Turnquest needs to take a look at many of the statutory boards, committees and authorities that governments have created over the years to see how many of them can be amalgamated to cover multiple areas of responsibility, particularly in the area of appeals.

Billions. The fund was supposed to cover unfunded pensions, severance pay for those corporation workers that the company decided not to keep, new equipment, environmental mistakes, etc. Raine's focus is on New Providence, but what he forgets is that the company is national (well, just about) and that this expenditure has to be replicated in other parts of the country although not at the same cost as New Providence with its 74% of the population.

So where and with whom do the cryptocurrencies bank their money?

Like how these same agencies were so on the ball when they recently allowed the change of ownership of GB Power Company/ ICD Utilities without consulting the Bahamian public and without concern that the sole power supplier in Grand Bahama was passing from a minority Bahamian ownership to almost exclusive Canadian ownership?

Yeah but at least we Bahamians have share ownership either now on our own or through the government in Cable Bahamas, Arawak Port Development and in BTC. So when these companies issue dividends, we and/or the government get some of that money rather than all of it going out of the country.

Someone should tell Brave Davis to shut up and sit small when it comes to talking about "unlawful" appointments to the URCA board. If you want proof, check the Gazettes between June/July 2012 and May 2017. Starting in July 2012, the PLP appointed Randol Dorsett, Cherise Cox-Nottage and Ian Winder to the board of URCA, all for 1 year each, when, at that stage, there weren't any vacancies on the board and the URCA Act stipulated appointments were for 3 years each, but on staggered terms. Wayne Aranha's term as chairperson expired in August 2012 and that allowed Randol Dorsett to become chairperson. In 2013, 2014 and 2015, the PLP did the same thing again appointing Dorsett, Cox-Nottage and Winder for 1 year each but at some point they appointed Mario Gray to the URCA board instead of Ian Winder after Winder became a judge. Meanwhile the URCA board already had JP Morgan from Jamaica who was appointed under the FNM in 2009 for 4 years and reappointed for 3 years in 2013 as well as Katherine Peart Doehler who was also appointed under the FNM in 2009 but for 2 years and reappointed for 3 years in 2011. Brave knows that the URCA Act requires that all non-executives on the URCA board are appointed by instruments signed by the Governor-General which should be for 3 years but neither Dorsett or Cox-Nottage can produce such instruments from 2015 or 2016 and if they can, they would only be for 1 year. In 2016, when the Gazette was published with the names of all government boards and authorities, under URCA it stated that Randol Dorsett had been reappointed chairperson for 3 years in July/August 2015 and that Morgan and Cox-Nottage had been reappointed as non-executives for 3 years from September 2016 but there was never a formal Gazette of the actual instruments of appointment signed by the Governor-General for any of them suggesting that whatever decision was made was never put into action. All of them need to go anyhow as the URCA of today is nothing near what it was under Aranha. Brave hasn't commented on the illegal radio station licence given to Sebas when there's a moratorium on such licences in effect since 2014 for everyone else, nor has Brave ever commented on how URCA gave away to NEMA more than a million dollars of a fine on BTC that was supposed to be paid to BTC's customers for failed services, nor has Brave ever commented on the millions owed the government by Cable Bahamas for operations in Freeport and now GB Power Company as well. No, Brave under your government URCA has gone backwards rather than forwards and does too many things in secret.

I can understand why you would want to place the blame on Dr Minnis but that is not how Government works. Minnis as PM does not personally compile the lists of appointees to statutory boards and committees. That's done by others in his office, such as Cabinet Secretary or Permanent Secretary in PM's office. Clearly these people did not vett or review the list or the change of portfolio before publication. Alternatively, they did not understand their instructions. So while it comes out of Minnis' office, it is was not Minnis who personally cocked-up.

As an ex-policeman, Mr Blatch ought to know better and ought to be the last person to complain about this no-cap policy. Banks and other business establishments have these policies for their own protection as well as the protection of their legitimate customers. Nowadays people looking to rob an establishment or home resort to many forms of disguises, including the use of hats, caps, hoodies, masks and sunglasses to hide their head, hair, ears, nose, mouth, teeth, features, etc. Therefore it is perfectly understandable for any business to have policies prohibiting persons from wearing hats, caps and sunglasses inside of their establishment, particularly if they have a closed-circuit camera system (to see what I'm talking about, take a look at the man recently robbing John's Shoe Store in cap and sunglasses disguise). The best approach is if the business has a sign posted at the entrance in large letters stating that customers entering the establishment cannot wear hats, caps or sunglasses. They will eventually need to add hoodies to the list. I don't know if Bank of Bahamas has such a sign at its Freeport or other branches but it would be well-advised to do so to eliminate the practice.

Recently I went into the branch of another bank wearing a cap. Once inside, the security guard standing by the entrance door instructed me to remove my cap. I asked him which army was going to make me remove my cap. He did not reply. I sat down on some chairs in front of him waiting to be served. At some point he moved away from the door and that was when I saw a sign on the inside of the door that was hidden from view by his body. The sign stated that the bank did not permit anyone inside the bank wearing hats, caps and sunglasses. I politely removed my cap and put it in my pocket. On leaving the bank, I very humbly apologised to the security guard, telling him that he should have pointed me to the sign on the door as a policy of the bank and his authority for instructing me to remove my cap, as well as telling him that it should have been on a notice board in front of the entrance door where everyone coming into the bank can see it. Just because Blatch is an ex-policeman and a pensioner does not exempt him from complying with the bank's policy on caps. It exists for his and other customers protection.

Blatch also ought to know as a policeman that his complaint to the bank about breaching his privacy by recording him without his consent is a double-edged sword. Most businesses that have security cameras in operation have a sign saying so (my home CCTV system comes with stickers notifying the thieves that my home is protected by cameras). Therefore if I decide to go inside such a business under the Listening Devices Act I am tacitly consenting to being photographed (same tacit consent you give when you call a business and the recording comes on to tell you that your conversation might be recorded and you continue with the call).

Yeah, we'll go dig up Pindling and Adderley and the British who gave them hope under the Constitution where it says that if they are born here to non-Bahamian parents then they have the right to apply for Bahamian citizenship. Not the right to Bahamian citizenship but the right to apply. No, instead we give the constitutional right to Bahamian citizenship to persons born here to non-Bahamians who are here legally under a work permit or residency permit. Neither of these is satisfactory but they are all born here with the desire to become Bahamians, the former because this is possibly much better than where they came from or the only country of resort that they can lay claim to, and the latter because they can always come here if things don't work out in the other country or countries where they have citizenship or we need them to make up some nondescript sports team or sports event for which we don't have enough or any competitors. The bottom line is that all of the Bahamians of today all started out as foreigners in this country, the descendants of ex-slaves from Africa and the descendants of ex-plantation owners, merchants and others from Europe, Asia and America. The "original" Bahamian in the form of the Lucayans, the Arawaks and the Caribs who Columbus and others met here in 1492 have probably all disappeared by now to be replaced by the descendants of "foreigners".

The head of Immigration says anyone can visit the Centre during visiting hours. Most prisons and places of incarceration have a sign up in large letter stating what are its visiting hours and the better ones state what can and cannot be brought onto the compound. So as long as Smith was there during visiting hours, whatever hours they are, he would not have been in breach of those protocols. Several things come to mind: (1) Detention Centre officers could have told Smith, if they cared to, that his client was no longer there. That, of course, creates other problems for them but sometimes it's better to swallow a bitter pill early; (2) They could have told Smith that they cannot assist him but make a telephone call for him to Hawkins Hill and let him speak to one of the big-wigs there who would explain to Smith the Immigration Department's position on the matter and the status of Smith's client. Whether Mr Jean-Charles had status or papers is the crux of the matter. He, like thousands of others including a Government minister, claims to be born in the Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents and constitutionally entitled to apply for Bahamian citizenship. That issue hasn't been resolved therefore it is an abuse of power and procedurally incorrect for Bahamas Immigration to unilaterally deport or repatriate him to Haiti, particularly when he has not been charged in court with anything. This is when we get into the unilateral and despotic aspects of government in this country. If people like Mr Jean-Charles are accused of breaking the law by being in the Bahamas without any status or any papers then they should be charged in a court of law and let an independent jurist determine the matter after hearing from both sides, Immigration and the detainee, and determining the matter on legal principles. Immigration have a power of arrest but not a power to deport or repatriate without a judicial hearing. Smith might have gone slightly overboard with his handling of this matter but, truth be told, incidents like this are long overdue. Too often some uninitiated civil servant (read policeman, immigration officer, clerk in some government office and others) make unilateral decisions without legal or statutory basis that impact members of the public in the belief that they are not answerable to anyone for their actions. A classic example was the last chairperson of the Straw Market Authority who posted some new regulations that he/she had just dreamed up on their office door to the detriment of the vendors in the Straw Market. However the statute creating the Authority requires regulations to be published in the Gazette, presumably after they have been vetted and approved by the Attorney-General's office. The sooner we disabuse these tin pot officials that they have all the power and we in the public do not have to accept the option to either take their decision without complaint or leave it the better off this country will be.