I guess then we will have to agree to disagree that there are actually 100K persons that play, but for some mysterious, unknown and inexplicable reason only 30K made it to the polls to vote yes. In fact much less than 100K in total actually made it to the polls. Maybe they got the referendum date mixed up.

Your third point simply does not appear to be supported by the facts. Further, as Bill Parcells use to say, "you are what your record says you are". The last I checked the actual number of people who voted yes, the actual record in this case, was about 30,000. By no means is this a majority of Bahamian society. In fact as we all know it is not even a majority of the votes cast. Therefore, for persons to continue to assert that the majority of Bahamians engage in gambling defies the objective evidence and facts.

If this is "on the right track", then we all better buckle up for the ride and a bumpy landing. @Jackflash, without attempting to be partisan, all I can say about the above comments of Mr. Roberts, some of which are patently false and misleading, is that he continues to think that you, me and the rest of the Bahamian society are idiots. The fact of the matter is that in terms of national morale, consumer confidence and just general confidence in our government, the Bahamian society is arguably at an all time low. Further, by his own admission he does not speak for or on behalf of the government, therefore, he should remain silent and allow someone who actually speaks on behalf of the government to make these claims.

On so many levels, I find this unbelieveable and I fully agree with Sears. Without taking sides, as a matter of fairness and due process, if serious alleged charges are made against Cargill in this report, and he was not afforded the right to address these alleged charges before the report is issued, then the report in my view would have very little credibility. It would appear to be a continuation of the pattern whereby it appears that Cargill was not afforded appropriate due process. This is becoming painful to watch.

It is no wonder that lay persons like me found the referendum questions, process and subsequent court action perplexing when it also appears that legal experts like you also appear to be confused. It is reported that the injunction maintained the status quo. By status quo, as a matter of basic logic I am assuming that it means the state of affairs before the injunction was granted. With respect to that state of affair, the Courts, the past and current PMs, the past and current AGs, the past and current Ministers of National Security, the past and current Police Commissioners and the numbers bosses themselves were of the unanimous view that web shop gaming is contrary to the law. Why would the numbers bosses spend in excess of 5 million dollars in political contributions and supporting the yes vote to amend a law that does not even apply to them? It then logically follows that if the status quo is to be maintained then we revert back to the state of affairs before the injunction was granted where web shop gaming continues to be illegal. In that state of affair, we must be careful to separate the issue of legality from that involving the political will or wherewithal to enforce the law. Just because a political decision is made to not enforce the law, as was done in this case by the current Minister of National Security, that does not miraculously make the said activity legal. I can address your hail-mary sophomoric estoppel argument here, but will not at this time.
Further, your statement that, “Next up, the constitutionality of Bahamians not being allowed to gamble etc. etc.” is what is called a legal absurdity as this prohibition is indeed contained in the Constitution itself. It is tantamount to asking is the Constituition Constitutional?

@legalmindatwork, you have indulged this blogger with a response, which is very graciuos of you, because that is much more than the content of their post deserve. The only thing in addition I would add to the above blogger is that there is some redemptive value in unconscious incompetence or unawareness, however, conscious incompetence or believing that you know more than you actually do is irredeemable.

Mr. McCartney the PM never said that web-shops must close. In fact he said just the opposite, even specifically stating that web-shops should continue to meet their legal obligations to staff and other persons with whom they have legitimate legal relations. What the PM said was that web-shops must cease their gaming activities, an entirely different proposition. I personally have no difficulty with the injunction, however, it would appear to me that to obtain the injunction the lawyers engaged in a semantical two-step that appear misrepresent some material facts.

Why should they pay their fees when the government, none other the the PM himself, has essentially said that as long as an activity, legal or illegal, is providing employment society should not interfere.

Kudos to you Ms. Munnings. Your story should be posted in the halls of Parliament and on the bulletin board of every school in the Bahamas. If only our government would put the resources, focus and energy behind education as they did gambling maybe we can reach more of these young men before they become hopeless and disillusioned.

How much of that amount is owed by Mr. Miller? Again I asked Mr. Miller, as Chairman of BEC, what is your recommendation to address the burgeoning fuel surcharge costs? Fuel is one of the major cost drivers in many industries, however, they still find a way to manage these costs. The practice of paying the spot price for fuel and thus being exposed to the vagaries of its cyclical movements is financially irresponsible for an established company with such a great reliance on fuel. There must be a better way!