Maybe conflating issues. There is nothing wrong with laws for good order, but over the course of history laws have been on occasion abused to deny people of color and minorities access. In the US South an example of such seemingly sensible laws were called "*Jim Crow*"

The laws no longer say for example, "*no blacks allowed*", but by their enforcement it's what they do. In an island where a large percentage of beach access is cut off by private property owned either by large corporations catering to largely white tourists, enclaves catering to wealthy individuals a good percentage of whom are white, to enact a law that says you cant come on this beach unless you either have a boat or you trek through some remote access point and while on the beach you can only stay on the hot sand for the full length of your visit, is to effectively say no black Bahamians allowed. Sure there will be some who will rise above the rule, good for them, but the population at large is excluded.

You have to look no further than what Desmond Bannister did during the COVID too long extended and abused lockdowns, it was the most evil thing, and his colleagues sat in Parliament and laughed about it. He cut down the trees at a popular beach to remove all shaded areas in an effort to discourage *natives* from going to the beach. It's a tactic used decades ago out West by white owners to discourage beach parties. He used the cover of "*removing an invasive species of tree*". Seems sensible enough. But it was only a legal cover, his smirk, absence of a plan to replace with native shade trees and the giggles of his colleagues said as much.

-

They need to remove that racist high water mark law. It is what it is

Does Mr Bell realize that he caused all of this? Nobody would have known this man's name other than close associates if Bell didnt seek to use the death as a political ploy. If the intent was to hand over citizenship documents Bell could have had a private word with the widow, .... so many options. This stunt was about making Keith Bell the hero.

And when I ask is *expediting a process unethical*, Im speaking about when there is a ***justifiable*** reason to do so, not "*my girlfriend needs a business license tomorrow to open her shop, sign the documents, here's 200K for your effort*", thats clearly unethical, illegal and an abuse of the system.

So the govt would have seen the potential for new revenue with this move, thats a good thing, so getting all the parties together to say make this the priority and setting aggressive timelines for each step would be reasonable.

But if what Ray is implying is that someone was paid to bypass every or significant and key procedural steps in the interest of speed and personal financial gain, that would be unethical, could be illegal and for a lawyer that would have implications in another country.

But noone has clearly framed the process to really make a judgement on this "*expedited*" million dollar payday

I get that she got a big payoff and I dont like the idea of the wolves at the gate getting fat grabbing up everything while people in the country cant eat, but is expediting a process unethical? **If** someone says its **impossible** to do this properly in under 6 months much less 6 weeks, then, ok, something illegal or unethical had to have transpired

Bell should not have done it. I'm baffled at w.d hat he expected to achieve other than theatrics. It takes time to plan a funeral, he could have handed over the documents from his office like normal anytime between the gentlemans death and the funeral. It was a dumb move.

So they dont want to lend money but they dont want people to get money elsewhere..
Not that I support loan sharks

I've never had to apply for a business license for a million dollar much less billion dollar international business in a high risk financial sector. How long does it take? Is it reasonable that all checks could have been made in 6 weeks or did someone say *just sign the papers and here's the cheque*. Is there something nefarious with accepting money to expedite the process and I mean "legally"? Or is there no legal/ethical way to do that?

The answers would give context to the story.

Being ignorant of the process I don't see the issue, but I'm assuming there is one since Ray filed it as evidence, Sam's girlfriend could be privy to the insider grease handlings.

This actually sounds "*normal*".

This is receiving attention because the risks materialized (they dont always, sometimes luck is on your side) and those risks had the worst possible outcome, death. But this storyline is par for the course in almost every business. *Time and Cost* are King. Testing requires time and its costly, the outcome is inevitable. The irony is, when the risks materialize, the Time and Cost lost for *not* testing quadruples, sometimes the Cost is incalculable like death, loss of goodwill or an incident that destroys all efforts to date