This is so sad. I saw the result of the collision that morning with some Prince Charles traffic that was unusual for the time. When I approached the soldier road intersection, I noted the burgundy vehicle was on it's side and one other car having front damage behind the burgundy vehicle.

I hope the vehicle that left has the moral reason to turn themselves in so the injured parties can have closure on how to move forward. But given their hit and run one may assume the person was either not insurance, vehicle was not licensed or the drivers was not licensed.

We should have some policy or fund for victims of these hit&run or uninsured/unlicensed issued when they at least are the cause if that's what happened in this case. We can prosecute the person at fault while also providing some care for these victims. Insurance companies' solution to some of these previous incidents seems a bit too self serving mentioning the government should improve the penalties and criminal penalties for being uninsured while driving. If the insurance companies cared perhaps they would be willing to partially fund this program with a small percentage of gains beyond costs for at least auto incidents.

The financials of one of the large providers being Colina unfortunately does not drill down insurance performance beyond Life, Health and Other disallowing public analysis for the profitability of auto insurance to suggest a fair contribution. It is also fair to note the Other insurance category in the 2020 audited financials do have the smallest share of the Net Income being 1.8mil which is only 8.74% of total insurance net income. So there is some limitations and probably aversion to decreasing that bottom line further, but just wanted to float an idea rather than simply screaming at the government/police to do better as if it's the only possible solution.

Are you being serious? You couldn't find ANY normal use of census data historically that doesn't fit into your narrative of control?

What data do you have to suggest Abaco produces more revenues than it received in government funding of infrastructure, administration, etc?

Perhaps if Abaco and frankly any family island would be transparent with each other to put together their estimated economic impact, they would seem reasonable. However, these conversations tend to end with person's insinuating others "don't know the type of money we produce" to imply something significantly disproportionately higher then their budget share.

Another suggestion could be to pressure the government to provide funding sources and expenditure comparatives per regional area. This probably would not be supported by many islands, as this could reduce for some. This is possible for areas government spends for tourism promotion or facilitation versus economic results being lower than expected.

I fully disagree with Kevin Evans in his article, and would note he should leave the women's bodies alone, and if he was/is a woman, should leave other people's bodies alone.

But to the point of injuries and emotional trauma, Kevin Evans cites no evidence for his local assessment of women being distraught and regretful. While there is a evidence of emotional fall out and there are risks with any surgical procedure in that region for damage to reproductive organs and other complications, there is public knowledge and information available for informed decisions of these individuals.

If you and/or your partner who can conceive don't want an abortion, then don't get one? If we are so pro life, should we take away parent's right to decide medical care for kids that could reduce life expectancy or should we have government mandated child care standards? It seems the right to life and so called protection of innocent lives, starts and ends with the time in women's bodies. Which is where I fully believe their moral objections are superseded by body autonomy. I could actually stomach anti abortion laws if the laws provided health care, childcare, and also punishments or garnished wages to fund childcare of confirmed genetic parents failing in their duties. It still infringes on person's bodies, but at least it would actually be addressing the myriad of social problems, rather than restricting women and so called Christians get to claim moral victory while helping no one.

Maybe men should have temporary vasectomies by law at age 18 as the solution to the abortion issue. It would probably reduce a significant percentage of the so called murder of children. But, that would be affecting male body autonomy, which if you read these articles and comments by mostly men and some women, male body autonomy seems to be on a higher level of respect than female body autonomy.

Actually Jesus being the messiah does not remove the rules or condemnations of the bible. It rather, allows for redemption under the eyes of God. This formed the foundation of the last rights of a man being executed by the State in western culture. "God save your soul" as you are hung by the neck until dead. Under your misguided apologetics, Abortion should be legal as through Christ we should be delivered from our sins. If man and woman can be delivered for other sins, inclusive of taking life, as you alluded to abortion being against the right for life, this is no different. But I guess women just have to carry the larger burden under your actual desire for continued tyranny. Just let the non-christians get their abortions. You so called christians can uphold your values without molestation as if you stay true to your faith, you will never have to have one.

The only rhetorical device you employ is willful ignorance and blind piece meal bible thumping.

That whole "In the states you can't own more than four (4) dogs without a licence" is such hogwash. He may be referring to particular counties or cities, even some states potentially. But in no way have I heard of or even seen any requirement for licenses for yards full of dogs. This is so absurd. Bahamians (assuming he is) love to say "In the States.." without any reference to the specific law or area, it's a big place with changing laws by city, county, state, reservation or federal land.

This man has a vested interest in training dogs and demonizing loose and wild breeding. Fine owners at fault, make it a severe criminal penalty. But to say you cannot breed animals without consent of the government is laughable.

Sorry she hurt you bro.

So when she defending him for allegedly shooting at her sister who was trying to stop a beating and refused to corroborate the sister report, this was them not taking it seriously?

Harsh words, but arguably true. People are acting like the police failed completely. The police did not release a man on bail, the police can't make appeal to have someone's bail revoked with out an actual complaint where someone is willing to be a witness. The neighbors clearly didn't want to risk it. Could be because the girl clearly was either afraid to affirm another's complaint, resulting in target on their backs as the girl acts like they are lying or that the girl for whatever reason didn't want him to be arrested. I'm recently being a bit tired of our public reactions to situations where in which there is a credible question of whether police or other institutions failed directly resulting in someone's death, and the emotional response that the victims in these scenarios are not contributing to some of the circumstances.

I am horrified by some of the recent police shootings inclusive of the alleged self defense against the DFO. I do not have information to suggest these people were innocent, however it does seem too simple the answers along with the AG lobbying the public against the DFO without releasing any source of his points he makes. Do we want the police to have more power? To be able to arrest any one they suspect of a domestic matter, against the will of the the victim? If we ask for more accountability or to restrict their harsh actions against our people, it seems incompatible to now scream for unilateral powers to be executed in another scenario that they are not granted.