoI. Not simply because business people are members of the public but because once businesses – with their bigger budgets and legal departments – start using FoI, we might see the law have some real bite.

By: Heather Brooke

Heather Brooke is a campaigning journalist and writer living in London. She is the author of The Revolution Will be Digitised. In May 2008, she won a high court case against the House of Commons for the full disclosure of MPs' second homes allowances. The ruling resulted in calls for full-scale reform of the parliamentary expense system. She tweets @newsbrooke

SO, WAS THIS A WAR FOR OIL?

The dust in Libya has not yet settled, but already the struggle has begun over who gets what.

The Libyan conflict has been a war about oil if not "for" oil. The country's economy is almost totally dependent on hydrocarbons and a key objective for the transitional government will be to get the wells up and running again as soon as possible.

The British and French, meanwhile, are worried about future energy supplies. They are already pushing and shoving over who should get what of the energy proceeds before the political dust has even settled in Tripoli (just as BP and Shell are once again sitting pretty in Iraq following western military intervention there).

The UK government has been working hand in glove with parts of the oil industry to bring about regime change in Libya. London crude trader, Vitol, held meetings with international development minister Alan Duncan (a former consultant to the firm) and played a key role in keeping the rebels well-supplied with petrol while others tried to starve Muammar Gaddafi's troops of fuel. Was this a practical operation to undermine Gaddafi's military logistics or a potent symbol that western politics and oil are so closely intermeshed that the agendas of both are indistinguishable?

Certainly the French blew the gaff on Thursday. Foreign minister Alain Juppé was trying to bury a story run in Liberation that suggested that Paris had tied up an agreement to be given 35% of all the country's oil in future in return for military help. He said it was "fair and logical" to him that Libya's new interim government, the National Transitional Council would turn to France in the reconstruction of Libya.

The British have not been so public about their expectations but we know that BP has already held talks with the new opposition leaders and are preparing to re-enter the country. Clearly, the role of Vitol, never mind the RAF jets, will require some recognition in the new Libya that emerges – at least in the eyes of the UK political and oil establishment.

And the prospects look good. An executive from the rebel oil company, Agoco, has already said the interests of Britain, France and Italy will all be treated favourably compared with those who equivocated, such as Russia and China.

But won't the NTC want to reorganise its oil industry differently, and perhaps do without the west completely? Gaddafi originally kicked out western oil but then invited it back in after UN sanctions over the Lockerbie bombing were lifted. The problem for the NTC is that oil provides virtually all of the country's income. Even if nationalisation was their preferred option, getting production back up and running as quickly as possible is the imperative. Libya used to produce 1.6m barrels of oil a day – worth an almighty $1.3bn a week at today's crude prices, and money the NTC desperately needs, even if it means sharing the spoils.

Whatever deal is reached, it is unlikely to be all or nothing: nationalisation or capitulation. What the new government will certainly want to do is exact much tougher terms for western oil company involvement. The idea that a third of Libya's oil would be simply turned over to the French, as the Libération story suggested, is surely nonsense. It would be political suicide for the NTC.

What happened in Iraq is instructive. Although BP and others have been given access to reserves in Iraq, they are not on the terms they would ideally have chosen. The auctions there have resulted in "technical service agreements", where the likes of BP act as contractors and get $2 on each barrel of oil produced but do not "own" the reserves in the way they do in the North Sea – or did in Iraq before they were removed by Saddam Hussein.

Western independent oil companies have the most modern technology, easy access to capital market money and a can-do spirit, but they are also on the defensive because they are being gradually muscled out globally by state-owned national oil companies in places such as Venezuela, Brazil and Russia.

The desperate – and now failed – recent attempt by BP to tie up a share-swap deal with Russian state-owned Rosneft, despite all the problems it has had in that country, was just another sign of this.

With the North Sea and other mature basins fast running out of oil and a failure to fully invest in lower carbon alternatives, western ministers are also desperately worried about future crude supplies.

It was a war around oil in Libya – but the new interim government in Tripoli could yet win that, too.

By: Terry Macalister

Terry Macalister is energy editor of the Guardian. He has been employed at the paper and website for 12 years and previously worked for the Independent and other national titles.

“THE GAME OF POLITICS” Anguilla needs leadership!!

The honorable Chief Minister said recently; “I’m not happy! In all my years of politics, I was only happy working for Ronald Webster.” This is quite a confession, and signifies clearly that the mind set of our Chief Minister is still part of the “old guard.”

Not exactly the change we were looking for.

Since the time of Ronald Webster, we’ve entered a new century and a brand new era, one would think that our political class had prepared themselves to lead the country into a brighter future. Ronald Webster is the only real leader the island has known, tasked with the mammoth responsibility of leading Anguilla out of the wilderness. History would reveal that his tasked was accomplished most effectively, which lead the people of Anguilla to believe that he was appointed by God to carry out the mission and accomplished it with grace and honor. Since then, the island has not been blessed with a leader of such characteristics.

To fulfill the task of leading the country into prosperity there must be a clear mission, and the people must know about it. The political class of today is plagued with a lack of definition, a lack of distinction and clarity. No one seems to have a clear mission for the country or where the future would take us! The people of Anguilla have recognized this, and have refused to endorse any particular group with full confidence as Mr. Webster enjoyed during his term as political leader, and more specifically as the revolutionary leader of our time. No one since Ronald Webster passionately embraces the responsibility of leadership of the country with that unbiased attitude, “sincerely on a mission.” Anguilla needs a leader, a political leader with poise, a good sense of economics, conscious of the moral high ground and a good social academic. The Game of Politics has diminished, and poisoned the characteristics of good men we know but certainly, the country would produce the next genuine leader in real time. The honorable Chief Minister, longing for the return of those likable days is probably vague rhetoric. The People of Anguilla are much smarter today, and much wiser and have no interest in choosing between a worrier and a politician, “not today,” we have our worrier, there will not be a second revolution in our time, and while we are still blessed with the likes of the great “Ronald Webster” we remain a grateful people for the mission he accomplished. We’ve been brought out of the wilderness and into the land of plenty, but we simply can’t find our way.

Anguilla needs a leader on a mission to succeed in leading the country into prosperity; this is the mission at hand, this is the task before us as a country. It must be said right here, that one must step up, and know their calling; while history will record Mr. Ronald Webster as the greatest leader of our time, a worrier, a man who remained focused on the mission until accomplished, it will also show that he was not a good politician, the very people he lead from a life of misery, are a people slow to anger, but unforgiving. No one learned this lesson like Mr. Webster himself. Being greatly honored for his task by a grateful people, who gave him the honor to lead them into prosperity; he failed. Was it that he too was caught up in “the game of politics?” and became a victim of its divisive and treacherous characteristics which divided the people? We must remember this, said people, never again elected Mr. Webster to office, in his several attempts thereafter, a real life story of our time.

"... your play or my play next?!"

Keen observers of Anguilla politics must conclude that there is a very serious vacuum in the reality of the job; people actually see politics as a “game” a game that consequently is played against the people. Our present situation is a very clear example, until we have another framework, our leaders must be willing to maneuver, take some, (political punches) give some and win for the good of the country, there must be no sobbing. Obviously the players on stage today are an informed group, and know our system of governance very well, if not, this was a grave over sight of anyone seeking the office of governance. It must be assumed that certainly, they understand process, process that quantifies success for the people of Anguilla; the people must be the beneficiary of good political leadership within our system of governance. The economic situation of the country must take precedent over any continuing squabble between the Governor and the Chief Minister, we cannot have a government so pre-occupied with internal chaos that the people continue to suffer. When all is said and done, the Governor answers to no one on Anguilla, and what might seem ironic, is that his work appears very well acceptable to his superiors. We want to see a focused government and leadership in the total interest of the country, irrespective to conditions, and we look to our elected government to provide this. Is our government leading the country into prosperity or simply caught up in “the game of politics?” are we winning? (Refer to introductory remarks) Or are we seeing a warrior go down in defeat?

By: ElliotJ.Harrigan

"WOOSH!"

Many persons waited in anticipation for the “much talked about” massive rally which the Chief Minister publicized for the epicenter of his Constituency, Blowing Point on Saturday, August 27th, 2011. It was touted as an important meeting to inform the people of Anguilla how his efforts to deliver on the promises he made to them eighteen months ago have been thwarted. The Chief Minister was passionate and animated on the several talk shows and interviews leading up to the meeting about what he described as deliberate schemes by the British Government, with the complicity of the Governor, the Deputy Governor, the Opposition and a number of Senior Public Servants to sabotage his plan for Anguilla’s development. I was told that the attendance did not reflect the high profile, which the Chief Minister and his supporters attached to the meeting. However, in all fairness, it may well have been the case that the radio audience made up for the low turn out in the very heart of his traditional political stronghold.

A number of persons who had the opportunity to listen to the Chief Minister in his presentation have expressed to me their frustration in not being able to determine exactly the purpose for the meeting. Apparently, many persons, his supporters included, expected to hear something concrete about his plans and strategy to improve the economic situation in Anguilla despite his complaints about sabotage. There seems to be a general consensus among persons from all sides of the political spectrum that after eighteen months of the “blame game” it is time for the Chief Minister to do what he was elected to do, that is, take responsibility and lead. In fact, I was told that the entire meeting did not take on the “flavour” of a Government in control. On the contrary, both the demeanour of the speakers and the offerings from the podium exuded the feeling of a Government in crisis.

It seems that the entire population has become inured to the rude, abusive and rancorous conduct of the Chief Minister in his Press Conferences; Interviews; Speeches and other presentations. In fact, there is a tendency to dismiss his most outrageous comments with a shrug and a casual riposte: “You know Hubert!” As a consequence of that widespread attitude the Chief Minister has been able to construct monuments of lies and half truths which have not only led to the distrust and denigration of his opponents but have also created an illusion of himself as being an honest and sincere leader. To build this false image, anyone and everyone, including family and friends are dispensable. “I am clean!” He proclaims. That seems hardly a characterization of a self-admitted liar.

The recent arrangements/agreements between the Government and the Temenos and the Viceroy Projects have been the subject island wide discussion. The transparency with which this Government purports to cloak itself needs to be disrobed --- and a number of questionable matters may well justify investigation. For example, the question has been raised to me as to why it is that the Chief Minister’s sons appear to be receiving an inordinate share of the limited opportunities in the construction sector? Or what is the story on the land leased by Government to one of the CM’s tenants to build a shopping mall in the Spring Path area? Who is the actual owner of that shopping mall? Who is building and/or financing it?

The number of conspiracy theories, which the Chief Minister has woven with circumstantial and/or contrived evidence, should not evoke his surprise that such insinuations could be leveled at him and his family. Quite recently he has made libelous comments about the Chairman of our Party, Mr. Fritz Smith, to imply illegal conduct in his role as Project Manager of the Airport Expansion Project. But I have noticed that neither the Chief Minister nor his offspring respond kindly to any allegations of corrupt practices pointed at them. The Parliamentary Secretary was both incensed and defensive when questions were raised about his participation in a fast ferry service agreement with Viceroy. Yet he is quite comfortable when he casts aspersions on other persons, in a most cowardly manner, on the blogs or in the shelter of the House of Assembly. Nevertheless, I will not shirk from my responsibility to raise a number of questions in connection with the Temenos and the Viceroy negotiations. And in keeping with my principle of not using anonymity or sheltering behind any cowardly contrivance --- I now put these questions on the record in my column and under my name.

Last week the Chief Minister got on the airwaves and insulted Mr. Rizzuto by suggesting that by virtue of having social engagements with the Governor he was influenced to renege on his agreements with the Government. In the same interview he spoke about the inability of Mr. Rizzuto and the Government to come to an agreement on the MOU for the development of the Temenos Resort and Golf Course and commented that he had sent a letter to the receiver informing him of that situation and requesting that the receiver terminates any agreement with Mr. Rizzuto arising out of that auction. That was the last official position from the Government. However, it appears that since that time things have changed.

Over the weekend we heard that there has been an agreement with Mr. Rizzuto. And despite the fact that the Chief Minister read out a letter indicating that he had written to the receiver requesting that any agreement with Mr. Rizzuto be terminated it is reported that this has not happened and the sale has been consummated. I have also been reliably informed that some of the elected and appointed officials as well as the technicians are not privy to these arrangements. Furthermore it is widely circulated on the basis of his own declarations that the Parliamentary Secretary is not in favor of an agreement being made with Mr. Rizzuto on the terms provided.

It is my view that there is need for closure on the Temenos Project and I raised the important considerations, which Government should take on board in arriving at a reasonable agreement, in my June 17 article: “And wid a lotta sauce!” as follows: 

1. Will the Government in its negotiations ensure that the Golf Course remains a critical aspect of the GOA’s business plan and promotion strategy such that it remains a public facility to be enjoyed by visitors from all properties as well as local Anguillians.
 
2. Will the Government ensure that a strict timetable for the completion of the project is in place so that there will be a swift injection of jobs, business opportunities and revenue streams to Government?
 
3. Will Government ensure that the interests of local creditors, vendors and contractors are negotiated as an aspect of the granting of the Alien Land Holding Licence? 

The point that must be made is that the sale of the Golf Course Project at any price is just the beginning of the process. The Government must now negotiate a business plan with the developer that is contingent on the appropriate responses to the issues raised above as well as others. It must be remembered that Mr. Rizzuto has acquired an asset legally free and clear of all encumbrances. He is not obliged to recognize any of the other creditors. However, Government must use its leverage along with moral suasion to achieve the best outcomes for its people. The Chief Minister must adopt the “wait and see” approach that “the victory is not yet ours!” He should be careful not to shout: “Mission accomplished!” Let the Salamander experience, be his guide!”

The foregoing admonitions have not changed and the events of last week proved my point as the Chief Minister’s ventilated his frustrations with cries of sabotage ---confirming his credo that if anything goes wrong it could not possibly be his fault. After relating his disappointment, he then went on to read a letter from Executive Council under his own signature calling the deal off. My question is what were the assurances given Mr. Rizzuto, which caused him to express surprise at the Government’s position? It is quite reasonable, based on the Chief Minister’s characterization of Mr. Rizzuto as “a good friend”, to assume that there were no impediments to cordial negotiations. In fact, in Mr. Rizzuto’s letter of November 15, 2010, there seems to be some “quid pro quo” arrangements being made by the CM to Mr. Rizzuto long before the auction process took place. I now quote a small section of that letter for your own interpretation as follows: “On a side note you asked me to remove Joe Hylton from Anguilla and in a short time I achieved this. I now need you to finalize the property transfer and award it to CuisinArt Resort & Spa and you will have my personal word that I will complete the project and utilize local workers and create the resort as a great addition to what CuisinArt already has.

The Chief Minister was very strong in condemning the Governor for having a social meal or drink with Mr. Rizzuto but in the case of his insistence on the removal of Joe Hylton as Project Manager of the construction site for expansion of the Resort raises a number of questions. How does the CM’s request for the removal of Joe Hylton relate to the involvement of his sons in the construction of the six new villas at CuisinArt? Were any promises made by the CM to Mr. Rizzuto as an incentive for Hylton’s dismissal as Project Manager? Where were these discussions held? On the other side there are also questions regarding the Parliamentary Secretary. Why is the Parliamentary Secretary so adamant that Mr. Rizzuto should not be allowed to acquire the property? Does the Parliamentary Secretary still harbour resentment against the Resort for not giving him an executive position? Why are members of the Government making public statements claiming that they are not aware of what is happening with the Temenos deal? I believe that there are strong grounds for an investigation into these matters.

A few weeks ago I raised the issue concerning the fact that because of the Parliamentary Secretary’s solo negotiations on a three page MOU for Viceroy written on Starwood Capital Group stationery, we lost upwards of EC$18 million in direct revenue for 2011. The negotiations for this notorious MOU, according to the Parliamentary Secretary (Parl. Sec) in an international media statement dated July 30, 2010, started in New York and culminated in Anguilla. In the Chief Minister’s own words his son the Parliamentary Secretary “was given the task to redeem some of the taxes lost under the previous MOA”. In the statement, which was also carried in The Anguillian, the Parl. Sec used the occasion to gloat and make inaccurate statements about the previous MOA.

The media statement shows a smiling picture of the CM and the Parl. Sec and the three-page MOU carries the signature of the Chief Minister witnessed by his Permanent Secretary. The Parl. Sec’s statement read: “Last week the property was up for sale this week it has been sold.” It is obvious that in his youthful exuberance and inexperience the Parl. Sec was anxious to prove his ability to achieve what the past government had painstakingly achieved using a model, which has become a “best practice” for the OECS. He ignored the objective input of the Tourism Investment Committee (TIC), which the AUF Government established as a negotiating tool, but most of all he neglected to follow the established procedure for good governance, that is, getting Executive Council approval before signing off on any Government agreement with a developer. To further exacerbate this impropriety the Parl. Sec was able to get the CM to sign the document and it seems that one of them was able to get a Senior Government Official to witness the CM’s signature as well.

In writing about this incident in his Confessions entitled: “Who runs Anguilla?” the Minister of Social Development, Mr. Eddie Baird had this to say: “Only the Executive Council possesses the authority to issue a licence and to approve a Memorandum of Understanding. Not even the Chief Minister and definitely not the Parliamentary Secretary, acting outside the walls of the Executive Council, can approve an Alien Landholding Licence or a Memorandum of Understanding. At the time of the Parliamentary Secretary’s announcement, the Executive Council had not even discussed these matters.”

This action by the Parl. Sec was obviously condoned by the Chief Minister, which illustrates what I have been saying continuously that: “the Chief Minister leads by bad example. “ What is also evident, and which can be gleaned from the CM’s ongoing argument about MOU’s and MOA’s, is that he does not understand that any document signed by him in his capacity as Chief Minister is a legal instrument. In this context, despite the fact that the Parl. Sec negotiated an MOU, which was seriously flawed and unauthorized, it was used to tie the Government’s hand to a fixed return on Stamp Duty and ALHL fees. In fact to meet the terms of that MOU and remain compliant with the Stamp Duty Act, Government must now amend the MOU retrospectively to reflect ALHL fees of less than 4%. Just because the Parl. Sec negotiated this MOU without the benefit of experienced technicians --- alone it is reported, at such respectable restaurants as DaVida’s in Anguilla and perhaps equally pleasant environments in New York.

The questions continue! Why did the CM give the Parl. Sec the authority to negotiate am MOU on a 500 million US dollar property on his own? Why did the Chief Minister sign the MOU without Executive Council approval? Why did the Chief Minister decide to move this MOU forward without sharing the details with his colleagues? Will the boasts made by the Parl. Sec about the employment of Anguillian contractors be realized in the upcoming construction works at Viceroy? I believe there are strong grounds for an investigation into these matters.

I listened in on a “lament” between two guys just outside Ashley’s Supermarket. One of them remarked: “Boy tings brown! Tis like a Hurricane hit we country!” The other responded: “Not one two! Hurricane Hubert and Hurricane Haydn! According to Pantha: WOOSH!”

 

By: Victor F. Banks

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, author and writer of a weekly political article for the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

THE UK HAS TO GET OVER ITS PRUDISHNESS ABOUT SEX

After being suspended, I was given the chance to challenge the idea that being a stripper is incompatible with being a teacher.

Yesterday, I was informed by the General Teaching Council this week that I would be permitted to return to teaching, a pleasant surprise after the increasing controversy about my persona: in July 2010, I was suspended from the school where I used to work as head of personal, social and health education, after the authorities discovered that I also earned money for stripping in clubs and acting in porn films.

While I disagree with any sanction being imposed, I am content and satisfied that it is a fair decision under the circumstances. I believe the GTC's decision is a recognition of the strength of the arguments that I raised to challenge the view that activities in adult entertainment might "undermine public trust and confidence" in people working in the teaching profession.

My defence hinged on a number of factors: some disputable, some indisputable. First: is the impact of pornography on our society really as damaging as some want us to believe? Had I not been raised by two open-minded parents and worked in sex education and the sex industry, I might have shared the view of those who associate porn with social ills: paedophilia, rape, sex slavery, abuse, HIV, teen sex, the degradation of women. But I don't think we should accept a view just because it is held by a large number of people.

There is no evidence to prove pornography has either a negative or, for that matter, a positive effect on society. There are scraps of research, but no proof at all.

Millions of men and women legally purchase, view and enjoy pornography as a form of entertainment every day. The vast majority of these people are decent, law-abiding individuals.

Pornography, in its simplest form (and I accept that there are unsavoury parts of the industry, including the exploitation of women and men – but then there are unsavoury aspects in most industries) is about the depiction of a legally consenting adult having sex with another legally consenting adult (or more, why should numbers matter?). What, in essence, is wrong with that process?

Anyone under the age of 18 viewing pornography in the UK is doing so illegally. I would not condone them doing so. However, I do not see that viewing sexual intercourse, or witnessing nudity, poses any threat or danger to that child. If anything, exposure to the realities of sex and nudity and living in a society where we are happy to discuss such issues openly makes for a safer and healthier environment for young people.

Sex and pornography are shrouded in a veil of mystery in Britain. If young people have access to the same levels of online pornography as our European counterparts (which they do), why do we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and the highest rates of STIs in Europe? My view is that it's not because of exposure to depictions of sex, but because we are not open enough, particularly compared with our Dutch, Scandinavian and German neighbours. When we refuse to talk about something in public young people are more inclined to experiment in private, and to do so without the adequate tools to make informed choices. Telling young people that sex is always "bad", "wrong" and "immoral" is simply not an adequate response.

Our society is faced with hypocrisies and inconsistencies, the riots up and down our great land only served to demonstrate this – we didn't need the recent riots and the subsequent punishments to be reminded of that. But my case also shows that some people wish to take a hardline approach on an activity that poses no proven threat to society whatsoever. While a teacher working in the sex industry must be banned, teachers who publicly indulge in activities that are linked to thousands of deaths each and every year – such as smoking, drinking and overeating – are tolerated.

Prior to the ban being imposed in 2007 I worked in a school where smoking was sanctioned by the provision of a smoking room. How many deaths are associated with tobacco? I have worked in a school that provided alcohol at events attended by parents and students. How much misery is linked to alcohol? I have worked with a member of the Catholic clergy who provided lessons on contraception during the week and told his congregation that contraception was wrong and evil at the weekend. How many deaths of Aids sufferers around the world can be laid at the hands of the Catholic faith?

When it comes to porn and our society we desperately need to start putting things into perspective. Porn is going nowhere – we had better learn to deal with it in a grownup way. And young people aren't machines that we can indoctrinate with our irrational fears and prejudices. They are too clever for that.

By: Johnny Anglais
Johnny Anglais is an actor, singer, stripper, adult entertainer and public speaker and media whore. His website is johnnyanglaisofficial.com

THE NOTION OF BRITAIN AS A PROPERTY-OWNING DEMOCRACY IS IN TATTERS

Homelessness up. Housing benefit claims up. Housing waiting lists up. What happened to the Tory dream of home-ownership transforming the nation?

It would be funny if it were not so terrible. Britain is 30 years into the grand Conservative project that was to transform the nation into a "property-owning democracy". To mark this great anniversary, a government-sponsored organisation, UK Asset Resolution, is about to embark on the highly patronising and paternalistic task of telephoning 30,000 mortgage-holders and telling them to spend less on nights out, Sky television, gym membership and mobile phones, and more on servicing their mortgages. It's safe to say that this is not what Margaret Thatcher had in mind when she promised that her privatisation policies would remove the state from people's personal lives. It hardly chimes with David Cameron's rhetoric either.

UK Asset Resolution. What a name. It sounds like a highly dodgy private company that buys debt, then intimidates people into paying it off at extortionate rates. But it isn't. UK Asset Resolution is the Treasury-owned holding company that was established last October to "support around 800,000 customers with £77bn of loans", customers who initially took out their mortgages with Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. Both of those companies, of course, are now "taxpayer owned", after receiving more than £48.7bn in government loans.

Essentially, all these 800,000 people live in houses that are owned by the government, and have to pay the government every month if they wish to carry on living in them. Some of them – the riskier propositions – will also have to put up with presumptive lectures from strangers about their frivolous failure to understand their financial priorities. And they are not the only vulnerable "home owners" by any means. It is Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland, for example, not Northern Rock and B&B, that have the greatest exposure to customers whose mortgages are already larger than the value of their homes.

You'd imagine that the implosion of the "property-owning democracy" project was obvious to all. You'd have imagined that it had become obvious back in 1997, when highly visible homelessness was one of the factors that delivered a landslide election victory to Tony Blair. But no.

Just to underline this historic failure, the National Housing Federation this week predicted that the proportion of the population who own or live with the owner of their home will fall to 63.8% by 2021, about the level it stood at in the 1980s. Of more immediate concern are the observations from homelessness charity Crisis that rough sleeping is up 8% on last year, while the number of people accepted as homeless by local councils and placed in social housing is up by 10%. Since the coalition came to power, the number of families claiming housing benefit has risen by 150,000. There are now five million names on waiting lists for social housing. Many more don't bother to make an application, because they understand that they have absolutely no chance of becoming a council or housing association tenant.

The most astounding thing about this mess is that there is still a widespread failure to understand that a flagship ideological experiment in self-regulation by the market is in tatters. The deregulation of banks and building societies, combined with draconian restrictions on the provision of new council housing, which could have replaced stock diminished by the right to buy, was supposed to transform "sink estates" into privately owned and lovingly cared-for communities. Instead, the social demographic of people living in council flats has narrowed massively. The people with the greatest problems are herded together, sometimes seeking a dark kind of identity in their blighted postcode, to the point at which the threat of eviction from council housing is seriously touted as a way of encouraging people to think twice before they take part in riots. God help us.

Yet even though the property-owning democracy idea has achieved neither its social nor its financial goals (the housing market has manifestly not developed in an orderly fashion that seamlessly matches supply and demand), there remains a truculent insistence from the right that somehow it is still interference from the state that is the problem, rather than the lack of it. That is at the heart of Cameron's wish to delay the enactment of recommendations whereby banks separate their retail operations from their investment arms. Not for the first time in recent decades, we see a British prime minister who is very keen on "liberal democracy" when he is "exporting" it, but much more keen on oligarchy when he is dealing with matters at home.

Capitalism is pretty simple. Those with the capital get the profits because they are the ones who have money to invest. The very fact that 30 years of financial deregulation has resulted in greater division between rich and poor is prima facie evidence that capitalism has been working extremely dynamically, unhindered by the state's supposedly crushing interference, until the bursting of the asset bubbles that it created. Chief among these, of course, was the property bubble, which in turn fuelled the febrile consumer boom that continues to worry the 2,400 employees of UK Asset Resolution so greatly.

Yet, still there remains in place an obstinate refusal to see that, without a determinedly redistributive infrastructure, liberal democracy simply cannot exist.

Britain has now been an oligarchy, not a democracy, for quite some time. It is utterly absurd that Cameron and his chancellor George Osborne are at odds with their coalition partners over this question of reorganising the banks, and instead are minded to give greater weight to the desires of the banks themselves, who are resisting the plan.

Basically, the reform calls for the ordinary money of ordinary people, who earn it, to be looked after with more caution and respect than the extraordinary money of people looking for speculative returns that will provide unearned income. After the hammering that ordinary people have been asked to take, in consequence of the financial crash, it is perverse and repulsive that this pair can even imagine that they have a mandate to shield the banks from a restructuring prompted by their own cavalier and foolhardy negligence. It's an appalling affront to democracy, property-owning or not.

By: Deborah Orr

Deborah Orr is one of Britain's leading social and political commentators. She has a weekly column in G2, the Guardian's features section.

ST. KITTS-BORN LAWYER FRANK WALWYN BLAZES A BAY STREET TRAIL

Frank Walwyn has fond memories of his childhood on the small Caribbean island of St. Kitts. His parents were professional educators, running their own school, and provided a comfortable life for Walwyn and his six siblings.

“My family would have been characterized as an upper-middle class family in St. Kitts and with that come all the trappings of upper-middle class existence. So you would have maids, you’d have nannies — things like that.”

That all changed when the family moved to Toronto in 1974, as Walwyn was entering grade six, and his family made the “plummet” to the lower end of the economic spectrum. “My parents couldn’t find work here. They struggled, it was a matter of each of them working two jobs, working in factories, essentially just trying to feed a family, a very large family.”

Today, Walwyn is a commercial litigator for Weir-Foulds, one of Canada’s oldest and most respected law firms, and serves as president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers.

Over lunch at the posh Weir-Foulds offices in the Stock Exchange Tower in Toronto’s financial district, the poised, reserved Walwyn puzzles over his parents’ difficulties
three decades ago.

“There was no question as to qualifications and credentials, the only issue that arose when they got here was this nebulous ‘Canadian experience’ concept that has been used to keep many an immigrant down or back,” he says.

“And like I said, they struggled.” Of course, it is only in hindsight that Walwyn recognizes the extent of that struggle. As a boy, he was conscious of having to share a room with his siblings and of wearing hand-me-down clothes, but, as he says, “when you come to Canada from the Caribbean at a young age … you’re trying to cope with winter,” he says, recalling long waits at the bus stop in a nylon windbreaker too thin to block out the cold winds.

“You’re pushed into a school system which is a bit foreign and you have no friends … those things are more of the impacts that I was aware of then, more than a change of income or lifestyle.”

The reasoning behind the move is essential to the Walwyn family’s outlook on life, and will be familiar to many immigrants: his parents moved their family here for the sake of their children. Walwyn’s older siblings were approaching university age and there are no
universities in St. Kitts.

“If the entire family didn’t move, it meant kids were away from home boarding somewhere, living away from home at a relatively young age.”

Walwyn says he’s hesitant to say he “did well” in school, because he doesn’t remember it ever being a real challenge due to his quality early education. But clearly others felt he was doing well, as he graduated valedictorian of his high school class.

He initially failed to apply to university because he was afraid his family couldn’t afford to send him, but the outrage of his parents and the concerned intervention of teachers finally saw him enroll at the University of Toronto.

From there he went on to Queen’s University law school, working as an auto mechanic throughout his post-secondary education to pay the bills — “I’m probably the only Bay Street lawyer who can dismantle a Detroit 671 engine and put it back together,” he says with a laugh.

He’s unique on Bay Street for more than his skills with a wrench, however. Today, he is one of the few black partners at a major Bay Street law firm. Though Walwyn was the first-ever black associate at Weir-Foulds, he has nothing but praise for the encouragement he received in building his career in a field dominated by privileged establishment Canadians.

“WeirFoulds is a firm that has been around since pre-Confederation. It must be doing many things right, and one of the things that it does extremely well is to provide its young lawyers with incredible amounts of training and mentoring, together with practical experience in the practice of law…. Historically, it would have been available only to white males. I was privileged to receive the benefit of this continuous drive to create excellence in young lawyers. This privilege creates a responsibility to give back where I can to those who look for assistance.”

He does so primarily through the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers (CABL), where he’s trying to ensure that others who come from groups traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession benefit from similar mentoring and encouragement. He’s also a member of the bar in his home country in St. Kitts and Nevis, and appears regularly before the courts there.

Looking back as a married man considering having children of his own, he’s troubled by what his parents went through. “My parents just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary and spoke a bit about the move and about what they have seen their children accomplish. It was clear to me that they felt they had made the right decision and that it had paid off marvelously.”

“I always muse though, about it. I think my parents took a hell of a step backward in their life and what it could have been in the Caribbean. [They came] to a new country and suffered a number of indignities which were forced on them because they were immigrants and because they were black, and I always wonder whether really, if I had the decision to make if I would do it.”

While he points out that Canada is among the best countries in the world for immigrants, he’s troubled that many immigrant professionals still face difficulties joining the Canadian labour market.

“I think we are inching forward for a number of reasons, one of which is that people like myself are making sure that we give back. We put ourselves in positions like CABL, where we can effect change and we can make sure that nobody is just paying lip service to it. You go out of your way to try to make a difference, to move that change forward … all of that moves society forward, inch by inch. Inch by inch.”

By Edward Keenan