Put away your ego and step aside, Mr Bush
The barbarians are at the gates of Cayman. But they are inside the gates trying to keep them closed to the righteous advocates of democracy and good governance. Caymanian nationalism is the latest pawn in this game of political control and backside protection that has been going on for the last several years. Suddenly it is un-Caymanian and unpatriotic to call for the Premier to step down because it happens to also be what England would think is right.
Some mischievous Englishman at the FCO caused the Premier to draft, sign and fax a letter to Stan Thomas demanding a payment of the balance of $350,000 for apparently accomplishing a rezoning of property on West Bay Beach. Some mischievous Englishman at the FCO set him up by having one of his associates illegally import enough explosives to take down half of George Town and he unwittingly involved himself by apparently ordering the release of the explosives, despite the serious nature of the offence involved! And some mischievous Englishman concocted some complicated circumstances which formed the basis for some other investigation of “financial irregularities”!
So the story goes that it is some English agenda, some English conspiracy, against the Premier, all cleverly orchestrated by the FCO. Clearly the English want to have Cayman fail and become another Turks and Caicos. They want to be stuck with a bitter pill three times the size of the one they had to swallow with TCI and a liability to guarantee of $1.5 billion. And they are committed to this objective because they don’t like McKeeva Bush and simply want to get at him? I am sure Mr Bush thinks that highly of himself but I can assure you that a country dealing with their own economic problems of a double dip recession in the midst of a political and sovereign debt crisis in Europe has more important issues to focus on.
Why is it that a country of intelligent people should accept any of the nonsense described above? It is completely illogical and defies belief. In the absence of an Arden McLean approach to immediately clear one’s name, you must blame someone else. Who better to point the finger at than the usual English boogeyman that despots of other current and former British territories have held up as a distraction to conceal their behavior and give the people someone else to direct their ire at?
Mr Bush is the subject of three separate criminal investigations, one of which involves the illegal importation of enough explosives to take down the whole of Camana Bay. And he maintains that there is no reason for him to step aside until the investigations are complete? Let me list some reasons why he must do that which any adult would comprehend:
- Avoid or minimise the reputational harm to the country
- Minimise or eliminate the potential that the Premier could use his office to intimidate or pressure witnessescompromise evidence
- Minimise or eliminate the potential that the authority of the Premier could be used to
- Minimise or eliminate the potential that the Premiercould intimidate the investigators
- Minimise or remove the potential that the Premier could generally interfere with the investigation
- Ensure that the investigation can be conducted fairly and completely
- Demonstrate that the Premier is not above the law in any way and is treated the same as anyone else in the eyes of the law
It is important to note that for the things under his control it is the possibility that it could happen and not just the likelihood that it would happen that is important. I am notsuggesting that the Premier would necessarily do some or any of these things.
Imagine that the Commissioner of Police was the subject of these criminal investigations and not Mr Bush. Who do you think would be out there screaming vitriol against the Commissioner and demanding that the Governor immediately remove him despite his protests of innocence? He would say it just wouldn’t be right and it is incomprehensible that he could remain in office and expect an investigation to be carried out fairly, and anyway the Commissioner is not above the law and there is no way he deserves to be treated differently than any young civil servant facing such an investigation. If that was Mr Bush, he would be right. But of course his “substance over form” approach and his value of himself is such that the rules are what he says they are and he says they don’t apply to him, and his colleagues all follow the Deputy’s lead and curtsey in agreement.
The constitution does not have a provision to cause the Premier to resign or step aside in the face of criminal investigations because it assumes that the person holding such a post will be a man amongst men, possessed of a degree of honour and capacity to immediately recognise what the appropriate course of action would be. It assumes that he would immediately step down to avoid damage to his office and his country. There is a presumed back up if that assumption should prove flawed. The other leaders of the country should surely be capable of summoning the necessary degree of honour and strength to cause the Premier to be removed either permanently or temporarily in the best interest of the country where he is too weak as a leader to do so himself.
We appear to have had one question answered and will have to wait and see whether the rest are equally weak or if they do indeed possesses the honour and strength to put aside self-interest and shoulder the interests of the Country.
Category: Viewpoint
I read many comments and I agre mostly with Wayne and know him personally but a man (woman), a citizen, is innocent until proven guitly, period! Not filinjg the propper paper work for importation of dynamite is a simple mistake any of us could have made, not a criminal offense. Mac will not step down and while I support Wayne's comments mostly, I do not agree that Mav should step down. Stand up like a man Mac like I know you will!
Ordering a public official to act otherwise than in accordance with the law and their duties IS a criminal offence. It's called misconduct in office, and it's at the root of all three of these investigations. Mac continues to fall foul of it because he cannot grasp that rules are rules and you fools have elected him so many times in spite of so many transgressions against the conscience of this country that he no longer recognises himself as bound by the law. He thinks he IS the Cayman Islands, so he honestly doesn't see the problem. Do you understand?
I write under the name of Fairplay, so I need to remain true to its meaning.
I am also a human being: I cannot forget that a few years ago Mr Panton stated that the Cabinet-grant of Caymanian Status to thousands of people would be challenged legally via the Courts and presumably, the legal challenge was to be done because it was in the best interests of the Cayman Islands and its citizens: which is the basis on which the Premier is being asked to stand aside.
Unless the Premier can clear himself or the investigations are promised by the Police to come to a conclusion soon, he should step aside voluntarily.
I would like Mr. Panton to “blog back” to:
explain why the legal challenge that he announced to massive “Status Grants” in 2003 did not happen even though the legal challenge was said to be in the Islands’ best interests; and
state whether he is objective and reflective enough to admit that it is POSSIBLE for his view on the distateful situation involving the Premier, could be clouded and tainted by his plans to contest a seat in the May 2013 General Election, in opposition to the UDP.
I look foward to reading his comments on the above two points. If he does not reply I will start to worry that he was captured by the UDP boogeymen. I am genuinely wanting to hear from Mr. Panton because it might cause me to vote for him.
How smart you are trying to be, trying to drag status grants into this. Sounds like you yourself have an axe to grind – were you one of the status recipients? Stick to the topic at hand, will you, namely the 3 police investigations into the Premier and stop with the red herrings and the rhetoric. This is too serious a time for this country for idiots like you to try and cloud the issue with nonsense that is not relevant to the topic at hand.
Mr. Panton and the CBA indeed brought their claim – and a judge agreed it had merit. Then the bullying tactics became too much and many persons who supported the action had to retreat into the shadows leaving Wayne largely alone.
Why the authorities didn’t pick it up and investigate at the time, I will never understand.
Understand that its is for the same reason that Bush will not volunteer to step down. Not everyone thinks wrong is WRONG.
Wayne,
I fully endorse everything that you have said, and I was wondering if perhaps you could enlighten us on what the fallout might be if the Premier is found guilty?
Rather than beat about the bush, no pun intended, I am curious as to the implications of the Premier being found guilty. Like many others, I do NOT see any logical explanation for the fax to Stan Thomas, but I would be happy (for all involved) to be wrong on that issue.
How does this affect the ForCayman Alliance, Cayman Enterprise City, Shetty Hospital, New Cruiseship Piers, etc?
IF, and that's a big IF, as we are prone to saying in Cayman, McKeeva demanded money from Stan Thomas for Cabinet approval of a process, does it not seem logical that he would have done the same with all the other deals?
How will the public view all of the other "investments" that are taking place right now? Will they all come forward with clean hands and pure hearts to tell the public that nothing untoward took place during their negotiations?
Also, doesn't it seem likely that any potential investors waiting in the wings would hold off on any investment until the Premier is exonerated?
One final thing that upsets me is the fact that in October 2004 I would rise with the dawn and go to bed in the fading light, sleeping in a badly damaged house with no electricity or water, but feeling good that I had spent the entire day trying to get my country and my own house back in order. IF, instead of trying to rebuild the country as many of his supporters claim, McKeeva was using the government fax and other resources at that same time to line his own pockets that would be unforgivable.
Chris/Firery/Another lawyer/whoever…..
This may well be an exercise in futility but I would like to repeat that this is not an issue of whether he is guilty or innocent – he is in fact innocent until proven guilty.
This is not an issue of whether he does or does not deserve due process – clearly he does just like any other private citizen.
Neither is it a question of whether there is evidence – though without a doubt there is and to deny what is in the public domain on the first one and to suggest that investigations are conducted for years without any is ludicrous.
This is simply about putting the interest of the country first and avoiding or minimising jurisdictional damage, concerns about a fair investigation, the potential for interference in the investigation, respecting the traditions and protocol for these situations and yes demonstrating that there is no double standard compared to civil servants of a lower rank!
Dont bother to try to draw a distinction that they are employees and he is not. In that case he would need to give back 26 years worth of salary to help plug the budget deficit!
If advocating stepping down in this extraordinary situation is not fair to Mr Bush then neither is putting civil servants on required leave or suspension pending investigations in which they are suspected of wrongdoing. I dont see any of you arguing against that.
As for the argument that it will be damaging for him to step down now, plug this into your risk management equation. Suppose 12 months from now there is a very public trial and the Premier having been charged with multiple offences, is found guilty after having refused to step down and after having his entire UDP Government committed to proclaiming his innocence. Please advise which one would be worse for the country.
One other point is in relation to the concept of a charge being brought versus an investigation. Once a charge is brought there are consequences re civil liberties and personal freedoms which are highly relevant. There are statutory protections to ensure that charges are resolved as quickly as possible through proceeding with a prosecution with all due process or charges being dropped if it appears that they cant be successfuly prosecuted or indeed it becomes clear that "someone else done it"!
On the other hand there are few if any of those imperatives for an investigation. The police have to do their job and as long as they have a reasonable basis to pursue it they should. Sometimes they take years before investigations are closed or resolved. I wouldnt be surprised if some are never closed because they have some evidence but not sufficient evidence to meet the burden of prooof beyond a reasonable doubt but there is a determination and a hope that one day they will.
If there was a murder investigation and the police rushed through it and got of conviction of what turns out later to be the wrong person or they make a mistake and cause someone widely believed to be guilty to beat the charge, many in society would be highly critical if not enraged.
Our system of criminal justice is a deliberate process with rules and procedures which require everyone involved to take their time and do their best to get it right starting with the investigations.If any of you were unfortunate enough to be the family of a victim of crime I really doubt that you would be advocating rushing or closing the investigation because the feelings of someone to whom the evidence pointed might be hurt or that their reputation was being harmed no matter how much they protested that it wasnt fair.
Well said, Wayne.
Panton: "clearly he does just like any other private citizen." The problem is Panton, Mckeeva is not "like any other private citizen"! I and thousands others voted for him! Why should someone like you and few others take him out because of an investigation? PLEASE LEAVE THAT TO THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE!
Wow. You actually believe that determining whether or not someone is a criminal should be left to a democratic election? Ok then! You win, I give up, there is nothing more to say. I have plainly gone insane to feel that these questions and issues should be determined by courts.
Actually "the people" did not vote for him to be Premier. You only voted him in as an MLA. If he stepped down as Premier he would remain an MLA. That destroys your entire argument.
No it doesn't… without the people's vote, he wouldn't have had the sly chance of becoming Premier. The commenter's argument still holds water!
That is entirely besides the point. The point is that the people's vote cannot be a reason for him not standing down as Premier since the people did not elect him to that office. They elected him as MLA and he would remain an MLA.
As a lawyer yourself, do you really think that your article here is a fair one?
Suppose McKeeva Bush came to you and asked you to be his lawyer in this matter, would you give him the benefit of the doubt that he is "innocent until proven guilty"?
Would you not inquire for evidence against your client?
As a lawyer with your reputation, I would certainly hope such principles to you are of upmost importance, because I can't see how you could ask someone who has been democratically elected by the people to step down.
Your argument is not a fair one, Wayne.
Bush is not being incarcerated or fined for being under investigation. In fact it sure would seem that he is not being investigated at all. The problem is he has put himself in a position of "no confidence" by not answering ANY questions relating to his actions while in office. Does he work for the people of Cayman or himself? Or are you hunting for some work?
I don't think that wayne is anylonger a practicing lawyer..
Wayne, you are appealing to someone who never had any values for anything or anyone else but himself.
The way we criticize our own people.
What a shame.
And how do you know this statement is coming from one of our own?
I do not understand a mentality that suggests we should never criticize someone, no matter how wrong they may be, because they are one of "our own people".
Criticizing someone unfairly is different.
Well I for one am not so dumb to not know that if someone criticize you without any evidence, it is an unfair criticism.
There is evidence. Take your head out of the sand.
The reason you have to criticize your own people is a shame.
The entire House took an Oath of Office, including the Hon Speaker and Premier. Status quo is not in the best interests of the territory. Step aside.
Acutally I think to have the Premier step down is not sufficient as there is an entire party that stands behind him silently. It just shows you that the UDP is not a party – it is a one man show run by a very selfish bully!
Any party with any sort of common sense, ethics, morals, values and love for country would urge their partly leader to step aside.
Clearly, for the UDP, this is not about the country or their country men. This is all just about ego and some people trying to keep their well paid jobs, no matter what the cause.
Wayne, If the police, or the governor/UK/FCO which many seem the think are the holy trinity, had real evidence of illegal activity on Mr. Bush for ANY of these 3 investigations, dont you think they would have brought charges by now in keeping with their responsibility of good governance??
Mr. Bush, please pledge your full cooperation and Police Commisioner Baines please do your job and question the Premier. Then decide QUICKLY if you have real hard evidence and press charges and if you dont, just drop the investigations.
When a civil servant is under investigation (and not yet charged with anything) they are put on leave pending the outcome of the investigation. I remember in the news recently where an Immigration Officer was on leave for over a year pending an investigation and recently started back work as he was cleared of any wrong doing…..Can someone explain to me how this is any different from the investigation(S) (Three Investigations) ongoing into the Premier?
that's a civil servant that hasn't been elected by the people – but appointed. There is a big difference. If you are elected by the people, it is only by the "will" of the people that you should be removed, not by opposition members.
It is a convention all over theBritish Commonwealth that if a Government Minister is under criminal investigation the proper thing to do is to step aside until the investigation is completed. There are many examples, not least of which is McKeeva's own precedent when as ExCo member he was forced to resign from Cabinet in 1997/98.
We do not tend to look at Jamaica as the best example of good governance but even there former Prime Minister Bruce Golding knew when it was time to resign even though he was not charged with anything. Then late last year, the Chairman of the Jamaica JLP and Transport and Works Minister Mike Henry resigned from the Cabinet over allegations that his ministry has mismanaged a sprawling $400 million road program financed by China and being built by China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd.when the Contractor General decided to investigate the matter.
Britain's defense minister Liam Fox quit his post last year after days of allegations about the influence-peddling of a close personal friend.Then there was the case of David Laws, Chief Secretary to the Treasury who the Daily Standard revealed who had claimed more than £40,000 on his expenses in the form of second home costs, from 2004 to late 2009 and referred the matter himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and resigned from office.
These are men who although elected by the people and hold high office know what the decent and honourable thing to do when embroiled in investigations into serious matters.
Yeah, people with class know when to step aside and resign gracefully while in the midst of controversy and alleged irregularities and investigations. "People with class" being the operative word here.
Mr. Wayne Panton
Note that these unsupported allegations against the Premier "do not" provide us proof of an investigation into serious matters, without further evidence to back them up. You should know this as a lawyer.
To be honest, McKeeva Bush stepping down now as Cayman's first premiere would do more damage in international reputation for the Cayman Islands than any unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct being investigated by the RCIPS is currently doing.
What it would indicate is a failed constitutional exercise in which the continuing of the constitutional development for Cayman would be seriously compromised, seeing that the 2009 Constitution was not a well-thought out and conducted process to start with between the PPM party and Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
f
What unsupported allegations are you talking about? The first investigation was started when a Grand Court judge pass on to the Governor a very damaging letter that could well be evidence of the commission of a serious crime?
Nothing could be worse than if a serving Premier is arrested, charged and led away in handcuffs. That could force another TCI situation.
You are quite wrong. What it would indicate is that Cayman understands the code of honour that makes Westminster style democracy work. It would also reassure the international business community that high standards in public life are the norm in Cayman not the exception which, in all the jurisdictions which we should aspire to deal with (rather than the ones from whom we could make a fast buck by not asking too many questions) is something keenly to be desired and which, in my experience with international clients, would reinforce their confidence not diminish it. Bush is ruining Cayman not saving it.
We know that the Premier is the subject of three criminal investigations. We have had a lot of discussion on the issue of whether the Premier should step down until the investigations are resolved one way or the other. Clearly the provisions of the Constitution which may be relevant to this extraordinary situation will be important to understand. So let us summarise the position:
Investigation
There is nothing in the Constitution which requires the Premier to step down.
Charged
Similarly, there is nothing in the Constitution which requires the Premier to step down.
Conviction and Sentence
Here is where it gets interesting. If the Premier is convicted of any offence, except in the case of a conviction for an offence involving dishonesty, the effect of that depends on what the ultimate sentence is in respect of that conviction.
If the sentence is for a period of 12 months imprisonment or more, whether suspended or not, he would be disqualified by Section 62 and 63 of the Constitution from being a Member of the Legislative Assembly. He would therefore have to vacate all offices he currently holds and would be barred from holding future office.
If he is convicted of any offence involving dishonesty, irrespective of what the sentence is, he will be disqualified from being a Member of the Legislative Assembly and similarly barred from holding future office.
An offence involving dishonesty is therefore viewed as a more serious offence so that even if the sentence is for a month which is suspended, there is a disqualification.
Any offence involving "financial irregularities" will almost certainly involve dishonesty.
Westminister Model and its traditions
There are a number of traditions that have developed over hundreds of years which reflects honour, statesmanship and the best interests of the country.
There are specific traditions which are relevant to situations involving politicians being investigated or charged in matters involving wrongdoing.
One of those traditions is that to protect the offices which they hold they step aside temporarily or place their resignations on the altar of public scrutiny and accountability.
In fact, the Commonwealth is replete with good examples of what men of honour do when they find themselves embroiled in controversies that call into question their credibility and ability to execute their public duty in a responsible and transparent manner. The impetus for that is that much the greater in this case where there is not one but three separate criminal investigations involved.
Mr Panton, I really hope more people see this distinction.
I have asked talk show hosts, commentators to acknowledge the importance of honour and respect for conventions necessary for good governance and respect of the constitution.
On a local talk show today a lady claimed to have left Ja and regret what happened to her country after it became independent. She stated her concerns for the future of Cayman especially due to corruption and attitudes of many immigrants. I agree with her sentiments and concerns and see a similarity with other island nations after becoming independent.
In my opinion, a lack of maturity regarding respect and honour for conventions, traditions and rule of law at a fundamental level is one of the issues that can seriously undermine the respect for our legal system. We have to be able to address the application of rules and laws without favour for a person in order to maintain the level of dignity we expect for certain positions and offices.
We block the roads and occupy the LA before we let the British and expats take our Premier away. I call on all Christian people to stand up to this bullying of our Premier and his Godly supporters. We elected McKeeva and we in West Bay support him 10000%!
Iol… agree with you that the Premier should not step down although you are attempting to portray a UDP supporter in a negative light.
And your getting just what you deserve. Don't worry. The UK will take over after all the Money and jobs are gone. Soon come. P.S. Who will you be working for after the CIG runs out of money and credibility? Caymanians or expats?
Truth the truth is your house will have to house us all, think about it
Although Bush's stepping aside should only be regarded as common sense it is not the only here. Neither is whether or not the FCO or some other entity is fabricating a story or stirring the pot. What is more important for us to realize is that all of the above have agendas which we are not party to. Now comes the time for us all to sit back, consider and connect dots. Is the UK really interested in "good governance?" How do they define that? Ghosts of the Chagos Islands, anyone? More to the point, do our elected representatives both here and in the UK lack needed credibility,honesty. And integrity? Witness the scandals surrounding UK parlimentarians pilfering public funds with bogus expenses and housing allowances. And…our own XXXXX. Frankly, I don't believe nor do I trust any of them, so arguing whether the UK, some other party or other political agenda is behind this latest scandal is entirely irrelevant from that perspective. Politics as we know it and suffer under does not work. For us anyway. It is closer to organized crime.
Having read a few of the replies to my post under the "89%" news item, I think I should clarify a few things.
Anyone who has bothered to pay attention to my contributions here on CNS and other online social media will understand that I am no die-hard UDP or "McKeeva Bush" supporter. (E.g. I was extremely critical of the Premier in the news-story thread of just two days ago regarding the "Cayman Crosstalk" issue.)
I too want to see "good governance" in the Cayman Islands, free from all suspicions of corruption and such – meaning, a government of a standard higher than that of the UK itself or even the USA.
However, what we are debating here is a separate issue.
We are suggesting that any random, un-elected, and or far removed individual in a foreign land should be granted the power to merely point a finger at the Premier of the Cayman Islands and it be expected that said democratically elected Premier be removed from office.
As much as I may dislike many things about our current Premier, I will never support such a notion.
In reality, powers are available which enable the Governor to take action if he believes necessary, however, we are yet to see this. I am not wishing for this to happenbut it begs the question – why the hold-up?
Further to that point, if the Governor does decide to take action, I trust he will have the decency to discuss the matter with the current government beforehand in order to limit the impact to this British Overseas Territory in regards to reputation, international business and such. I trust he will present to our government an opportunity to address the issue in an organised manner. (E.g. The UDP appointing another individual to the office of Premier in the interim as the "investigations" are conducted and arrests and charges materialize in a timey fashion.)
That would be the responsible thing to do and I would gladly accept and respect his decision
However, what some are demanding is beyond the point of reason – especially in light of the history between the Cayman Islands and the FCO, British government and RCIPS.
*Interestingly, British PM David Cameron is at this very moment embroiled in yet another scandal in regards to suspected "corruption" between himself / UK government and the Murdoch family. Are we expecting Cameron to "step aside" in light of these allegations as well?
I, Whodatis of the Cayman Islands (BOT), hereby point a finger at British Prime Minister David Cameron and believe he should be investigated in the matters relating to his alleged cozying up with the Murdochs and also for the exposed scandal by way of videotape sting evidence of the sale of access to his office to the tune of £250,000.00.
Can someone please explain to me the difference in the two scenarios?
(In any event, at the end of the day, we here in Cayman are sure to receive more answers regarding the Premier's goings-ons than the British public shall regarding Cameron's – but I digress.)
To reiterate, this particular issue concerns the empowerment of foreign, random, and proven to be untrustworthy entities to idly unseat the democratically elected Premier of the Cayman Islands.
I for one am steadfastly opposed to this notion … for the reasons stated … on more than one occasion … thank you.
(I've said more than enough on this issue at this point – even I am growing tired of my opinion on the matter so I can only imagine how my'biggest fans' are feeling.)
I'm done.
Thank you all for reading and the feedback – be it positive or negative.
(Apologies to Mr. Panton – it was not my intention to hijack your viewpoint or even disrespect your perspective. We are simply fundamentally opposed on this issue.)
– Whodatis
You have asked for someone to explain the difference between two scenarios which you outline. Let me assist.
In scenario #1, allegations against Bush, the originator of the allegations is, to use your words, a " …nutjob with an axe to grind…" and British.
In scenario #2, allegations against Cameron, the originator of the allegations, again using your words, is a "… nutjob with an axe to grind…" and Caymanian.
Hope this helps.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.
(Kindly insert the above as a reply to 99.9% of your replies to my posts. You and I both know it applies.)
Whodatis, these investigations did not just start out of the big blue sky for no reason, nor are they being conducted out of any desire ofany "untrustworthy entities to idly unseat the democratically elected Premier", as you put it. This is not just any and anyone pointing fingers and saying "I wish for the premier to be investigated on such and such grounds". These investigations stemmed from the referral of certain matters that caused concern – the first referral (or finger pointing as you would put it), came from an educated judge who came across a letter and felt concerned enough to refer it. It did not come from the Opposition or Independent members, nor FCO or Governor or RCIPS. The second investigation we don't know about yet, as details are yet to be revealed, so for all you know, there could be evidentiary proof, but the police are not about to reveal anything yet that might jeopardize investigations. The third came from an action that involved an illegal importation, which was apparently released when it should have been, but was then seized by the authorities. At least 2 out of the 3 so far, are not just people making things up and pointing fingers for no reason. Your line if reasoning is seriously flawed, because you miss the whole point i.e. reputational damage being done to the Cayman Islands while the holder of an office is allowed to remain in office while investigations are in progress. Stop trying to distract attention with these silly red herrings and finger pointing and nonsense about other politicians in other countries and what they do or not do – stop holding those things up asan excuse for not doing the right thing locally. You are not helping the local situation by your rhetoric? Stick to the issue at hand – alleviating the damage to reputation of the Cayman Islands, not UK, not USA, not any other country. Capice?
I am aware of everything you have mentioned.
Furthermore, we can only assume that the other two investigations were already in motion prior to it being announced by "Mr. Hit and Run" (Bellingham) as I call him.
Why was this done? At best it was a very reckless and dangerous act.
The turbulence caused by the announcements of the FCO have done absolutely nothing to help this country or the course of the "investigations". (Yet another reason why I am opposed to that organisation.)
Re: "Your line if reasoning is seriously flawed, because you miss the whole point i.e. reputational damage being done to the Cayman Islands while the holder of an office is allowed to remain in office while investigations are in progress."
Do you understand that the Premier was not even made aware of the two newly announced investigations? (We all know the first one has been drawn out for over two years now. For goodness sake – how difficult is it to confirm a fax?)
If any damage is inflicted on the reputation of the Cayman Islands it will be by way of the reckless actions of the FCO. They should have allowed these "criminal investigations" to take their legal course of action.
Had the Premier been charged or arrested concerning criminal matters I would take a different stance on this matter – but that is a separate issue that many individuals are pretending to not understand.
In life one must always consider the source.
Thank you poster, for actually highlighting yet another reason why we all should be wary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
– Whodatis
* When one takes the time to properly consider all that has taken place, it appears as if the Commissioner of RCIPS and the FCO are not actually singing from the same songsheet. It is blatantly obvious that they are not functioning as unified team.
If this is the case history has made it clear from which side we should expect the fairer action.
"In life one must always consider the source". As the news goes, the source of the first finger pointing, as you put it – or referral as I like to call it – was an educated judge who came across the letter while reviewing another case. Obviously you know more than he does. The police have not yet said who was the "source" of the finger pointing in the 2nd and 3rd investigations. Do you know? It seems so, because you seem to have an innate distrust of the "source" – and frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone could take a position like that unless they know something the rest of us don't. Perhaps you think it is the FCO and Governor, or the Opposition or Independent, because you continuously harp about hidden agendas. Please do tell us, won't you? You are so hung-up on the so-called " hidden agendas" of others, that you can't see the forest for the trees – or what is under debate. The forest is, that while someone is under NOT ONE, BUT THREE INVESTIGATIONS, the right thing would be to step aside gracefully, to protect the integrity of the high office and the reputation of these islands, which, you must remember, is considered to be a LEADING FINANCIAL CENTRE. This the type of situation can easily damage an economy, if investors start getting nervous about what is ahead.
Asking someone in such a position to step aside gracefully, is not asking any more than one would ask a civil servant, a bank clerk, or a schoolteacher if they were under investigations for some alleged offense in their jobs. Just as you quote examples from other countries where other politicians did not step aside, equally there are those who ACTUALLY DID STEP ASIDE, to minimize reputational damage. So what is your point?Please remember Clinton was not under criminal investigations, so when comparing situations, compare apples to apples, not oranges. What we are talking about here is protecting the highest office and reputation of the country, nothing else. NOT other people's agendas, whether real or imagined, not what other countries do or not do. If the Premier did not know of the investigations before, he certainly does now, as does his party, even if not details of all of them. But, I give up, I no longer believe you can be reasoned with, you are so stuck to your position, you cannot concede when anyone else contributes a point that has merit and which is in the country's best interests. Whodatis knows best. ALL HAIL WHODATIS FOR HIS ALL-KNOWING TAKE ON ALL TOPICS NEAR AND FAR, AND WHO ALWAYS HAS THE RIGHT TAKE ON EVERYTHING.
No need to shout.
And yes – Whodatis has his opinion, just as you and everyone else has theirs.
I fail to understand why so many make it into such a personal attack as they address me though.
Obviously I am making valid points otherwise I doubt many would bother to even respond.
Unfortunately, most tend to go the route of ad hominem – not a good look.
If you really fail to understand, then you are not nearly as intelligent as you seem. Many, many, many posters have pointed out to you, in very polite terms, why your posts rankle rather than persuade.
Frankly, it is not my intention to "persuade" for it is clear that many contributors to this forum have already made up their minds.
I simply address the situation as I see it and draw on relevant issues to provide a wider context.
Apparently this is unacceptable to some folks.
To each his own though.
Yes, I know. I've read your posts before. You feel you cannot allow hypocrisy to stand, and I admire that. However, most of the time I wish you had posted your comments in a separate thread, because they give the impression of trying to change the subject, deflect the blame and essentially give Cayman a pass because those finding fault are worse, or bigger, or take action that has a wider-reaching effect, positively or negatively. It just gets old, is all I'm saying. It's a bit annoying, to be honest, despite the fact that I would find your ideas interesting on their own, and not always (always!) in response to some criticism or other made about Cayman.
It is not unacceptable to anyone, I don't suppose. You have every right to say what you want. But then anyone reading has the same right to reply, disagree, or comment.
Whodatis, you never "simply" address anything. In all the many posts I've read, I can't remember many "simple" solutions being brought to bear on local problems.
Exactly. Whodatis, it is certainly true that leaders of foreign countries have refused to resign while under investigation or while enduring controversy. What you minimize in your zeal to point fingers elsewhere is the very real damage that was done to their own reputations and the reputations of their political parties, their governments and their homelands. These leaders were absolutely embroiled in controversy, and speculation about their blunders, motivations and evil-doings were splashed across the foreign press daily for years. Both the US and the UK have suffered massive derision as a result of the Iraq war; their reputations may never recover.
Is that really what you want for Cayman?
If you truly believe that Cameron, Clinton and Bush should have stepped down, why do you object to local people calling for McKeeva's resignation?
Whodatis, whatever your protestations to the contrary, you’re increasingly coming to admire the sound of your own voice. So many “I”s and “my”s! You’re starting to regard yourself as some sort of political celebrity. Well you’re not: your contributions are way too long and convoluted. Silence is the preferred option, but if you really can’t stop giving us the benefit if your wisdom on every single topic, at least make those contributions shorter. Please.
Didn't realize it was possible to admire the sound of my voice on CNS.
Is that a new feature?
Guess I need an upgrade …
Dear Whodatis, Trying to educate some people seems like an impossible task. I certainly enjoy reading your posts, keep writing. May be one day!
Dear Uriel,
Thank you for the support.
Some people simply choose to not be educated.
Regardless, I will never cease to forward my perspective on whatever issue I consider to be important – I couldn't care less who is offended by my words.
It is when they start attacking the messenger that we know certain truths are hitting home. Why else would they bother?
Take care, and thanks again.
– Whodatis
Whodatis, yet again you’re gassing on. Whatever you say, you clearly do care who is offended by your words because, like me, you choose to remain anonymous. You really can’t be a fearless tribune of the people under a pseudonym. That’s just silly.
Thank you, Whodatis.
Actually, whodatis, lots of people in the UK and elsewhere are calling for Cameron's resignation, as you would expect. There are several petitions online and a Facebook page, if you're interested in adding your voice to the furore…
Thumbs down for the facts…
Fine. Has Cameron resigned yet? Tell us when he does……
Irrelevant. The criticism was made against those *calling* for resignation.
Ah, now I understand you. You care only that things are FAIR.
I care mostly that things are RIGHT, at least here in my back yard.
You are mostly upset because representatives from Britain have dared to question something here in Cayman, when they themselves are not perfect. I understand that:
a) the British government is like any other large organization; the right hand does not generally know what the left hand is doing. David Cameron himself has not ordered this investigation into McKeeva Bush, soany parallels are irrelevant. This has been called for by an arm of the government with direct oversight on our island — oversight we have asked for, by the way; and
b) No nation is perfect. We are not; Britain is not. Highlighting their faults does not hide our own, and it is pointless to try. Planks, eyes, and all that. If we wish for the representatives of Her Majesty's government to stop finding fault and/or investigating where smoke may lead to fire, we have only to request independence.
Just to clarify – I did not post the comment to which you replied.
I know.
I believe that "You dont have to attend every argument you're invited to" andI do not attend political arguments, as I can't vouch for anyone. Having said that –
Why isn't there a push for these investigations to be fast-tracked and resolved – i.e. guilty or not guilty. I have the feeling that a lot of the "cryers" for the Premier to step down want him to step down, and want the investigations to drag on into next year's elections, thus probably disqualifying him to run for office. I don't know – maybe it's just me.
I would think that it is advantageous to the Premier's to have the investigation drag on rather than the "cryers".
The Premier can run for office whilst he is under investigation, but he cannot run for office if convicted of a crime and sentenced to a year in jail.
The investigations would not disqualify him, but a conviction would. His opponents want this over as soon as possible and not to drag on into next year.
19; 38
That is pure rubbish. of course that is why they want him to step down. Each of you are so desparate to get him out of the way. you and all who wants him to step down, know the investigation will drag on untill next election.
Then you all will cry, that he is disqualified from running for office…nice try though! but he is not going to step down. The silent majority are behind him all the way, to hold his post. Don't let the small amount thumb downs fool you.
You are letting your emotions overcome your reasoning. Under the Constitution you are only disqualified if you are convicted of an offence which is either an offence involving dishonesty or results in a term of imprisonment (including a suspended sentence) of at least one year. You are not disqualified from running for office simply because you are being investigated. There is no room for any argument to the contrary. For the Opposition, who clearly believes he is guilty, it would be much better if the investigation is completed quickly, McKeeva charged and convicted than for the investigation to continue into next year past the elections. They are quiteaware that there are people like yourself who will continue to vote for him no matter how many or how serious the investigations or the charges brought. If he is innocent McKeeva should also want it to completed speedily and should offer all of his assistance to the police to do so. It should be unthinkable for him to rely upon advice that he should not say anything about the letter. Clearly his lawyer thinks he might incriminate himself if he speaks about it.
I totally disagree with the calls for a rushed investigation. In fairness to the Premier and to our country the investigation of the three cases allegedly against the Premier must be carried out carefully and professionally otherwise the results could go against the country as easily as it could go against him, if something is missed. I am sure that the police commissioner has been told by the governor to have this dealt with as expeditiously as possible and I would suggest that everyone should wait and allow the investigation to be carried out and justice to be done.
5 of those reasons are one and the same, just cleverly worded a teeny bit differently.
The bottom line is simply that the powers currently behind this push have not proven themselves as worthy of our respect or trust in such matters.
No amount of nicely crafted words could ever negate that fact.
The UK / FCO / RCIPS need to demonstrate more faith in their "investigations" and the legal process.
At the moment, all we know is that "someone" is looking into the affairs of the Premier of the Cayman Islands. However, the Premier has not been contacted or notified regarding these "investigations" – much less charged.
In addition to UK / FCO scandals relating to this country itself, let us not forget that the last individual to head up the FCO had a fetish for posting naked photos of himself as he cruised for "dates" on homosexual dating websites – as an elected Member of Parliament. Clearly a sound and responsible person, right? (Calm down, that was not a "homophobic attack" – just stating the facts.)
Who knows, it could be another head at the FCO that considers people like those that make up the majority of theCayman Islands as monkeys and apes not worthy of respect or even their homeland for that matter. (Regardless, he could still look forward to being awarded the highest merit in British society as was the last one.)
It appears to be quite the cricus within that establishment and frankly, it could be any nutjob with an axe to grind behind these "investigations".
However, it is rather interesting that some of us are willing to disregard all of the above and in the absence of due process bow heads to such entities.
Again I say, either charge the Premier of the Cayman Islands or kindly wrap up whatever (2 years +) game it is you are playing.
– Whodatis
*By the way, was Tony Blair not "investigated" while in office of British Prime Minister as his illegal war / invasion-for-monetary-gain-on-behalf-of-my-rich-friends raged on – albeit a whitewash? Did Blair "step aside" in the face of worldwide grassroot and international diplomatic protest and condemnation? I guess the office of Premier of the Cayman Islands would be more secure killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
Honestly, who is supposed to take these people seriously today?
Although I hate to admit it you are very much correct with most/all the things that you state. However, I also agree with all that Mr. Panton had to say – which can lead to the only logical conclusion that both Mr. Bush and the FCO are equally guilty for the mistrust that currently exists. Should Mr. Bush step aside because he is currently being "investigated" – in my opinion, definitely. But as you also correctly state, either arrest him, charge him or shut up about it.
Tony Blair DID resign, in June 2007, bowing to pressure from his own party as a result of low approval ratings related to the controversies you mention and others. ???
Perhaps we ought to wait out McKeeva for another 2 years then?
I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost as a result?
(Honestly, the intellectual dishonesty and immorality of some people baffle me at times.)
Me too. It is, of course, true that the dealings Mr. Blair had were more complex, more challenging, and had further-reaching, more serious consequences than those faced by our Premier. It is also not very surprising that the process, in a larger country with more serious global partnerships and responsibility, would be more convoluted and take longer.
We are a small island nation whose goings-on don't really have much of an impact on the rest of the world, and we should be less unwieldy in our decision making in any practical sense. I am not sure how this is relevant morally, however. Either politicians SHOULD step down when they are under investigation or embroiled in controversy with implications that they have been unethical, or they should not.
You are implying that to insist that Mr. Bush live by the same moral standards you desire from others is unfair because the effects of any unethical actions on his part make smaller ripples. I disagree on a purely moral basis. To accuse me of intellectual dishonesty and immorality is a very cheap response.
If it took too long for Mr. Blair to step aside in your opinion, then perhaps you would like to see a more speedy resolution here.
And just for the record, I don't think McKeeva Bush should stand down. The man has the right of fair trial, and we all know that the appearance of wrongdoing doesn't always mean a crime or even an unethical action has actually occurred.
I am merely pointing out an inaccuracy in your post.
This argument was answered beautifully by Wayne on Monday, and by Antony Duckworth in his viewpoint.
Standing down as Premier does not impair his legal right to a fair trial or the presumption of innocence for that matter. If he would just come clean may be there need not be a trial at all.
He has been elcted as Vice-Chair because he is the Premier of the Cayman Islands and not because he is McKeeva Bush.The only group that Mckeeva Bush the individual seem to be able to fool is half of the district of West Bay. "keep um dumb and under your thumb". Ask Mckeeva who uttered those words!
This call for the premier to step down by the opposition and want to be politicians would have more credibility for me, had they not always been demanding him to step over every little thing that he did which they thought should have been dealt with differently.
To me, this call to step down is the only way they can get rid of him. But I hope the premier has the wisdom to recognize exactly what it is they are trying to do.
We all know, the game is over for the premier only when he says so, because UDP supporters recognize that he in only one able to hande the myriad of issues that we face as a country and we will continue to support him no matter what!
And yes, he has made some mistakes along the way, but you know what, he tried to make a difference, something the PPM can't say they tried to do, as they lacked the leadership skills to do it and still does.
God bless the office of the premier and the premier, Mr Bush.
Mercy! You said, "only one able to hande the myriad of issues that we face". Surely you jest!
It has to be apparent to The Governor and Mr. Bellingham that not only is the "good goverance" of these Islands being compromised but that the very serious allegations being publically made by the Premier against the UK FCO, are potentially damaging to the relationship between Cayman and HM Government.
The lack of details and uncertainty concerning the three investigations into Mr. Bush, is unnerving the country; polarising its people and damaging the economy. Who knows what other investigations will be instigated or are currently being conducted wthout Mr. Bush's knowledge.
Before this current mess gets any worse and the international press make it headline news, Mr. Bush does need to move aside. For a variety of wrong reasons, it is most unlikely that his UDP members will remove him, so, it seems that in the interest of getting abck to "good governace" that The Governor should step in and take the appropriate action.
Hear hear!!!
Great viewpoint Wayne. IMHO ego is an issue but not the major issue here though. Self interests via political power started over 20 years ago. The Premier is simply the "winner" of all the politico's gaining and controlling power.
The party system has been morphed by leadership to create individual power and control of theGovernment in the guise of the good for the country. The country needs to stop listening to this crap because nothing has been happening for the people and the country.
It is so disappointing to see all the UDP and Premier supporters continue to have no understanding of what the majority wish. The strangle hold and the bullying from one man must be impressive to not allow even one supporter to be able to even look at what 90% of the people want.
Bottom line is Bush will never step down. He has made his stand that he has done nothing wrong and his hands are clean. He has ignored the wishes of the majority throughout his 2 decade control of power and will continue to do so. The only way to save Cayman is for the people to stand up, united, and demand change.
Bush will always win when the opposition, people, bloggers, voters have no solid basic platform to stand on and are not united as one. Now you have a solid platform OMOV. Get the massive petition done now, present it to The Governor and demand change.
Hopefully someone in the UDP will stand up for the country when they see that the majority demand change. The past 3 years have broken a wonderful country down and it will take years to get her back on her feet.
Bush will not step down, he has said he has done nothing wrong, the majority must make their wishes create change somehow to save Cayman.
Lachlan MacTavish
All too true, Lachlan.
I agree with Wayne's viewpoint. The Premier should step aside immediately at least temporarily, until these matters under investigation is resolved. Jjust like the Speaker in Australia did to avoid embarrasment to his country.
also Germany's former President.
Well said!
Obviously from a budding politician as well, and nothing wrong with that too.
How do you explain the election of the Premier to the VP of the Regional Councel that seems to disagree with your thesis wouldn't you say? Perhaps it is meaningless or they are all corrupt.
Other Caribbean leaders are just as bad as Bush, they just dont have large economies to play around in.
The last paragraph # 2 was my first thoughts. Something wrong with a group of people who elects someone under investigation or there was no one else that wanted the job. I pray to God that it is the latter.
spot on….. i hope mary lawrence reads this…and the governor too!
A well-thought out rational argument that clearly indicates what action the premier should take. However, as we are not dealing with those who respond in a like manner I suggest that the only way to prevent this in future is to amend the constitution, or provide some other legal remedy.
Well the declaration of candidacy has arrived. Why is it that our constitution does not have the provision for the Leader of the country to resign and 99 percent of constitutions in the world do? Why, because those who reframed it were caught up in the historical perspective of being the ones who made the monumental change. That pervasive ego that makes Politicians, the role which you now aspire to be part of, or is yours by nature or carefully crafted because of your supreme overlord intellectuality which seeks to govern the minions in remembrance of yesteryear.
Oh how weary and tired is the bs that you and your colleagues spew out.
If you had answered the first question correctly you would know that it may well be that 99% of the constitutions of the world DO NOT have such provisions and you would realise that the rest of your comments are really the tiring BS you refer to.
Huh? The Constitution does not need to have a provision that the Premier may resign. It is perfectly obvious that he may do so at any time and for any reason. For the same reason "99% of Constitutions in the world" don't have such a provision either.
Very well said Wayne, excellent view point, however what is sad is that it is totally wasted on an insecure egomaniac who cannot comprehend the content of your letter because he simply does not have the education or intelligence to understand simple principles of good ethics, honor, good morals, high principals, common sense, and respect or follow a Christian way of life. God help this country! However we are all thankful and hopeful for people like Wayne who are prepared to stand up and voice their concerns and not be intimidated by this bullying tyrant who is determined to take us all down to satisfy his appetite of greed, self interest and absolute power and control.
Very well put Wayne. Cayman needs leadership by people like you and I hope you will put yourself forward as part of a new generation of statesmen to whom the rule of law and equal treatment of all before it are the compass by which you set our course.
Wayne, I am still wondering why Arden didn't step down while he was under investigation? He can't seem to explain it. Could you as a lawyer give us a legal reason why? I am trying to understand the difference between the two..not thatI like either one of them but I am curious
Step down from what? Arden isnt a Minister or the Premier idiot. The Premier is being ased to step down as "Premier" that dosntmean he wont be a member of the house, it just means he wont be in the Premier or a Ministerial seat and will just be a regular MLA until his name is cleared.
You fool… which is more reasons why the Premier shouldn't step down. He has ascertain more votes than Arden or Alden. The electorate voted him in and he became Premier. You are asking for a democratically elected official to step down when he is not even charged. This is not about the man, but the position. The day Cayman start removing Premiers, is the day our democracy and the voices of the people don't carry any weight. If you want to remove the Premier, the best way to do it is to have the people vote him out!
We are not asking for Cayman to remove the Premier. Rather as you said,"This is not about the man, but the position." That the man should respect the position enough to step aside and maintain its purity until it is settled.
He is disrespecting the position more by not stepping aside than by refusing to step down.
LOL. So whether you should have to step down in the face of 3 criminal investigations depends on te district you were elected in?
FYI it is convention in the Commonwealth that any political leader faced with serious criminal investigations step down until he has been exonerated. Here are a few reasons:
:
1. Continuing in office will bring his office and by extension his country into disrepute.
2. As the Premier he has the means to thwart an investigation bt intimidating witnesses for example. If the Hurleys allegation is true, and we have no reason to disbelieve them then that is a real possibility.
3. Any transactions he is involved in may become suspect and themselves subject to investigation.
4. Legitimate investors will shy away from Cayman.
Stepping down is not an admission of guilt. It is the honorable thing to do.
Well moron…he got more otes than Arden because he lives in a district with more available votes, another example of why the One Man One Vote initiative needs to win. To say he deserves to be Premier because he was more popular when we all know the odds are stacked against East End and North Side is silly. IF they were both running in Single Member Constituencies I bet things woudl be different !
Wayne. You have written an excellent post!
It is good to see young people of your stature rising to the challenges facing our country!
Keep up the good work – just like your forefathers – the Pantons did in their time…
Mr Panton I find these odd comments from someone who is apparently a major partner in a well-respected offshore law firm.
The Premier, whether you like it or not, has rights defined by ECHR. These rights effectively remove the abilty of people like yourself to act as judge, jury and executioner in this manner.
XXXX
The bottom line is that statements like the one recently made by Duncan Taylor are carefully designed by the FCO to have an effect – quite what that is effect is intended to be remains to be seen but your seven points above do not make any sense at this stage in the game and I suspect you know that.
If Duncan Taylor wants to suspend the Premier the powers exist to do it. All RCIPS have to do is charge him with an offence but they do not seem to have any evidence.
Duncan Taylor, not Commissioner Baines, is the person ultimately responsible for RCIPS – ask yourself why he is trying to interfere with their investigations? Could it be that there is no evidence and the only way to deal with this is to attract the support of people like yourself to force an issue that is legally unsustainable?
Didn't Tempura teach you anything?
Thank you. Well said. I was starting to feel alone in my corner on CNS amongst the PPM “fan boys”. Was kinda getting the same bad looks like when I tell someone I believe in ‘The Big Bang Theory ‘ and not ‘Genesis’.
"was a major partner in a major law firm"
How about the Opposition resign from the LA and then the Governor would have no choice but to dissolve the house. That's one way of going about it, but that would mean that those who have to pull this stunt would be giving up a lot of $$$ a month so we don't have a chance in hell that radical approach will be taken. So, the man with the bigger balls continues his rage on this country without any regard whatsoever. Time for some consitutional amendments and lets thank him for showing us how it is so easy to manipulate the system in his position. We should have never given that post so much power!!
The government doesn’t need the opposition to operate. So the opposition resigning will not likely have the effect of the governor dissolving the house. And if my understanding is correct, the only real option available to the governor (without suspending the constitution) would be to call bi-elections for the seats of the resigned members….and that is obvioulsy not the desired effect because the UDP would remain with the majority and continue as if nothing had occurred.
PPM don't love the country that much! lol! Might as well say Ezzard will give up his seat!
This is a power grab..Doesn't anyone see that? They UDP, PPM, Ezzard all looking for the power!
To abandon the country to McKeeva would surely not be loving your country.
Come on, Wayne! Why would the FCO minister come to Cayman for the first time all to quack about McKeeva Bush having two other investigations? It is all about ruining our reputation! It is the FCO minister that Caymanians need to be wary of! For your information, it was the former FCO minister, Chris Bryant was that caused TCI's direct rule. So while everybody is pointing the finger at McKeeva without any proof, they better be prepared for those fingers pulling the strings of the FCO.
The FCO is not against us. They are on our side. They want democracy. They want us to be free from corruption. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!! God Save Reginaaaaa!!!!
Wayne,
I'm no supporter of any political party or politician, especially not McKeeva Bush, but, as a lawyer yourself, do you really think that your statements here are fair ?
Suppose McKeeva came to you and asked you to represent him in this matter; what would your first question and action be ?
Would your first question not be to David Baines, Please, sir, could you let me have all proof and evidence in your possession against my client so that I may properly represent and defend him, as is his legal right ?
As a lawyer with your reputation, I would certainly hope that would be the case.
Unless and until David Baines presents the findings and evidence that his investigations should be turning up, to McKeeva Bush, Governor Duncan Taylor, the Foreign Commonwealth Office and the world…and decides to charge him with an offense or crime or exonerate him for lack of evidence…
Every single thing that McKeeva Bush has said in his own defense has merit…
Given the history of the FCO and the Cayman Islands.
Have you forgotten the Eurobank operation/trial…one of the most sordid and failed covert operations ever conducted by the FCO in an overseas territory.
I'll guarantee you one thing, you guys in the Cayman Islands DO NOT possess the same rights that we enjoy here in Britian…that's for sure !
McKeeva has not really said anything in his own defence. Instead, we've had a lotof distractions, suggestions of conspiracy, denials that there is any investigation and counter attacks. No sensible person could possibly suggest that the FCO orchestrated the Stan Thomas letter from 2004 and the subsequent investigation. That is plain nonsense. For starters the defence to the first investigation we would like to hear is what is:
1. Whether you prepared and faxed the letter to Stan Thomas .
2. If the answer to 1. is yes, provide us with a full explanation of the meaning of the letter including why you were owed $350,000 together with any supporting contract.
3. If the answer to 1. is yes, explain whether your demand was met and if not why you did not sue for payment.
A leader whose hands are clean and heart is pure need not fear being open and transparent about this. He need not rely on the privilege against self-incrimination.
Shake My Head: You miss the whole point!
Which is?
"The righteous advocates of democracy and good governance"????????
Wayne, I am so sorry, but it is you that need to put away your ego and leave McKeeva alone!
Since when is it wrong not to step down when being investigated?????? Many of Englishmen you talk about are right now in UK Parliament to this day and are being investigated as we speak!!!! They have positions of trust! So tell me, name who have stepped down???? Which righteous Lord????
And "reputation"???????? Reputation is not determined by one man, Wayne, and you know that! You want reputation, go take your mind off being a critic and focus it on doing something good for your community and your family. Then like a shadow, your reputation will follow you whereever you go. It is more than one person that makes Cayman's reputation!
Godspeed
I think your ? key is sticking
Nation. Let us not be led astray by this brazen PPM attempt to sidetrack and derail the more important issues facing this great land. The FCO is just trying to distract us from blogging about Cameron's trips on Rupert Murdoch's planes and yachts. We don't have time to waste on Mac's small time foolishness. The RCIP must be allowed to devote all their time and vast resources to more pressing issues of national importance. Like finding Tupac and Biggie.
Mr Panton that is a very sensible article indeed. I just hope that it is read and digested by the readers of CNS and treated with the respect it accords. We need more Caymanians like your goodself submitting articles of similar digestive material. I really do hope that you will be standing at the next election when that meglomaniac in West Bay is finally deposed.
I think a lot of shrewd clever expats who came here many years ago profitted from the shenanigans and political naivete of politicians like McKeeva and are now living in their gated communities and on Seven Mile Beach and gracing the social pages of David Legge's wonderful magazine. But now the international and local scrutiny is more intense and penetrating than it was 30 or even 20 years ago so now it is fashionable to bash these local politicians. But the bashers still live in gated communities and Seven Mile Beach and still fly business class and still appear in Legge's magazine. While the Caymanians…………….well, they still plod on and don't live in gated communities or Seven Mile Beach…………………………
Mr Anonymous. Thank you for your observation. I am not sure if you were around in the sixties when Cayman did not have much to offer apart from its people and the way of life. I myself, was living in Jamaica before I came to Cayman and chose to stay. Of course in those days we had unpaid and honest politicians whom I am proud to have known. I have to say I cannot recall any graft at that time. Some of us you need get to know because we have put a lot back into the island. Perhaps in future you could make the odd constructive remark or two. Oh yes if you need assistance in logging in so you can use your own name, just let me know.
Yes, Mr Johnson, I was here in the sixties and I don't need your help to login; unlike you I don't have the wealth to sustain me against the attacks and general opprobrium that posting unpopular comments usually engenders so I choose like 99% of the posters to remain anon. It is hard for me to believe that you cannot recall any graft on the island in the Jim Bodden years – I would mention some names (Texan and Dutch) but CNS would not print them. Perhaps you were too busy earning money at the time? For the record, I do acknowledge that you have put a lot back into the island.
I certainly remember Mr Bodden as you do and you might remember that I liquidated his company Prospect Properties largely owned by Mr Bodden and then sued all directors for breaches of fiduciary duty thus enabling creditors to get something back with regard to their lost monies. I remember too the Texan and the Dutchman in the eighties but I am not familiar with their alleged crimes. Perhaps you can share that with us. As to earning money yes I did hold a job and actually employed quite a lot of Caymanians who were not as sarcastic or as bitter as you seem to be. As I suggested before why do you not try and be constructive in your comments. Finally I can assure you that wealth does not preclude you from using your name. I have put my name to articles since I arrived here and will continue to do so.
So your saying the Caymanians that got rich from the same source and past Cayman politics are now not Caymanian but…….clever expats? All the Caymanians living as you described are also shrewd clever expats in disuise? Really?
Chris
Thank you for the courage you have to speak your mind. I say that fully realising as no doubt you do that it really doesnt take much to do so.
I wish the elder statesmen amongst us, other professionals and "captains of industry" such as yourself, the professional associations, the business community generally and the general public would find a little of that courage to cease to live in fear of intimidation and retribution and say publicly what they currently will only say behind closed doors!
The country will be the better for it.
Wayne
Many of us would love to Wayne but unfortunately we are not of your financial standing and we have tiny mouths to feed and mortgages to pay. Speak out and face the chance of being victimised and lose our jobs, then what? Hopefully this will change but it is the sad state of affairs in our country today.
Wayne,
Thaks for you observations.
You missed one other reason why the Premier should step down: It would show him as an honorable man doing something that puts the concerns of the people and the country above his personal concerns. It would show him earing the title "Honorable"
In the end, if vindicated people could say, "See he was right, I can't believe we were so quick to judge, but we respect him for taking the honorable road putting us first". If in the end he is determined guilty people would say. "I knew it, I knew it! But I never expected him to do the honorable thing he did by stepping down. You have to give him that!"
This is not about the Premier, the UDP, the PPM, the independent member, or The UK. It is not about native born Cayman, or status holders, or expats. If any of us put party, ego, and pride above the country we are bound to fail.
This is about the worlds perception of the Cayman Island. This is about Cayman's future.
Thank you Len Layman. Well said.
Well said, Wayne. please run for office. We need thinkers, and not (as you so abley put) Barbarians.
FINALLY…somebody saying that the emporer is naked…
The majority of the posters on this site are anti-McKeeva Bush, and you would support and saction anything that anybody would have to say that is bad about that man.
You try posting something positive and see for yourself how many hands down you'll get and then turn around and post something negative and see the thumbs up.
The crux of the matter is ~ the premier stays!
Ok. I am POSITIVE that three criminal investigations are way more serious than "none"!
I understand what he said clearly – I guess you dont
plain stupid thinking, if the premier offered the country something that made sense we would all support it. But, thus far the UDP has be messing up everything they touch
Thank you!
So… I'm lost… what did PPM do when they were in power?