The lawyers want to take the little funds being made by non lawyers in the FCSP sector.

I find it a bit disingenuous that Mr. Bannister would cite immaterial expenses that were contractually due to Board Members of any major organization. Should she have declined the privileges as a sign of good gesture towards saving the public purse? Perhaps.

But to highlight her make up cost for the image of the board which she is required to be apart of photos and meetings with high rank foreign and local representatives is saying an employee requesting their annual uniform allowance was excessive personal expenditure...

Also, it seems chauvinistic to make her seem greedy for wanting incidental protection with security given her public history with being victimized. It's a sad attempt to appeal to the male egos of our public. How much does the minister bill for food, suits, gas allowance, personal assistants not on strictly ministry business? Shouldn't he have to disclose his own related expenditures to call the kettle black?

I've seen dog fights from late 90's. If anything, they've severely declined.

Chipman is not stupid, he knows he can use this to his advantage to create a perception of him being a real victim.

I think bringing up "prostitutes" is a smoke show to detract from Reece's own rumored failings and conflicts he inflicted on the staff of AMMC as a whole. Rumors of disregarding public service guidelines for human resources, demeaning and subverting behavior to management, etc. I don't know if he intended to actually improve, but it sounds like a child attempting to fix the world before taking a history lesson. Even good intentions don't save Mr. Chipman.

This a fair statement, however, the overarching theme of the current administration can be noted as "Change" in terms of giving a new leader and some new individuals a shot to govern. But, the opening day held glorious media coverage of all the sprinting action only to dwindle into sophomore blues.

I can't agree that they have more insight. But I can say that they have a more direct means. The problem is, the more direct means usually tramples on another. Not excusing officials for poor implementation of projects (not considering corruption) but, they would makes matters more polarized.

I won't tolerate it until they name all the relevant parties. They had no qualms naming certain executive contracts with Tourism and the Bridge Authority scenario, but they choose to exclude many of the other disclosures. Name them or you are playing the same game while blaming the prior admin.

All they are doing is further promoting the use of alcohol and tobacco to fund the asinine sin tax to be misappropriated away from health care into the haphazard projects of administration after administration.

If we can curb alcohol and tobacco consumption through allowances made on marijuana, we have cut down the average health care bill to be carried on the backs of the people.

Yes, lets backslide further into social policies that have not helped. They say if it ain't broke don't fix it, but you seem happy to pick up the broken pieces and proclaim it is better than it was before.