Let's follow the math........ the reason nothing was paid is because 2% of nothing equals nothing, zero, nada and zilch. CWC varied the rights of two percent of shares to non-voting and then created a foundation most likely beneficially owned by a trust to disguise the fact that it is still beneficially owned by CWC. CWC will then use this foundation to fund all those charitable activities that they previously expensed in their P&L. Well, with this deal they no longer have to recognize those expenses in their P&L, these cost will now be directly deducted from their retained earnings through dividend payments. CWC continues to consolidate so nothing really changes only now their ratios look a little better.

The devil is in the detail but on the face of it this appears to be akin to a sleight of hand magician's trick with absolutely zero substantive value or effect. CWC continues to be able to consolidate BTC's operations into its accounts which tells me that what's happening here is that by introducing an intermediary, CWC has converted its legal interest in the 2% to an equitable interest in the assets of the Trust . Substantively ownership does not change though the Trust may disguise the character and nature of that ownership. All smoke and mirrors with no substance.

Over the past 20 years successive parties when in opposition have declared their intention to bring about electoral and campaign finance reform but as soon as they are elected all that talk disappears. These reforms are needed but the larger question is why are we not attracting our best and brightest to politics and why are we so enamored by the braggart/biggity type?

I am a die-hard defender of human rights and equally abhor the gestapo tactics of coerced confessions, but that is corruption and as I stated above corruption should not be tolerated or condoned in any judicial process or system. But is that what we are talking about here? Has the accused complained about being beaten? I was not aware that there were complaints of a coerced confession in this case.

The investigation of an alibi is an essential, basic, rudimentary and routine investigatory procedure before initiating charges against someone. Why do you and so many others on this thread just assume that this investigation was not performed by the police. By the way what is the theory of this crime according to the police and just how far is Dorsett Street from the scene of the crime. Even if footage exists could he have committed the crime and still be seen on footage minutes before or after? I do not think it is asking too much for every adult in a democracy to have a basic understanding of the judicial system that governs their lives. Glibly sitting back in your arm chair predicting innocence or guily or criminal antecedents based on someone crying in court or their appearance or the shirt they are wearing is more than naive and superficial. The process is that he is innocent until proven guilty. I don't know if he committed this crime and I suspect you don't know as well but the Police believes that he did. And assuming that he did, do you think he is likely to take public responsibilty for such a gruesome, inhumane and cowardly act?

A little surprised at some of the comments above. Remember that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the burden is on the police and prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually performed the criminal act having the means, motive and intent. The police will not judge his guilt or innocence, it will be a jury of his fellow citizens. A credible alibi is probably the most competent evidence to rebut the prosecutions burden. Therefore, unless corruption can be established, let the process proceed. Quite frankly I am not surprised by a hardened criminal crying in court because it happens all the time. The minute you take their guns away from them they are nothing more than scared little boys.

During the last election, many voters said just as you are saying, "I doubt the PLP can do worse than the FNM". Well, as of today most of them would admit that they were not only wrong, they were dead wrong. Having to chose leaders by default is never a good idea. The question we should be asking in this country is why are eminently qualified, proven and successful Bahamian leaders in commerce and other areas are not putting themselves forward for public service and we are relegated to select from shallow loquacious charlatans who are often also boastful, egotistical braggarts or bullies. A common political theory is that a country's elected officials are a composite reflection of the electorate. In other words we are who we elect. Could that be true....... are we as a people shallow loquacious charlatans, high on too much unearned pride? We need to figure out how to attract our best and brightest to public service.

Maybe you can help me understand your first paragraph by explaining if the Central Bank or government is compelled for monetary policy reasons to reset the fixed rate at which the Bahamian dollar is pegged to the USD then what is that called if not devaluation?

Whilst respecting the good faith with which the proposals have been offerred, from an economic perspective the above proposed taxes are not deserving of too much comments on the details other than to say that the "Private Sector Tax Coalition" may have inadvertently and ironically made the strongest case in favour of VAT thus far with their misguided and convoluted proposal above. And a hint to the Tax Coalition when the PM asked for alternatives to VAT it was a rhetorical trap because he knew that any meaningful alternative would look something like the above. A payroll tax administered by NIB......hmmm. NIB has such excess capacity and competence and is currently doing such a great job collecting and tracking the NIB fees we should give them significant additional duties and responsibilities of collecting, tracking, supervising and enforcing a payroll tax regime and, the best part, there would be no additional administrative costs. OK if you say so!

Tal you raise an interesting point. The PM states that " The government obviously is aware of the fact that double-dipping is against the law" yet later says "the government is taking steps to deal with the issue and "Let me say this, yes it must be outlawed as quickly as possibly". So just what is it Mr. PM, is it illegal or not? If the government believes it is illegal then what process is necessary, just enforce the damn law. Pardon me but this is crazy!