You can't defame a country with facts.

Just ignore procedural law in these legal cases.

What information did he supply to suggest positive economic benefit?

Shane Gibson speaks on a lot of issue it seems but never really delivers support.

Haven't see you post before Tarzan, but ya have me dying.

The PLP, as the party I voted for last, is afraid of the possibly unknown consequences of not appeasing the bigger dog in this. Their future plans with Chinese investment. They are scraping up the **** from every pen, every kennel and every cesspit and flinging it furiously.

Union call it war when asked to do it's own job. These fat wheel chair warriors couldn't collect the money from the people who they claim to be acting for but blame the hotel. LOL!

This union defiles the history of unions. Calling a step of not bearing the cost or time associated with the union demanded fees from it's own members an "all out war"?

These fat men know nothing of war or hardship. This union should be ashamed of it's leaderships acts of entitlement and greed.

And to point fingers in the current Baha Mar issues is childish. The judge spoke and ruled, keep your battles in the court. Only care to speak of laws when they benefit you.

Amateurs and sheep will be convinced by this opinion piece. Such letters of goodwill are standard in matters of great weight. If any people in agreement that this is inappropriate, I will ask if you have ever managed a major project or performed conflict resolutions for significant matters in the financial environment.

Keep ya ignorant mindsets, out of the procedural courtesy which effect geopolitical issues.

Remember my fellow readers. Whether you agree or disagree with the spin provided by this article, this is more of an opinion piece than a reporting of facts.

So be careful in giving out cheers of "good reporting" as it may help to skew your ability to discern between the two.

Simply removing bail is a slippery slope.

Well I agree with you for the most part that the report is to highlight all issues. But I've worked in external audit for seven (7) odd years with experience in service, retail, public utilities and several financial institutions. Audit Reports of this nature are supposed to careful and determine the basis of Significant deficiencies or material differences. This is a special case, and this audit is more of an Internal Audit concerned with controls and following proper procedures over the qualitative and quantitative value.

I feel as though this report should not have been released to the public without an addendum or adjacent to each point of weakness/deficiency, with Managements (Governing Body of Urban Renewal) responses as to give the body a full understanding of what the statements are that are being made. And to allow them to formulate responses to accept, retort, explain, etc. While this may have occurred but since it has not been highlighted or mentioned per the new reports, I assume it hasn't I stand by that is a basic requirement in properly finalizing a report of this nature.

So it does warrant being under fire, as it does tarnish trust between donors and the organization. The Auditor General has generated a sterile report without any real attempt to tie in IFRS standards.