You may be right, I am not familiar with the rules of evidence in these disciplinary proceedings. I am hoping, however, that you are wrong because the last thing we need is the appearance of a kangaroo court where the outcome is pre-determined.

I am so confused by this whole state of affairs. These Marines have been charged with offences that the government of the Bahamas, as far as I am aware, have not yet officially acknowledged at least to the Bahamian public. As a believer in the Rule of Law, I also believe that these marines should be the beneficiaries of the rebuttable presumption of innocent until proven guilty and transparent procedural and substantive due process. I do not know exactly what happened at the detention center, however, considering the manner in which the government has handled this issue to date I must agree with Mr. Munroe with respect to the closed hearing. If I were one of the marines, given the government's handling of this issue the possibility of being unfairly scapegoated would be a real concern for me. Three hand picked cronies would do little to ease that concern. This whole thing is very disturbing.

The real issue here is who is in charge of the affairs of this country? Almost every Cabinet Minister behaves like the Acting PM, now a private citizen has the gumption to pre-empt the PM and inform the nation of a reversal of a policy decision before the PM himself has addressed it. Mr. PM just pass a Bill to crystallize your pension and exit stage left because it is obvious that you are not engaged in the affairs of this country. These perilous times call for a PM that is engaged with sleeves rolled up and a shoulder to the wheel.

The fact of the matter is that this speech by the PM is directed at and for our local consumption rather than for anyone at the UN. Before 1999 when HAI was ordered to change our legislation or else these exact sentiments about unfairness were being echoed. And what has happened since. The oecd, fatf, g8 and G20 have continued their march of imposing extra-jurisdictional obligations on offshore centers, because it is in their best interest to do so. This trend will not be abated by our or Caricom's continued protest, that is the first fact we must come to grips with. Further, we nor Caricom have a meaningful carrot or stick to effectively influence this trend or debate. In other words this is the new paradigm or market reality that we will have to operate in. The countries that will be successful will be those that re-position themselves and their business models to leverage the growth opportunities inherent in this new reality. For over fifteen years we have been protesting that it is not fair, talking the same talk and doing absolutely nothing to re-position our economy or business model. This is not Sunday School, this is the real world. Sometimes things are just not fair, but we must still be practical and get on with it.

@SP, are you serious? The EU countries are now caught up in a vicious cycle of slow or negative growth, sovereign debt issues and extremely high unemployment and in the USA the President and Congress have been gridlocked for the past six years with the mighty USA credit rating being downgraded. Where are the world leaders that should make us hold our heads down in shame. Comparatively, given the 2008 crisis, the infrastructural development that has happened in the Bahamas over the past several years would put all of these leaders in these developed nations to shame. PC is a former PM, spent 5 years in opposition, has put forth two budgets to the Bahamian people during his current term as PM and is about to make the most imortant fiscal policy decision in the history of the Bahamas and only now is he calling for a "National Plan". If there is anyone who should be holding their heads down in shame it is us Bahamians who continue to elect these politicians from both sides. This national plan idea is kinda silly. By the way what is the National Plan for the USA, do they have one. The PLP gave us their National Plan before the last election and they were elected based on it. However, PC is sort of now confirming that they never intended to execute that plan.

Maybe that national plan should start by putting VAT back on the shelf until the "assessments" have been completed. You can't make this stuff up. A year and a half into your term, you have not executed a single plank from your election wish lists and now a national plan. PC I like you as a person, but it appears as if your political expertise does not extend beyond knowing how to get elected. Therefore, excuse me if I am not impressed or hopeful. This is merely an attempt to divert attention from the negative fallout of the government's poor handling of the VAT issue.

For the sake of clarity everyone, VAT is a regressive consumption based tax primarily borne by end consumers of goods and services. It is zero sum, therefore, all things being constant for every dollar government collects they are taking it away from the disposable income of consumers. This is not about expanding the pie this is about redistributing the pie. So when you hear statements like, "I hope it won't decrease consumer spending" it really makes me wonder, because it appears that even the leading financial professionals need more information on the impact of VAT. One can have all the positive sentiment in the world but if you do not have disposable income to spend or available credit you won't be able to buy or spend. The government's message has failed miserably on this VAT issue. To tout and posture that raising taxes in a soft economic environment is a good thing is almost irresponsible and Halkitis, who is a fellow CFA should know this. The narrative around VAT should have never been about how much revenue it will raise. The narrative should be about why VAT is necessary at this time, what will the tax revenue dollars be used for and how the regressive impact on the poor will be mitigated if VAT is indeed a necessary evil.

We are 9 months away from the implementation of VAT and the lead consultant cannot point to a government forecast or study of the potential administrative financial impact VAT will have on businesses to refute the study done by the Nassau Institute. According to the lead consultant, he is now writing a report. One would think that such a forecast would have been included in the feasibility study as government considered its fiscal policy options. Therefore, without any projections of their own I am unsure how the government can so readily reject the projections in the Nassau Institute report. From my way of thinking the methodology used by the Nassau Institute is quite sound, even though some of their assumptions, which are inherently subjective, may be a bit aggressive. However, what the public should be focused on is the irrefutable fact that the administrative costs of business compliance with VAT will be material and a significant burden on most Bahamian companies, even if it is not $103M. Further, that all economic theory would suggest that raising taxes in an economy with pre-existing material economic headwinds, as per the Central Bank, will likely lead to negative economic growth and higher unemployment with the projected tax revenue targets becoming very elusive.

Speak for yourself, for it is only an idiot that would consciously close their minds and heart to truth and decency for the sake of following patently petty and small minded politicians. Your argument, it would seem to me, is more appropriately directed at you because it would appear that even if God were to declare that beating and abusing other human beings is unacceptable you and others would question His authority and continue to ask for more evidence. What more evidence is needed that something against standard protocol occurred than the National Security Minister stating that proceedings against the implicated officers are imminent.

Instead of "Brave" Davis they should call him "Rip Van Winkle" Davis because he has obviously been asleep through much of this issue. According to your fellow Cabinet Minister, we are about to begin proceedings against the officers "implicated in the Cuban abuse issue" Rip Van Winkle so it is safe to say that we did a little more than just send them back. Wow, are you kidding me or are these guys for real. Four Cabinet Ministers and four different stories, while not a word from the PM. In truth, even if one wanted to give these guys the benefit of the doubt for the sake of our country, their handling of this issue has so gravely insulted our intelligence and sense of decency that it would be difficult to do so and still hold your head and hearts high.