I agree with Shepherd this bill sets in place legal grounds for govt to directly compete with farmers. Even more disturbing that govt could potentially collude with a group of farmers to the disadvantage of others. BAMSI has in fact been doing this since its inception. A bad practice has now been legalized for some minister to defend their actions with a pronouncement that "*the law allows us to do this*"

Seems the only laws that can get passed in this country are the self serving ones

Govt competing with business is a very bad thing for 2 reasons, businesses cant compete with the reach and power of govt "generally" and govt is very bad at business. "Kill" 2 birds with one stone. What seems like a good thing could destroy businesses leaving govt as the sole provider of services only to eventually fail at it ultimately leaving an industry decimated.

"*It appears the business licence he referred to may actually be the licences and permits granted by the Securities Commission.*"

Well that would be weird, because ArawakX has been vocal about how long and drawn out their application process with the Securities Commission was. Maybe the Tribune should ask.

"*sign on the beach at Goodman’s Bay caught the attention this week. It said that only guests could access some beach areas next to the resort. It had disappeared by yesterday.*"

The first person to come out and say *nothing to see here, oops we made a mistake*, was a Bahamian spokesperson. It was also a Bahsmian spokesperson who tried to sell us how good oil drilling would be for the nation. A Bah as mian who promised that the Disney cruise ship development on Eleuthera would not spoil the remote beach... we shall see. A Bahamian who sold us on the promise of FTX. A Bahamian who's now been pushed in front as the face of the RCI project.

The international conglomerates have our number. Buy a Bahamian. Cheap.

I find the discussion in parliament mind boggling. They're trying to tell me that tens of thousands of people left the country for jobs elsewhere, meaning they had to apply for visas, and leave on a one way flight, and Immigration doesnt have a clue?

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