Clearly it was a viable project. But not many organisations can overcome BahaMar's issues, namely incompetent contractors, multiple missed deadlines and losing money when they should have been generating revenue.

Does this ruling really change anything? Or am I missing something?

The liquidators were already appointed, BahaMar is still in negotiations. And I am still hopeful that they can negotiate CCA out of the picture. If not completely, maybe a 2 or 3:1 ratio Bahamian to Chinese worker? There is no way the government cannot step in and fix this sub par construction effort without coming across as conspirators or simply unconcerned. Either way it's not a good look.

On the other hand, the Chinese have a low crime rate. Maybe the government can negotiate with them to do something they are good at...these are desperate times on that front.

It's not xenophobia...illegal immigration is a real issue, even if people fail to acknowledge it. I agree with proudloudandfnm because either it's accepting countless illegal immigrants and paying for their temporary repatriation or taking a stand. Either way, the country suffers tremendously.

If we are directed toward self sufficiency because of our stand...the Bahamas would be better off in the long tun. The continued trajectory ( see article) will only keep the the cycle going until there is no choice...and the Bahamas is no more.

No one ever said he is not allowed to have concerns, but nonHaitian Bahamians also have concerns. He dismisses it all as unfair, xenophobic, racist or hypocritical.

My biggest issue, is the lack of personal responsibility these self proclaimed activists refuse to levy against the illegals who chose to have multiple children as illegals, and sit for nearly two decades on accumulating the documents necessary for them to apply at 18. They then have the nerve to complain about backlogs and threaten revolts, when they clogged the system not designed to accommodate the numbers stemming from 18+ years in hiding or no concern for their own kids citizenship status.

Listening, and responsibility, goes both ways and this man is too childish, narrow minded and anti-Bahamian to engage in, much less lead, a national discussion or movement to clarify legal status for the undocumented.

Is that instigating violence? You must have a very short fuse, if you think so.

Also, you must have somehow misunderstood when I said I was not a proponent of Fred Mitchell. Therefore, I do not blindly and ignorantly support everything he says or does.

I am not a proponent of Fred Mitchell, but I disagree that he is an instigator of violence. I actually recall him advising Bahamians to use cooler heads when Anston Ally made his public, terroristic, threat.

I hope he made the OAS aware of his irresponsible behaviour including referring to the minister of immigration as the Hitler of Haitians to a large group of "Haitian-Bahamians". Was he or was he not trying to incite some form of action? If so, what? The revolution he previously advocated for on his show? Or something more? Bahamians need be concerned for their safety, if anything.

The likes of Fred Smith encourages this group to never take responsibility for their actions. It's about time someone does...but like the spoiled inrate he is being coached to be, he has to throw a tantrum and express disingenuous concerns for his safety. If the OAS does not see it for the nonsense that it is; I hope they will help in securing him political asylum in the U.S.

There is really not that many police involved shootings to label the entire department corrupt.

I never said his running justified him being shot. Not following police orders gave way for their interpretation of the situation. His pointing a gun at them did not help either. If the police are expected to retreat when suspects run away...then the criminals have won.

Acting accordingly means the officers used their best judgement to first and foremost protect their lives, innocent bystanders and (if possible), the perpetrator who behaved contrary to police orders. An officer cannot tell whether a suspect has a gun or not if he cannot see the suspect's hands or if they are moving.

Knowing that there would be a coroner's inquest into such cases, I doubt an officer would put their freedom and livelihood at risk. So I will always give the officer's the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, it is a crime to resist arrest. If not under arrest, why run? The officers have every right to give chase and act accordingly.