And when these shares are sold, the money goes straight into the pockets of the numbers bosses. And what will they be selling? Their activity is illegal, therefore, all profits made to date are illicit and dirty money. Are they proposing to sell their illicit and dirty profits to the Bahamian people so that all of our hands may become unclean in this matter. This latest ploy is obviously an attempt to counter the arguement that is growing in momentum that only a hand picked few will benefit from this activity while the negative effects will be suffered by the entire society.

In that case then, respectfully, it would seem to me that you are then at least as hypocritical as you claim these Pastors to be. In your infinite wisdom, you have not only defined for the Pastors what the Church's mandate, purpose and objectives should be but you have also prescribed how they should spend their money. If this is about freedom of choice, then should they also not have a right to choose 'No".

What utter nonsense. On so many levels, the behavior of Gibson and Fitzgerald in this matter represents the epitome of how not to behave when given a position of power and authority in a Civil Society based on the Rule of Law. One would expect this behavior in Assad's Syria, not in Nassau Bahamas. The issue is not whether or not Gibson or Fitzgerald has the right to exercise such discretion, the law is clear on that. The real issue is that the holder of such a discretion is merely a Trustee, holding that discretion for all Bahamians. It is not a right but a privilege, a privilege bestowed to them by the Bahamian people. For that reason they should never use it or appear to use it for their personal benefit without ensuring the utmost transparancy for their decision, for to do so is a fundamental breach of their duty to the Bahamian people. And the PM is as clueless and detached as ever. We may say its only a simple gun case, but when they are at your front door and getting ready to exercise a similar discretion to take away your Rights it will be too late to speak up.

What short memory the PM has! I recall during the last attempted referendum the PM and PLP supporting the referendum, even voting for it in Parliament, until the questions came out and they changed their minds because purportedly the questions were not clear. Now today, the man with no horse in the race, is questioning and scoffing at the very same bahaviour he and his government engaged in just several years ago. As I have said before, during the last attempted referendum, I remember ArchBishop Gomez all over the airwaves talking about how the process was flawed. That referendum was attempting to enfranchise over 50% of our population with long overdue rights, a noble cause by any measure. Today, on a cause whose social consequences are arguably negative, we have not heard a public word from him and this process appear to be much more flawed.

Where is the voice of the "Venerable" ArchBishop Gomez on this gambling referendum. The silence is deafening. Without even discussing the substance of the gambling issue and its consequences, is not this process equally flawed, if not more so, than the previous attempt at a referendum? With less than three weeks before the vote the just released questions are misleading and ambiguous and we don't even know what we will be voting for. What does regulations of web shops or web shop operators mean? For that matter what is considered a web shop? ArchBishop Gomez God is watching!

What utter nonsense. Maybe Mr. Wilchcombe needs to be advised the neither question speaks to the "legalization" of web Shops. The first question only asks whether one thinks Web Shops should be regulated and taxed, as if they are already legal. Further as this is merely an opinion poll this vote in and of itself does nothing to change the law for if it did the results would certainly be open to legal challenge due to the ambiguity of question one.

The wording in question one is not tricky it is deceptive, misleading and ambiguous. The question inherently presumes that the activity is currently legal and all that is required is to decide whether or not it ought to be regulated and taxed. If the government currently believes that operating web shops are currently not against the law then they should come out and say so. Otherwise they should amend question one to be more clear and unambiguous. And they say they don't have a horse in the race. That's what we voted for!

Well if possession of a 38 and a couple bullets rises to the level of national security interest for our country then may God help us. All the evidence points to a simple gun possession case and the law is clear and unambiguous on the constituent parts of that crime and the consequences. We are supposed to be a modern international civilised society protected by the Rule of Law. This doctrine has always been an unbiased barometer in determining the quality and good governance of a country. Under this doctrine a basic tenet is that all private persons are equal under the law, that laws are clear and the process to enact the laws are transparent. A further basic tenet is that that interference by government officials in the Law diminishes the rule of law in a society. In our system, with respect to the Law, the AG's office represents Society and the People not their personal or political interest. When the image of the AG's office becomes tarnished it tarnishes our Society and the Rule of Law in our Society.

And we wonder why there is a sub-culture of lawlessness in this country. If the AG's office can be so blatant in its disregard for the Rule of Law, then why should John Doe feel any different.

Nothing surprises me these days. Clearly these pastors have a right to their private personal opinions, but if they are going to make those opinions public then at least they should try to ensure that those opinions are credible. In that vein, I am deeply disapponted in these pastors. Based on their logic noted above, we may as well include prostitution, narcotics and thiefing in this opinion poll to be regulated as well because like gambling these vices have also been apart of the Bahamian culture for a long time. In that way, the entire Bahamian community can benefit from the taxation of these activities not just a selected few. You fellas can't be serious.