It is not my timeline, I am merely reading the local vets actual letter and not inferring from the various post. In point one of their letter they said, "Firstly, we politely decline the offer to have the additional veterinarians come in to assist in surgeries". In point three of the same letter they said, "With that said each veterinarian would like remuneration in the amount of $50 per animal after services are rendered," both in the same letter contemporaneously.

There is no need to attack me as this is really not about me or you. My only point is that the local vets have penned a letter that makes their position and intentions crystal clear. If they have changed their stated position or intentions I am sure they are fully qualified and capable of communicating that. So unless you are representing them or possess actual non-public information about their stated position or intentions it really does not serve the dialogue to present as fact that which you know to be only conjecture, supposition and inference which directly contradicts the local vets own letter.

Why you continue to repeat this when you yourself in another post admit that you do not know it to be true is very strange. Below is a direct quote from the actual letter the local vets sent to OP dealing with the $50 fee, "Thirdly, in pledging our commitment to this undertaking, we have also agreed to acquire our own materials for OP, thereby providing you with more time to dedicate to other aspects of the planning. We can assure you that the best approach to the acquisition of our supplies would be best accomplished by each individual veterinarian, as sifting through the differences in personal preferences to materials can become exhaustive. Also, each veterinarian can make their own determinations of quantity of supplies, based on past experience, and the predicted number of animals that can be done by each person. With that said each veterinarian would like remuneration in the amount of $50 per animal after services are rendered, which we all agree is a nominal fee for our efforts. Not only will we acquire our own anesthesia, but ALL surgical and medical supplies will be provided by the local veterinarians. The financial climate in the country demands that we take into account the possibility that donation of our time to efforts like these can potentially create a negative impact on our practices, so it is only fair that while we do not seek to make a profit from an exercise as charitable as this one, that we do not ignore our own expenses, to our detriment." This is after the local vets agreed to perform the same surgeries for $30 per animal. After new officers were elected, they informed OP that foreign vets were not needed and increased the fee to $50. There is no mention of funding any year round charity in their letter. This is not about gotcha, but if we are going to have dialogue, let's not engage in silly tricks and keep the focus on where it needs to be which is the stray dog/cat epidemic in the country.

I have no "dog" in this as I am just a local businessman who donate to several animal welfare groups as well as a dozen or more other local groups. For me right will always be right and the same for wrong. Having said that @Domin1 you continue to repeat the above, even when you yourself admit that you do not know it to be true. Your behavior begs the question why, but that is really not the point, at least for me. From reading the 274 posts one would read that the local vets agreed to perform surgeries for $30 per animal, provided vacines were supplied. When the new local vet officers were elected they decided to tell OP that foreign vets were not needed and to raised that fee to $50. In those posts local vets have repeated said that the $30/$50 was for re-imbursement for supplies. Having already seen a quote from the letter where the local vets state that foreign vets are not needed, below is a direct quote from the actual letter the local vets sent to OP dealing with the $50 fee, "Thirdly, in pledging our commitment to this undertaking, we have also agreed to acquire our own materials for OP, thereby providing you with more time to dedicate to other aspects of the planning. We can assure you that the best approach to the acquisition of our supplies would be best accomplished by each individual veterinarian, as sifting through the differences in personal preferences to materials can become exhaustive. Also, each veterinarian can make their own determinations of quantity of supplies, based on past experience, and the predicted number of animals that can be done by each person. With that said each veterinarian would like remuneration in the amount of $50 per animal after services are rendered, which we all agree is a nominal fee for our efforts. Not only will we acquire our own anesthesia, but ALL surgical and medical supplies will be provided by the local veterinarians. The financial climate in the country demands that we take into account the possibility that donation of our time to efforts like these can potentially create a negative impact on our practices, so it is only fair that while we do not seek to make a profit from an exercise as charitable as this one, that we do not ignore our own expenses, to our detriment." Please let's stop the duplicity and ex-poste shenanigan and put the focus where it needs to be which is on solving the stray dog/cat epidemic in this country.

Well then maybe you should read the letter sent by the local vets to OP because your ex-poste reasoning appear to be inherently inconsistent and inconsistent with what other local vets have already written. In fact, it is amazing how in a mere 24 hours you have gone from not knowing how the local vets made their decision and I quote "This is one investment the Vets assoc. have said they can handle and you want to begrudge them the decision? I don't know how they came to this decision but I know it wasn't: we're so dumb, we can't do anything, money money, death to all foreigners!" to having intimate knowledge of the negotiations as you stated above "The Vets Assoc asked for cash for their involvement to sustain their charitable operation (which includes other essential services) an additional 50 weeks of the year and the Foreign Vets wanted the Bah vets as volunteers in their larger programme". Further, we have heard from local vets themselves who have indicated that the $50 was for re-imbursement for supplies so just who is correct you or the local vets.

@John, Mr. Miller's direct quote above is, "they are the thieves, they have been stealing from BEC for years. Stealing overtime for 30 years, taking home hundreds of thousands of dollars they know did not belong to them. Most people steal and go to jail, they steal and call it overtime". I don't know what you are talking about but after reading your statement on the price BEC is paying for fuel I now understand that you don't have a clue about the operations at BEC.

I believe we should leave no stone unturned to discover who cut and removed the wires in questions and then prosecute them to the full extent of the law. However, as the Chairman of BEC it really escapes me as to why Mr. Miller would call his workers thieves for working overtime that have been authorized by the management of BEC and still expect them to feel positive about their jobs and BEC, especially when Mr. Miller's hands are not totally clean. Some of you may applaud this behavior, but BEC is a public corporation that shouts out for professional management and Mr. Miller's behavior is not just bad management, it is the absence of management or just pure anarchy. What a mess! Can an adult step in to guide this travesty, Mr. PM or DPM?

Once again Bran demonstrates his naivete on a matter on national interest. We can implement and debate capital punishment until we are blue in the face and it would not impact our crime situation. I do agree however, that whilst implementing capital punishment in and of itself is meaningless, comprehensive penal code reform as well as reform of the judicial system should feature prominently in any solution to our crime situation.

What a mess. Last I heard Mr. Miller owed BEC in excess of $250K. At BEC the PLP has re-hired many of their supporters, to very senior management positions who were fired for performance related reasons and given full severance packages. They have been re-hired with full benefits and have been given an extended period to repay the severance they have already received. So Mr. Miller lead by example. It cannot be that every worker is a bad employee except if you are a PLP supporter. A politician should never be an executive chairman of a government corporation because their agenda will always be political rather than managerial.

The audit findings were not the basis upon which Cargill was fired. In fact the reason Cargill was fired was not even investigated in the audit. It appears that the NIB Board ignored the audit findings probably because they obtained legal advice that the report was not worth the paper it was written on and will most certainly be discredited. After the report the public has more questions than answers. If it is independently shown that Cargill's behaviour was corrupt he should be held accountable but the findings of this audit is far from independent. This was a pure political play no doubt about it.