"*The latest letter includes a copy of one written almost exactly 20 years earlier, on January 27, 2004, when Mr Raine informed Mr Anderson of a “discrepancy” between the 15 client licences and 25 “installed clients” when RF was still then part of the larger Fidelity Group.*

*The subject also arose in 2010, when the investment bank was called RoyalFidelity Merchant Bank & Trust due to Royal Bank of Canada’s 50 percent ownership interest at the time. “The practice that has gone on heretofore with respect to unauthorised users being added to your systems by your personnel, as required, is at best unsatisfactory,” Mr Raine wrote then.*

Before reading this part of the story I was thinking that there was an unspoken arrangement that *we'll support the operation* which deteriorated after the announcement of the software transition.

But based on the communication it seems clear that the license breech is a long standing issue and more than enough time has passed to clearly communicate/understand the no. of installations allowed

"*The more high net worth individuals we can attract the better for everyone*"

In balance or we become a native servant class

I think yall just have serious personal hatred for "*some*" people. I dont know if anybody would say Papa Doc had "good" ethics.

Influence. You cant get into an argument with or strongarm everybody to get your agenda sold.. you could.. but..

And to be clear, being a minister and being able to have all these facts at your fingertips and debate without notes as the Pindling elite cabinet did, is **hard**. Our mistake is believing "*anybody*" can do this job, just look nice for the pics.

It may sound discriminatory because it is, but this job is not for any man off the street. Even among the educated you'd have to thin the crowd. First you have to be able to read, you have to have good comprehension skills, ability to communicate, leadership skills, excellent recall, good command of history, comprehensive understanding of law, ability to think on your feet and debate. Chatacter and ethics without those two we wasting our time. Could a man off the street have all those qualities? Yes, but he would be no ordinary man, he would be a born leader

I dont know where people was living between 2017 and 2019, it couldnt have been the Bahamas. I'm simply blown away by all the fond memories of how great things were. Because the most common refrain during that time was "*y'all please give them more time, they never do this before*", then in 2018 there was Oban. Then in 2019 there was Dorian with NEMA claiming credit for work being done by intl national agencies and the minister of national security saying "*what crime in Abaco*"?

According to wikipedia

*The role of a party chairman is often quite different from that of a party leader. The duties of the chairman are typically concerned with the party membership as a whole, and the activities of the party organization. Chairmen often play important roles in strategies to recruit and retain members, in campaign fundraising, and in internal party governance, where they may serve as a member of, or even preside over, a governing board or council. They often also have influence in candidate selections, and sometimes in the development and promulgation of party policy. When describing the position within the American Democratic Party, PBS NewsHour described it as "part cheerleader, part fundraiser, part organizer and recruiter, part public messenger".*

Nothing about being "*nasty*" and attacking opponents. In general it appears the chairman is closer to the party project manager.

"*Nasty*" has nothing to do with political chairmanship. It just means dont marry that person. Until we start examining job descriptions and matching qualities people possess to what's required, we will get what we got.

I cant imagine who's advising Dr Minnis or why he continues to listen to them. Maybe its himself.

"*least able to pay paying more than large businesses”.*

The least able to pay is everyone. We hear all the time that revenue doesnt equal profit. So how can anyone determine who is "*more*" able to pay ridiculous electricity rates?

In the ammendment the tariffs have to be submitted to URCA, does IRCA have the right to reject them?

I'm not impressed by the minister at all, she speaks clearly but never appears to know anything. Whose fault that is, I dont know. The fuel hedge argument was a totally different argument to this one. The rates hikes post fuel hedge were supposed to span a few months and then lead to a return to "*normal*" rates, now here's a whole new plan that suggests "*some*" people might get some really altered, assumedly higher rates. She came to parliament to discuss a "*new plan*" 2 months or so ago, then when questioned about the rates suddenly we hear nothing's worked out yet and they have to go back and reassess... but you just presented the new plan(????)