Bermuda's #1 Forum

"I heard Thao yesterday morning after a long exchange with a caller who told him that he was tremendously biased," she said. "And then he said 'We realise we might be a little greasy around the rules however we do not like or agree with the rules and that is the reason we do not abide by them'.

It seems like the attitude of the PLP... we're above the law has now rubbed off on HOTT107.5's radio Personalities.

Mr Dill, care to comment? These are Laws! Not rules!!!!

::) Don’t forget, it's the PLPs law too.

The PLP amended the bill in the 80's to prevent the pro UBP media stations doing it, but now the shoe is on the other foot they don’t like it anymore. Not really a surprise though is it; we have come to learn to expect this type of double standard. I wonder what the International businesses think of this anarchy creeping into Bermuda's rule of law.

Thao and his likeminded peer's may have a lot to regret in the future if they continue to exhibit this pathetic lack of self control and responsibility.

I have always said the PLP psyche is all about short term thinking and self gratification, without any care of future impact. Many of the UBP policies in the past could not be understood by these people as it required patience and responsible thinking to accept that conservatism was needed for such a small country. They would explain away the perceived unfairness of development restrictions by accusing the UBP of corruption rather than accept Bermuda was fragile and controls were needed.  I also believe that many people judge others by their own standards, so those accusations of corruption from years gone by were assumptions based on their own thinking and standards, we now see today the proof of this with the plundering of the BHC.

History will be our judge, and in ten years when the island has undergone a depression, hyperinflation, hyper crime and no open spaces left, only then will they understand the concept of self control.

I want to be a fly on the wall when Thao says; gee things were much better before Brown :-*.

Just in case
conservatism 

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

A classic quote from Homer Simpson:
"I didn't lie, I was writing fiction with my mouth."

Pretty disappointing Thaao. You can rationalise all you want, but the bottom line is the law is the law(which was passed by the PLP even), and if you were so confident in the success of the PLP, why would you need to break it?

The problem with throwing oneself behind a belief or philosophy, such as religion or politics, once you have committed it is hard to get out unless you come to terms with yourself and can say you were wrong. Self-justification takes over and you can explain away anything to make yourself 'feel' in the right. Then, if the people you have thrown your lot in with turn out to be in the wrong, it gets harder and harder,  because you think, "I am not a bad person, I mean well, this can't be true", and you try to make those that have done bad, seem not so bad, for yourself. You try to rationalise everything so you don't feel like you have done wrong or made a mistake that actually hurt people, because you are a good guy and would never hurt people...It will eat away at your conscience, but you cannot turn back, for fear of looking stupid, being persecuted or even prosecuted. As a wise man once said, "the truth will out."

While I don't believe Thaao is a malicious person(granted I do not know him well enough to make any qualified assessments), I believe he is young and eager to be a part of something bigger than himself and the bigwigs of the PLP saw a use for a well spoken, intelligent, young black Bermudian. Perhaps he has been hoodwinked, but whatever the case, one could now draw similarities to Squealer in Animal Farm. Thaao is one of the 'people', people trust him, people listen to him, he is invaluable in communicating and controlling the masses. While Thaao may not realise how useful he is, perhaps he does, perhaps he is easily seduced by the parties, the VIP treatment, the feeling of power. Perhaps he does not care for the truth really, unless it suits his conscience. How do you support someone who may not have been formally charged of anything, even convicted, but who has so clearly mounted up accusations, and tried his best to deflect, distract and disrupt the flow of truth. Even if one of the many accusations is true, it is heinous and he should be tossed out on his ass. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and I have seen Dr. Brown toss closer friends and more powerful people under the bus to escape that fire, do you honestly think he will come to bat for you unless it suits his needs.

It is only a matter of time. You need to know when to stand up and look at what is going around you and decide if you really think it is worth sacrificing your integrity, or what is left of it.

Is mighy haid massed hup? I don't see a post here by Thaoo. Am I missing sumtin?

Rummy? ???

No post, but I know he lurks  ;)

I like Thaao, he's pretty funny a lot of the time and probably people take him a bit too seriously sometimes. I don't agree with breaking this law but much of the problem is less with Thaao and more with those charged with implementing said law. If nobody is ever stopped for speeding, pretty much everyone does it unchecked. if nobody is reined in for political bias on the radio coming up to an election.... this is what happens. Not good but just about inevitable.

The commission that oversees content will be meeting and discussing this at the beginning of the week. Lets see what they do. Here the radio station would cop a heavy fine and the presenter would be punished similarly. I suspect that Bermuda will take a far softer approach.

Especially since Elizabeth Christopher is head of the commission...

I do enjoy Thaao's show from time to time, though I do not agree with his politics. He does have some interesting topics and does some funny shtick. I just think he's gotten caught up in this craziness.

I am not looking to see him punished, I really don't think his breach makes much of a difference anyway, since in most cases he is preaching to the converted. He is talking to his intended audience, and not to UBP supporters or government watchdogs. But I think the law is the law, and if he thinks it is wrong, challenge it through the right channels.

Ok...detz cool Let. I was just reffering to the first sentence of your post. "Pretty disapointing Thaao"...detz all. I guess you had to "Mislead" me.

Gotta run...................Smokinggun (notice the 'gg')......horn dee lyne....Yah Yah...Salmon...smoked? No No.............deceived salmon.......yah yah....muss be det 'pink' skin dee salmon was wurin................ ;)

I guess you agree to disagree. It's aginst the law let...............

If someone breaks into your house, you don't want them prosecuted? Why? Because he/they/she broke into the wrong house?
"Preaching to the converted" has nothing to do with breaking a "Law". If they are converted to whom/whatever they would break the law.

Gotta run...........I need a dubble...........................

Nooo you misunderstand Rum, I do not want him to be punished, because I personally believe he is a descent person, but if he has broken the law then he should be.  I am just saying that I think he is being used and may be too young or naive to realise it, I could be wrong. He is intelligent, but that would make it a willful and premeditated breach of the law, and I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. ANd perhaps, just maybe...he was misled.

Well he's online and posting. Lets see this, it's been along time.................... ;)

that was a misquote. ruth did reach out to get the clarification. i appreciate her doing so and told her as much, but since we have the latitude and, well, um, muscle to clarify things on the air ourselves rather than through other outlets, there's no need to do so.

the context of the statement i made wasn't so general/offhand. rather, it was slightly tongue in cheek as is my general wont, while specifically referring to the ubp chair's questioning of our liscence.

this was pretty much it, as near to verbatim as i can bang together. forgive the run-on sentences, but i'm trying to keep it more accurate, less concise:

"sure, we talk a little greasy politically, but is it worth challenging whether or not we as an entity should be on the air? 'cause that's what a liscence challenge amounts to, when you get right down to it. obviously, we go harder and further than any other media entity on the big issues, and that makes folk uncomfortable enough to forget about EVERYTHING else we accomplish and compartmentalize our connection with the community into being solely this political mouthpiece when that's clearly not the case.

in 3 years, we've donated tens of thousands of dollars to charity, given i dunno how many kids school supplies, given i dunno how many needy families clothes and necessities, paid bills for folks, put bermudian artists on the radio as often as any international superstar, put bermudian artists on the same stage as international superstars, sent bermudian artists to perform on international platforms and be schooled by international experts, gave bermudian teenagers compensated employment and experience in the industry at every level,  held an anti-violence rally, organized a literacy push for bermudian kids with the bling book club, and that's just the stuff i can think off of the top of my HEAD.

so, sure, if you hinge your assessment on the current and clearly inane legal framework, we talk a bit greasy about the political mess that goes on locally. that's a given. but, when you weigh it all out, everything we've done, are doing and will do, this is the issue you want to base a liscence challenge on? seriously?"

that was what i said, in a nutshell.

beyond that, as i've said on the air, the legislation limits free speech. not profane speech, not libelous speech, just the expression of opinion. it's based on 2 initial assumptions; the first being that broadcasters are less worthy of communicating this stuff than print media folk, which is a weirdly elitist concept. the second is that the listeners are idiots, it treats y'all like toddlers specifically at the time when you should behave in the most mature manner possible; intrepreting information from all perspectives about this huge choice until you land on a decision you're comfortable with. why in god's name does that process need to get managed? frankly, how can it? the board managing the messages has their own inherent biases and subjective preferences that will articulate themselves in the adminstration of the laws.

if we're just talking mandated equal time, so be it. despite that still being more than slightly disrespectful to the audience's intelligence, i guess it's hamfistedly fair. beyond that, the more diverse the conversation/points of view presented, the better for everyone. shoot, we just today gave the shadow health minister 90 minutes or so on the air to discuss the state of health care. giving the candidates equal access, not an issue. demanding broadcasters discuss the candidates equally i.e. faux or forced objectivity on people who make their living examining and explaining their subjective opinions, now THAT's just plain wrong.

far as i can tell, this is the only democratic country that has any legislation that limits what broadcasters can say/produce regarding political candidates. seriously. the reason it was slung back in the states is because there were enough outlets with diverse points of view for the folk running to find a way to the constituents without forcing the broadcasters to help 'em too much. in a country with 10 radio stations and 40 thousand and change bermudians(4 thousand people per station!), clearly, there are listening options. we do have the lion's share of the audience, but not because of a lack of options like in years gone by when this legislation was built. as such, we shouldn't be penalized just because people pay more attention to us than the 9 other options. forgive us for...being dominant, i guess.

anyway. i'm rambling, but this is all stuff i've said and will continue to on the air. we're not journalists, and have never pretended to be. listeners and the the law shouldn't, or rather, can't hold us to those sort of standards. beyond that, comparing this law to any effective/necessary law is ridiculous. speeding saves lives, impeding free speech is regressive and counter-productive/intuitive. clearly different.

thanks for listening.

ps this isn't a party thing, this is a principle thing.

It cannot be right that the chairperson of a government board is a government appointment. A chairperson is 
the de facto facilitator and often rules the roost and can get you thrown off. Hey Stuart.

Government boards should not be entirely informed by government, otherwise they become rubber stamps.  They should be a part of the checks and balance to a ruling party's whims. In Bermuda they are probably fangless, ever towing the party line. So much for the other people on the board who volunteer their time.

BAWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Thanks again Thaao. Will you be releasing the breaking news from "Tigga World"? Guess we will have to wait with "Baited Breath".

Wow, in control and no responsibility or recourse. Do they pay you as much as Guilden? Guess the new party or old party of the PLP will have a motto....Lions and Tigga's oh my, oh my.............don't forget the "Bear".....locals have to have it too.

Ps. Guilden thats an ole one and you know it. ;)

Actually I was gonna bee ah goud lad ann nut respond anni mahore. But ya no ole rums......

"were not journalists"......................Yah gut det rite....................Yah "Dopragandists" Wookiepeedeah...."Doc-Ah-Propacedargandists.

Where the hell is the Kernal? Det buy saulvs arry prumlam.............

Like the bank......and Wall Street............."One earing at a time"..

Gotta run................frying fish in five minutes..................

Ps. Watch what I will be frying after the 18th Dec.2007......a day that will live in 'Brownassi'..

Good nite and may Dunkley bite.......................................... ;)

I can't listen to anything from that station,not just bias,ignorant and racist rabble

hottfm was set up to dumb down the voting public, as rummy says ,keep em stooopid ;)

Reality - I'm not going to be so lenient. I warned Thao a long time ago about how important it is for him to be careful in how he uses his influence in such a small market.

A public radio station owned and run by a sitting PLP Government Minister pushing political opinion through the mouths of self proclaimed PLP advocates in a captive market during the run up to an election. Hmmmm... I don't think the regulatory board has any choice in the matter but to hand out punishments. Maybe Glenn & Thao can have the BHC cover the cash outlays for them. ;)

That was a pretty round about way of trying to explain yourself Greasy but it still doesn't mean you have any right to "continue" acting in the same manner. Maybe you need to get yourself a "satire sound button" for when you are deciding to be tongue in cheek on air. You clearly see yourself as being above the law. Was Colonel Burch on your show when he claimed no-one was above the law?

The only way I see this going is you deserve to be fined and you should also be laying out a huge apology to all your radio listeners for giving them the impression that it's OK to be above the law.

Oh and by the way - did all those tens of thousands of dollars and school supplies and food stuffs come out of yours and Glenn's pockets or was a large amount of that "raised" or "donated" by your listeners and advertisers?

OOOOOOOh    AAAAAAAAAh.

Thank you for the explanation Thaao. I have mixed feelings about that law... need to learn some more about it. I do think you did the right thing to speak out about it... that to me is the better way that you can effect change than by ignoring it. You are in the position of having the ear of some of the more senior decision makers in Bermuda and I think if you make enough noise they will listen.

Whether directly or by galvanising listeners, it would be unfair to deny that Thaao and his colleagues have done some good projects since they came on air. Lets not deny the good stuff while discussing what may be less to our satisfaction. Or maybe I'm just dumbed down by liking the music better.

rummy - sometimes i pity you. other times i pity those who are forced to spend time with you: caseworkers, rehab counselors, that imaginary friend of yours. even that dude doesn't answer his cell phone anymore, even when you hold your fist, thumb and pinky akimbo, up to the side of your head hard enough to leave knuckleprints in your left cheek. thankfully, most of the time, you don't matter enough for any of that pity to be wasted. whew, huh?

bobo - i get the sneaking suspicion that you're far too old to be this immature, but far too young to be this senile. hm. in any event, i didn't do this to you. i didn't make you this way. she did. when she left you. for being so indescribably crappy. either key her car or up your meds, 'cause this mess here ain't doing it.

smokes - good call. you're right, our listeners are the reason we do everything and the only reason we're able to get anything done. thanks for helping me be clearer about that, i appreciate it. doesn't take away at all from what we've been able to accomplish as an entity, but it tightens up the attributive lines. well done on the matter of principle.

again. absolutely, glenn is my boss. he's the gm of the station, not the vp of programming. that's elroy. glenn doesn't have much if any interaction with programming on the station. only time he comes into the air studio is to laugh or yell at me for being too open about my ventures in college trying to reach salinger status by swallering down any number of hallucinogenics. so, he's not pushing any political opinion through me or my show directly or otherwise. i'd like to consider that done, but you're apparently pretty committed to the false concept, so i shan't expect you to try and be...well, a less dishonest person. no biggie, do your thingthing.

you really haven't commented on the law itself, or my perception of it. could you? i mean, despite being a bit of a dick, you're obviously a lateral thinker. would love to get your assessment of the regulations and whether you think they're a good look or not. however, your suggestion that there's a need for a satire sound button again suggest that the listeners are idiots. we don't think they are, which is why we don't treat 'em like babies who can't suss out when someone is kidding or being tongue in cheek or, most importantly, presenting their subjective opinion on issues, huge or miniscule. i mean, do you need to be pandered to just to get through the day? never took you for a gallagher-lover type, but i do get the feeling bill hicks would loathe you so, *shrugs*. this commitment to free speech is not a political thing, purely principle.

now. since you want to politicize this, if the opposition is so uncomfortable with how we handle the legislation, why was mrs. jackson comfortable sitting on the air for 90 minutes with us, loudly flouting the regulations herself on behalf of her party? after they've done called 2 press conferences fussing about what we're doing, then happily taking advantage of that same contravention, i mean...jesus christ, i know y'got your side picked, but if it's good enough for your party, shouldn't it be good enough for you? seriously, i'm really asking.

add that to us running 5 more spots per day than is currently legal on behalf of the UBP(that they booked) clearly demonstrates that this isn't a prop up the plp thing. it's a matter of principle. it's a foolish, muddleheaded law and needs to be demonstrably treated as such to reinforce why it must be changed.

deuces.

"specifically referring to the ubp chair's questioning of our licence"  Thaao... I don't think the UBP are going after your licence, they are NOT questioning your radio station license, per sec... they are questioning your behaviour on air (and some others) in light of the law!  IMO you have grown a little too big for your 24 year old britches!  YOU ARE WRONG when you readily admit you are breaking the law (are greasy), a law you apparently don't care for, a law instituted by your plp gu'mint (laughingly designed to silence potential UBP friendly radio personalities; what a paradox, eh?).  Thaao, slow down a little and THINK of what you are doing, and how much influence what you are doing has on your listeners.  Your rationalisation of your behaviour in your rambling first post does not cut it in my book!  You seem to have caught the same disease that many of our elected plp MPs have the "these laws don't apply to me" disease!  I am surprised that it has trickled down to you already, I thought that you were a straight up guy... next it will trickle down to your listeners and plp followers... and finally everybody... and then what will we have Thaao...??!!  What will we have if we all thought the way you do, Thaao??!!  ****http://www.bermudasucks.com/forum/index.php?action=postsettings;sa=censor#;ing Chaos, my friend!!!  Chaos!!  And Anarchy!  That is what you'll get when anyone who feels like it just breaks the law because they don't like it!  THINK Thaao... think...!!  :( ::) 8)

"despite being a bit of a dick" We do not call members "names" on this forum, Thaao.  ::) 8)

Reality - I'm not knocking the outcome of their goodwill. I just don't think anyone should hide behind the old whoa is me the UBP want to challenge us for such a little thing as breaking the law but we are such wonderful people. Talk about dumbing down.

Every radio station under the sun does charity work. They have to. It just obliviates his credibilty that much more when he tries to hide accountability behind their generosity or good deeds.

But then again that seems to be the PLP way these days.

OK.... just went to post and Thao's on-line. I'll leave what's written and move on...

So Thao - you readily admit you are "breaking" the law? But you are doing so at a time that the "law" was created so that past indiscretions by the UBP could be avoided. Yet you say you don't agree with law. (Whether I agree with the law is neither here nor there at this time.) So let me ask you this - why did you not raise the issue a long time ago? It appears to me that the PLP has been on a stop-start mission to call an election for almost a year. Why all of a sudden during crunch time are you creating a fuss that the law is bogus instead of just going by the book and following the rules?

And as far as what goes on between you and Glenn - give me a little credit. Or just turn on the mic. ;)

Trust me - I have my issues with the UBP - and even if they win the election that doesn't mean I won't be raining on their parade every chance I get. In fact I've got a feeling we'll be seeing eye to eye on a lot more issues if they don't step up.

Mysty - water off a dick's back - but thanks for the heads up. ;)

Because she's not an employee of the station?  If she were



Thao, as an employee of the station I'd think you'd be aware of the law and at least make a pretense of obeying the law.  Or do you only obey laws you like?



http://www.theroyalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d7c33330030001&sectionId=60

I'm not following.

You disagree with the law, so... you just ignore it?

Convenient timing to start your "protest", isn't it?

Surely you know there are ways to fix this stuff, to get rid of unfair laws (that ironically were put in place by the administration you support). Surely you can see that just ignoring the law, then whingeing about being caught or punished, isn't the way to go.

I dunno. This just strikes me as a little self-serving and a bit... ok, a LOT... of a double-standard.

"now. since you want to politicize this"

um... isn't this all about politics? How do you "politicize" something that is inherently already... politicized?

WOW!!!

Thanks Thaao. I haven't felt this good in sooo long. I feel like I deserve the attention you have given me. I will sleep good tonight. I must have had some influence on you to designate a first portion of your post to me.

Oh the pity part? Don't worry, I think you'd rather be in my shoes than those that your wearing.

Don't worry friend.....you'll get yours.............because when your HOTT.....your HOTT....................350, medium well..................... ::) :P

reality - thanks. that's the goal, really.

mystic - dude. they HAVE and ARE questioning the liscence. for the reasons blankman cited, while ignoring other chunks of the act that would preclude their own behaviour on the station, offered freely by us or that they purchase on a spot by spot basis. again, i think the whole thing is dumb, not just the bits that can potentially harm the plp during this period. again, it's principle.

i take your point about anarchy, but, have you even read the act? have you understood the fundamental issue with it? or is it just all laws are by definition of being laws unworthy of being challenged? tell me you disagree with the method of expressing the discontent, and i can nod my head with you. doesn't mean i'm gonna stop challenging it in the way that i find to be most effective, but your core point is absolutely valid. however, don't tell me you have any issues with the discontent itself 'cause as another lateral thinker, if you actually muddle through the regulations, you'll find it absolutely clear that they're outdated and regressive.

also, re: the names thing. um. if i recall correctly, you yourself have called me a dickhead, smokes a twerp as recently as today, so as i'm assuming you're kidding, c+ on the gag. ;)


smokes - actually. every radio station on the sun doesn't do charity work. we have 9 other stations on the island. have you ever heard of 1340, 1230, mix, 1450, 98.1, etc. doing anything for the community? i'm not saying this to stunt, rather, asking you not to minimize what we've been able to accomplish just to score a cheap point about my credibility in an argument. now, that said, i brought up the work we've done to make the point in the argument suggesting that we're nothing but a political mouthpiece for the plp. that's not true in practice on any level, since we do SO much more than rap about what happens in the dust around the house of assembly. don't sum us up 'cause it suits your agenda to do so. or do. whatever. just remember. it's. not. true. okay?

i didn't raise the issue a while ago because i didn't KNOW about it. honestly, like a asshole/sensible person i assumed that the legislation was purely equal time-based.  that's why i pushed hard to get both parties to send their candidates to engage in on-air, hardball style constituency by constituency debates. 3 prepared questions, then one wild-card one from a random listener posed live on the air with clear time limits on answers. this was my proposal that hit before the election was even called, and then re-distributed immediately after the fact. the ubp said sure(agreeing to an illegal practice, mind you), the plp no(not because it was illegal, more for the reasons cited by the premier in the paper). that ticked me off to no end, and i bothered the execs about it ad nauseam, on-air and off. *shrugs*. what're you gonna do?

now. i've answered all your questions in full and directly. can you PLEASE answer mine? if you don't, it's really rather dicky.

- do you think the regulations are sensible and worth keeping around?
- do you think it's hypocritical of the opposition to challenge our liscence for regulation breaches while taking advantage of our willingness to do so(buying more spots to run than is legal/mrs. jackson appearing on the air for 30 minutes beyond the legal limit)?


blankman - the regulations include WAY more restrictions than the ubp mention in their press conferences and the paper has written about, y'know? they're doing the same thing you're accusing me of, ignoring laws you don't like while complaining about the entity giving 'em the opportunity to do so. shoot, read 'em yourself. bermudalaws.com, dump political broadcast into the search box and commence to perusing. peep 'em out and THEN hollerate back with your assessment. if y'get a chance.

ue - as i explained above, like a dumbass/sensible person, i didn't think the regulations were this stringent. beyond that, i'm not complaining about getting caught or punished. i'm complaining that there's such a silly ass thing to get punished for. we're in breach of a dumb law, and we will probably be fined. BUT. by the time we are, everyone will know how wilfully repressive and potentially unconstitutional the law is, and it should be appropriately repealed by whoever has the juice to do so.

and you're right, i used the wrong word. or rather, i don't think it was clear what i meant. the opposition has turned this into a "hott's breaking the law to pump up the plp issue" i.e. putting a political intent/aspiration where there is none. again, this is purely a matter of principle. that's why we were asking mr. crockwell to come by the show the morning after the initial complaint letter was sent, hunker down and explain the problem publicly. in further contravention of the regulations, clearly, but giving the opposition a chance to make their case for the nation to connect with.

that kind of access, that kind of clarity, that kind of face to face, issue by issue truth-discovering dialogue is illegal during the time of year when it's most necessary. is that really so hard to understand? seriously, i'm really wondering.


deuces.

Nice try Thaao... you don't "challenge" a law by breaking it... unless you want to get arrested.  You challenge a law through Parliament -- shoot, you DO have the contact -- or through the courts.  Not by breaking it.  That would be the straight up way to go IMO.  Sorry about the dickhead reference.  I should have said that you are acting like a dickhead.   ;D 8)

Thao - first things first. The only thing on my agenda is that the people of Bermuda get the respect they deserve and that is an honest (or as honest as can be possible in a place like Bermuda) and fair opportunity to decide who is the best team to put in place to govern Bermuda for the next five years. No gamemanship or crap to distract and create false impressions. I say this to all parties concerned. Someday you may end up knowing who I am and you'll then totally understand where I am coming from.

To answer your questions:
- do you think the regulations are sensible and worth keeping around?

I can't say I fully disagree with the laws. I can understand why they were brought into play in the first place. Bermuda is not the USA or the UK. We have specific issues that need to be addressed due to the limitations of our size. It's something I respect. I also do think that the world moves faster and faster and as other mediums become more prevalent so should the laws be adjusted. I understand where you are coming from but comparing yourself to a newspaper reporter though doesn't really work. Their job is to report news and accordingly not show bias. (OK - maybe they're not always very good at it - just ask The Limey.) You on the other hand are a radio disc-jockey - it's your job to spin things. ;)

- do you think it's hypocritical of the opposition to challenge our liscence for regulation breaches while taking advantage of our willingness to do so(buying more spots to run than is legal/mrs. jackson appearing on the air for 30 minutes beyond the legal limit)?

Possibly, but in light of everything that you/the radio/the PLP are doing I'd say these guys had better get stuck in and use up as much time as they can. What's good for the goose thing. However I do think that they are in peril of being set up for another stupid PLP Ad. Is that your intention? :-\

"- do you think the regulations are sensible and worth keeping around?
- do you think it's hypocritical of the opposition to challenge our liscence for regulation breaches while taking advantage of our willingness to do so(buying more spots to run than is legal/mrs. jackson appearing on the air for 30 minutes beyond the legal limit)?"

 - with regard to your first question:  Yes.  I feel there must be some broadcast regulation around election time, maybe something a little more reasonable and fair to both parties, allowing more time for commercials.  But I still feel on-air personalities should not get involved and show their political bias on air.  Notwithstanding, it was your plp Gu'mint who amended the law... to their advantage they thought *smile*.

 - to answer Q number two:  HOTT 107 is in charge of who does what for how long... you call the shots.  Your station could have stopped the interview with Mrs Jackson after an hour; in fact you should have!  You station could have curtailed spot sales to the UBP at the legal number, and you should have!  But, hey, money is green just like plp.  So sure the UBP should take advantage of the situation, they didn't amend the law.  And they are not radio personalities... and that is what they are objecting to: the biased political antics of HOTT 107 on-air people.  Period. No matter what you say....  ;D 8)

P.S.  Bravo on your attempt to get political debates on the air!  K2U for that.

Thaao,

I am not sure if the Law as drawn up by Government is an ass, regarding political broadcasts, but I am interested in your final question:

"that kind of access, that kind of clarity, that kind of face to face, issue by issue truth-discovering dialogue is illegal during the time of year when it's most necessary. is that really so hard to understand? seriously, i'm really wondering."

I wish Bermudians had that kind of access, that kind of clarity, that kind of face to face, issue by issue, truth-discovering dialogue with the Premier and Cabinet, on a regular basis, in open Public forums facilitated by unbiased moderators. I wonder why the Premier saw simply the entertainment value in what might have been a debate with the Leader of the Opposition during the time of the year when it's most necessary.

Thanks,

Eddie

time out!

While I think the fact that a law was broken is important, Thaao has come here to participate in the discourse of it. Please remember he is not vanz/tigger/pembroke/etc. I know things have cooled down a bit, but, name calling and jeering does not accomplish anything. Yes it is clear most of us feel he is in the wrong, he is trying to explain himself, if you feel it is not sufficient say that and why, but the insults just are not necessary. I know he retaliated, but I believe he was being personally attacked first. Let's try to keep it straight up and get something accomplished instead of a flame fest, I can go back to my video game boards and have that with the 13yr olds.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...


I agree here, the premier has dodged issue after issue, avoiding answering anything or more important taking responsibility for anything. Nothing is open with the current government, so decrying that the station is facilitating dialogue to clarify issues just doesn't really fly. You get alot of double talk and the old dog and pony show from the politicians, and I think both sides are focusing on the wrong thing right now, so nothing is clear. The PLP came out swinging and the UBP is trying not to retaliate, but things are being said that has put them on the defensive and now they are tackling everything. Both parties are guilty of straying from the real issues, though I must say the UBP seem to be trying much harder than the PLP to stay on target.

My biggest problem is whenever someone is called out, the whining ensues, blaming someone else, saying, well they did this or that first or did this before. No one will take responsibility for their actions. You screwed up, admit it and see how you can get back on the straight and narrow. If that means following the law until it is successfully challened or ammended through legal avenues then so be it, but to blame it on the UBP being picky and trying to derail the PLP during an election campaign, well you should have seen that coming, have you paid any attention to the cat fight back and forth between the two?

Anyway, legality aside, I doubt you are convincing anyone who is not already voting PLP to vote for them, and I doubt the UBP's protestations are winning any swing votes. It is just all adding to the noise and distracting from the real issues.

I am more concerned about the integrity of our current premier at the moment than media miss-steps.

Yeah thinking about it,if the station was not affiliated so closely with the PLP, things like 'the Lights on to protest Milkman Ducky' thing would not even happen. But then again the UBP hasn't had to file a complaint about the other stations.

A normal radio station would not have had the candidates out giving away junk with them in their protest, it would not have been turned into a retardedly piss-poor hatchet campaign against Mike D.

You thought the UBP's fish ad was bad, but it had more about issues in it than any of the PLP ads(and that isn't much). Not to mention their recent ones of miss-information and just plain trolling attacks on individual people. It is like I am watching a bully laugh at a kid with a stutter, the 'puppet' ad was pure trash and you should even see that.

But back to my main point, if the UBP were filing a complaint against Mix106 for the same thing...would there have been a big call for protest by them that involved giving away PLP memorabilia and candidates doing the Johnny Barns? I doubt it. Not to mention HOTT holding a fund raiser for Mr. Blakeney. I know this is not all on your shoulders, but you are the front man, you are guilty by association, and will be the one that hangs out to dry in the end.

I don't want to detract from all the good stuff HOTT does, but it no longer is benevolent if used to justify doing something bad.

Does this site automatically replace 'M1chael Dunkley' with 'Milkman Ducky'?? or am I jus loosin my mind...I am pretty sure I haven't referred to him as that.

Ignorance of the law is a defense now?

I'm sorry, but the continued defiance of the law or regulation or whatever you want to call it, kinda negates that defense, as weak as it is.

But, in my neverending quest for objectivity, I have questions.

When was this law put in place? (And, by extension, which administration put it in place)
Will you and other DJs working for Hott continue breaking it, as an act of protest?
What other measures have been taken by Hott or the employees in question to rescind it?
Has there been any approach made to Government to get rid of this?
Will this protest and attempts to get rid of the law continue after the 19th?
If yes, can we hold you to that?
If yes, and your attempt fails, will you continue to disobey, especially when the next election rolls around?

Thaao:

I'll respond to your post and the questions you asked later when I have time.

But here's what I'd like to know for now. As a man who has a very low tolerance for hypocrisy, how do you justify the blatant political leanings of your radio station, while you regularly villify the hard-working journalists of the major newspapers for a bias that frankly doesn't exist?

Being a radio station does not give you any more of a liscence to influence the election than the traditional news media. So how do you condemn the RG and MON when those organizations have worked very hard to remain balanced and impartial during this election while your station has blatantly failed to do the same?

Thaao,

Tongue and cheek or not, and who cares how much money you donate... ACE donates a hell of alot more!!!!

1, The FACT is your breaking the law, you know it and continue with no respect for the law...  You and your colleagues are role models for 100"s of kids, is that the attitude you want those kids to have? That's exactly what you're showing... GREAT ROLE MODEL!!!!

2. HOTT107.5 License is in jeopardy, AND the offending staff members right to vote, because (believe it or not), conviction in relation to this offense may be deemed a "election offense". This could also mean that your boss couldn't  run or could be removed from G'ment if elected.

3. You speak of "infractions" by the UBP.. minor yes, HOWEVER, by airing them, you commit the offense not them!!!!

4. As far a questioning HOTT's license... do the crime, do the time!!! If you want someone could complain to the ITU which hasn't been done yet. Then the repercussions could extend to stations affiliated with HOTT

You should know better than anyone, ignorance or contempt for the law is no excuse.

And so you know the UBP we're not the 1st to complain about your antics, the Dpt of Telecommunications had a number of complaints, from private citizens, long before the UBP lodged a complaint.

[editor's note: just fixing the quote box.]

Oh, and by the way, I was in Hunts this afternoon.... Standing in line behind Mr Butler, when Ms Thang came on with one of your adds... He sucked his teeth and shook his head.... He  turned looked at me ('cus I was laughin like hell) I said... "Yeah, again, when will they learn"... He just shrugged his shoulders... 

I have to say Elvis, I admire your optimism :D.

HOTT's charade is not fooling anyone with a brain,your an arm of the PLP ministry of BULLSHIT and PROPAGANDA


If you’re going to take liberties and break the law with other people’s money, there are going to be consequences...

Dec 19th you will discover the price to pay for being a  juvenile punk

that goes “deuces “for your ace-boy E-rat

I suspect that Dec 19th will be little different for the folks at Hott. Even after the BHC stuff etc etc, I think the PLP will retain power, maybe by a slimmer majority this time.

Dear Pro,

You asked:

"Does this site automatically replace 'M1chael Dunkley' with 'Milkman Ducky'?? or am I jus loosin my mind...I am pretty sure I haven't referred to him as that."

What you are describing is a classic warning sign of Suckosa Syndrome. Initially the affliction manifests as seemingly insignificant Freudian slips. This first stage is referred to as MOE.

The brain, in stage two, or LARRY, involuntarily transmits psychic banana peels, and if left unchecked, sufferers are reduced to dibilatating pratfalls.

Stage 3, CURLY, causes the phallanges to become clawlike and useless, thus preventing digital manipulation of the keyboard.

I understand that the progression of the disease can be retarded, using Drawing salve, usually prescribed for the treatment of boils. I would speak with Rummy at his Pharmacopia of Organic Delights. He has kindly
assisted others and his shipping is free, though he bills for handling. Something about "my milkshake is better than yours,  I can teach you but I'll have to charge."

I hope this helps.

Love,

Eddie

I think the PLP will retain power, maybe by a slimmer majority this time."  I sure as hell hope NOT!!  NEVER say that, you do not know!!! Can you imagine the havoc the plp will wreck on this Country if they retain the Gov't!!... the retribution against their detractors!!... the vengeance and retaliation against their enemies (whitey) & the Filthy McNasty Party!!  We know that the plp are like that... we have seen that they can be as nasty as the devil in disguise (BHC & BCC)... as they cannot admit (have not admitted) that they have done anything wrong, at any time, in the past nine years!.... blame everything on others as they are only looking to save face and look good... and appear so, so amateur and self-serving: can they actually get anything right??!  I believe they will continue to rape this Country for all they can get!!  As a leopard cannot change its spots, neither can the plp grow up and whistle a new tune.

You might as well kiss Bermuda, as we have known her, goodbye IMO... and a lot of folks will be (are) doing just that!!  Watch the price of housing drop dramatically as many folks, both black and white, put their homes up for sale (it's happening now)... which may put a lot of people, especially those who have 90% mortgages, in a very poor financial position when the value of their homes drops below their mortgage value....  Yeah, think about that plp voters!!! 

If you thought the establishment-backed banks were "bad" way back in the day, unfairly calling in mortgages of black folks (like Vanz laments)... IMO under another plp gu'mint YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHIN' YET!!!  :( >:( :o 8)

while Mystic's view may be a tad extreme, I am wary about the near future of the island's economy and well being if the PLP return to power. There are alot of people out there concerned and watching carefully.

and LOL Eddie.

I'd be interested to hear from Thaao what he thinks about the latest bout of PLP video media out. 'The Puppet' one and the latest pile of nonsense from Larry Smith...I thought the hatchet job on Wayne Scott was terrible, and it could not get worse, but to get a former cop to sit there and waffle on about a drug bust being very careful not to really say anything directly about Dunkely...he even looked uncomfortable doing it...he knew it was wrong...and I am pretty sure so do you. You have even stated on your show your doubts that Dunkley was involved with the drugs and you know he cooperated with the police. By supporting the PLP, you support this nonsense. It really does not look good on you.

Dear Eddie,

Delightfully whimsical - and exactly what's needed to bring a smile to faces in the midst of all the ugly mud-throwing.

Much appreciated.

Love,

Noel

Amen.


Exactly; one of Bermuda's biggest problems.

People need to grow up and take responsibility, and stop acting like a bunch of 5-year-olds caught with cookies before dinner.

Noel

Well, one way to challenge a law is to deliberately break it, and after conviction (when one definitely has standing), appeal the conviction, based on the law's unconstitutionality, etc.

Not saying this is what HOTT is doing, mind, but there are more ways to go after an unjust law than simply working to get the legislature to repeal it.

Noel

"Mystic's view may be a tad extreme"... only to emphasize my point and stir it up a bit.... ;D 8)

I know that, and you know that, but others may not.  :P

Oh no... say it ain't so!! ;D ;D BWAA HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!  ;D ;D

whoof. ok. i've got about 45 minutes before i gotta get down so i can grab at least 6 hours before showprep time. *cracks knuckles*. i'll try and answer everyone along the timeline of questions asked. if anyone's left out, blame fatigue rather than apathy, ok?

smokes:

i dig your concern about geography restrictions being a potential reason to keep a lid on certain conversations. then again, when i think about it for a minute, i really, really don't. it's probably just a philosophical bridge we both can't occupy at the same time, but i think bermuda/ians are or SHOULD be mature enough to handle people's opinions on absolutely anything so long as it's presented as such. also, you kinda made my point. i'm a radio personality, not a journalist. i'm not obligated or, if i'm trying to do my job properly, supposed to be the great voice of raw, unfiltered fact raining down from the sky. what we're supposed to do is just plain talk about stuff with everyone listening and give whoever wants to participate the option to do so. which we do, even when it's illegal. because we're supposed to do it, for all the right reasons.

the opposition KNEW we'd give 'em complete latitude to connect as much as they were comfortable in the run up to the election, with the only station imposed restriction being equal time; which was purely in the interest of fair access to dialogue. that said, the priority, as always, was the dialogue. frankly, i had a conversation with one of the opposition's reps about the legislation and they told me they remembered running far more radio in the past election than was legal on behalf of the ubp. after we spoke, the understanding was they could book as many spots as they liked since the precedent had already been broken comfortably by both sides in 2003 with no major fallout, since the regulations are so plainly regressive.

i really have no idea what's coming next from the plp in terms of ads. i just record 'em when they book studio time. so, i guess this current kerfuffle over the station could snap into the material rather nicely, but *shrugs*. that's not my call, and neither should/would it be either.

mystic:

ok, guess we gotta agree to disagree on point one. but, i think you understand my perspective a bit more clearly now, which is grand business. and yep, we could've shut down miss jackson on saturday AND miss spence farmer for about 20 yesterday morning, but we didn't because the legislation is foolish in it's application across the board, not just to the political parties i happen to support.

i mean, let's say the abc had candidates running, they wouldn't have the budget to really compete with either of the big two on any level in terms of digging their own little niche in the public consciousness. now, since less folk know about 'em, my first instinct would be to give 'em a bit more time, because i'd be interested myself in busting up my  own ignorance about the group. under the current legislation that'd be illegal, even though the other two would be flattening the rest of the playing field with their promotion materials. y'see what i mean? it actually PREVENTS fair conversation about politics as opposed to protecting it.

and actually, the opposition isn't opposed to the antics of us on the air, more to us recording the spots for the plp. frankly, that specificity is...healthy i guess, because my repeated defense of md friday morning over the re-introduction of his absence from dame lois' funeral debacle would have also been illegal. so, god bless 'em for listening enough to whittle at least a hefty chunk of hypocrisy from their complaint. mind you, they're still cherrypicking which of the regulations are really important to 'em, but...babysteps, y'know?

eddie:

i don't disagree with you, but honestly, the premier is a heck of a lot more accessible than you might think. he's been at and available for questioning about any/everything at about 8 or 9 meetings i've been to over the past 8 months, and i don't go to half the meetings that're held. not all of them have been plp specific, either. also, he's been on my show wednesday mornings for the past 3 months, talking about the week in government, the stuff that's happened and is happening. the rest of the cabinet is generally a bit less available, but they've all appeared at different public forums themselves over the past year with the same sort of free access for questioning. at the risk of being mildly cheeky, maybe you should listen to hott a bit more often. they tend to advertise this stuff with us reasonably often.

let:

see above re: the accessibility of the government officials. i do sync up with you on the fact that most folk have dug their heels into the ground that they're gonna be pulling for come the 18th, and most of what happens on the air is just conversation. but, see, the thing is, that's the point. that's what we do. i'll NEVER tell anyone, on air or off, to vote plp. s'not my bag. i'll tell 'em what i'm gonna do, explain why, then ask them to do the same. that's it, and i think most people are or SHOULD be grown enough to handle that.

also, i don't think i screwed up; as noel says later in the thread, this is one way to challenge a silly ass law. i'm not blaming the ubp for the complaint itself, because it should have been made by someone. but, for the opposition to fuss about one chunk of the challenge while benefitting from our willingness to fight the thing on the other hand, that does annoy me. legitimately too, i think.

to be clear, the rush hour lights on protest wasn't a hott thing. the plp put the idea and script together, and executed accordingly. all we did was produce it and run it. not our idea, not our initiative. ok?

also, like i told md on the air weeks ago, this election has never been or ever will be about issues. it's about people and whether or not voters feel comfortable enough with them to tick their box. peripheral issues can be used or invented wholesale to inform that comfort, but this really isn't rocket science or anything other than a big ol' popularity contest. it sucks, but it's true. that's why i clowned the ubp ad so hard, it does absolutely nothing for 'em towards achieving their desired goal and i can't believe they paid thousands of dollars for something that would obviously bomb so badly.

for better or worse, the plp's stuff gets to the heart of what's gonna polarise folk enough to go and vote. on that level, they really, really get it. beyond that, this has been a person for person election ever since eb got the top spot. even when giving 'em the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not they started this movement, the ubp has definitely tilted the conversation in the leadup to the election hard towards the premier in a really specific way. the plp's just doing the same thing, quickly and forcefully and, depending on who you talk to, effectively.

ue:

wasn't using my ignorance as a defense, just telling you what happened, is all. not saying we should be exempt from any penalty 'cause we weren't hip to the inane details of the regulations, only that their inanity completely defies predictability. as for your questions:

- When was this law put in place? (And, by extension, which administration put it in place) - the concept of political broadcast regulations was hamfistedly clunked in place by the ubp in 1980, and refined poorly by the plp.

- Will you and other DJs working for Hott continue breaking it, as an act of protest? it's not an act of protest, more just doing our job properly. servicing our listeners with the kind of dialogue and access thereto that they deserve as mature, sensible people.

- What other measures have been taken by Hott or the employees in question to rescind it? we've had some conversations with the requisite people.

- Has there been any approach made to Government to get rid of this? see above.

- Will this protest and attempts to get rid of the law continue after the 19th? in the immortal words of mohandas ghandi as he surveyed the dandi salt flats on one cold tuesday morning: hell farking yeah.

- If yes, can we hold you to that? sure, if it's that important to you.

- If yes, and your attempt fails, will you continue to disobey, especially when the next election rolls around? i probably won't be in bermuda at the time(should have moved on to a different market by then), but i'd like to think so.

cicero:
 
for two reasons. one, as i've said before, we're a bunch of jocks. we're not there to dispense the objective news, we're there to talk about the news honestly and openly; bringing all our baggage and biases to the table so that the folk we're having the conversation with and even about know exactly who they're dealing with. it's the difference between dan rather and tom joyner, y'dig?

second reason is, everyone knows exactly where we stand on stuff, politically or otherwise. so, there should be no surprise or...assumed subversiveness to the conversations we have with folk. the problem i have with the papers is that they won't just admit the way they really feel, 'cause i don't believe it's possible to be absolutely objective. however, when you're claiming to be capable of such and subjective kinks crop up in the news you generate, then it would be really nice to hear why things tend to end up leaning the way they do. 

we're not trying to influence the election. like i said earlier, i'd NEVER tell anyone to vote plp, during the show or otherwise. i'll just let 'em know my perspective, try and back it up and ask 'em to do me the same courtesy. if that influences people one way or the other, then *shrugs*. that's not the intent, and beyond that, like letariat said, most folk have already folded their arms on the issue long ago.

kickin:

1, The FACT is your breaking the law, you know it and continue with no respect for the law...  You and your colleagues are role models for 100"s of kids, is that the attitude you want those kids to have? That's exactly what you're showing... GREAT ROLE MODEL!!!! - forgive me, but i've already been through this bit, and i'm getting tired. you can read my answer above.

2. HOTT107.5 License is in jeopardy, AND the offending staff members right to vote, because (believe it or not), conviction in relation to this offense may be deemed a "election offense". This could also mean that your boss couldn't  run or could be removed from G'ment if elected. - that's terribly unlikely to the point of being non-existent as a possibility, based on the conversations we've had. thanks for bringing it up though.

3. You speak of "infractions" by the UBP.. minor yes, HOWEVER, by airing them, you commit the offense not them!!!! - again, forgive me, been through this already. also, why are their perceived infractions more minor to you? if a law is a law is a law, then they're just as culpable as anyone; based on the premise you presented, i mean.

4. As far a questioning HOTT's license... do the crime, do the time!!! If you want someone could complain to the ITU which hasn't been done yet. Then the repercussions could extend to stations affiliated with HOTT - only station affiliated with hott is magic 1027. beyond that, if you muddle through some of the itu mandates you might be surprised at how they'd perceive this situation.

You should know better than anyone, ignorance or contempt for the law is no excuse.

And so you know the UBP we're not the 1st to complain about your antics, the Dpt of Telecommunications had a number of complaints, from private citizens, long before the UBP lodged a complaint. i figured. but they were the first to hold two press conferences about it, WHILE sending/being comfortable with their candidate breaking the same law they were fussing about being breached.

also, he may have been sucking his teeth for a different reason. this isn't implying anything negative about minister butler, frankly, something rather neat. but, i don't think he meant what you think he meant.

whew.

ok.

hope that satisfies y'all. do me a favor. in future, never accuse me of not being willing to rap about stuff. obviously, i'm addicted to conversation to the point of it being daggone near self-destructive.

deuces. have a solid night.

Just a follow up question, for clarity.

"Will you and other DJs working for Hott continue breaking it, as an act of protest? it's not an act of protest, more just doing our job properly. servicing our listeners with the kind of dialogue and access thereto that they deserve as mature, sensible people."

So you WILL continue to break the law? I just want to have this clear.

And you see nothing wrong with this?

THIS is the thing that you chose to object to?

Psht. I had hoped you were above that. Guess not.

I'm intrigued that someone could be prevented from running for parliament for this offence but it seems not for drug convictions for example. There certainly seem to be some oddities to this law. Post-election maybe time for a review involving both parties and media representatives.

Thaao: Just to summarise: You believe that the law is silly, poorly written and crafted with the wrong intentions. You believe the people, in fact, want to hear what you have to say because your opinion matters, and they should be clever enough to read into your bias and make their own mind up. You therefore believe that it's fine for you to continue breaking the law, even though now you can't even claim ignorance of it. You believe you are justified.

You'll probably find these are the reasons that someone else makes laws. Your beliefs, precious as they are to you, mean absolutely SFA in the eyes of the law, and honestly, though I like you and your programming, you should be called up for this. I don't like driving at 35kph but try explaining that to an officer. I think the regiment is archaic and stupid, but tell that to the boys when they come get you at 2am. I think our corruption laws are oudated and impractical but..oh..

Not liking the law is no excuse for breaking it. Unless you're above the law. And maybe that's exactly the kind of system the PLP are moving towards.

Reality,

This offence, along with others, is considered an "electoral offence". Meaning that it has to do with crimes against the electoral process. With our constitution anyone convicted of any offence in relation to an election cannot vote, offer themselves as a candidate, be a G'ment minister, cabinet member or senator.

The original intent of this section of the constitution was to prevent election fraud of any kind.  However,the wording constitution is simple, election offence.  The offences under the Broadcast Regulations in relation fall into this category. Funny enough, I had this conversation with the head of the Dpt of Telecommunication during the last election period, he looked into it and agreed with my interpretation.

Thanks Thaao,

I can't help cherry picking from your comments, because I think you stand for things that could also have caused you to be at the very least, apolitical:


"i think bermuda/ians are or SHOULD be mature enough to handle people's opinions on absolutely anything so long as it's presented as such."

"i'll NEVER tell anyone, on air or off, to vote plp. s'not my bag. i'll tell 'em what i'm gonna do, explain why, then ask them to do the same. that's it, and i think most people are or SHOULD be grown enough to handle that."

"servicing our listeners with the kind of dialogue and access thereto that they deserve as mature, sensible people."


Thaao, you speak to the maturity, the grown-up-enough, the sensibleness of Bermuda and Bermudians.

The PLP hierarchy has demonstratively signaled otherwise, an abbreviated list:

Premier Smith publicly scolded audience members who raised concerns during a forum devoted to Constitutional change. I know. One the petulant responses was directed at me.

Colonel Burch and his "These people make me sick" remark as audience members voiced concerns at a forum.

I believe it was Cabinet Minister Terry Lister, in the House, who claimed that America was an immoral country. As a Cabinet Minister, he was ruled by collective responsibility, or as my friend said, group think. Wiki added nicely, collective guilt.

Premier Scott claimed the People did not know what they were signing when presented with the Referendum on Independence Petition.

Then the one for the books, "We had to deceive you" a la the current premier, who's favourite movie lines might be "You can't handle the truth" and "Greed is good." Well, of course it was politically expedient to allow Jennifer Smith to win the election for the conspirators, and stage a coup thereafter.

Lest we forget the "racist dog" comment. Nice.

Something I ponder, if we have experienced such a roller coaster ride, in reaction to what actually leaks out, what must be going on behind the scenes, if this is how the ruling party treats Bermudians to their face. And their hit list grows ever longer.


I agree with you when you said, "for better or worse, the plp's stuff gets to the heart of what's gonna polarise folk enough to go and vote. on that level, they really, really get it."

Where I think you and I differ is that I think the mature and sensible Bermudians you speak of are being denied, on many fronts, the right to critical thinking at a time, many, I hope most, would say, it was greatly needed.

Eddie

I really could not have put it better myself Eddie.

I can see why Thaao would support the PLP, as a party and a philosophy, but I find it hard to believe he is cool with all the goings on in the party and by some of its members. Perhaps he sees nothing wrong, perhaps it is all perception. I always like to try the shoe on the other foot to see how I would feel if roles were reversed and that usually gives me a gauge as to if it is right or not. May not work all the time, but it sure helps in understanding.

I am glad to hear Thaao plans to move onto bigger and better things, outside this market, I think he would do well and wish him the best. I think it would be a very good experience.

LIF, FE & Let you all get K's for summing up verything nicely and saving me a lot of typing.
Thanks
Smokes

BTW - Let - Sometimes the only way to get the likes of Thao and Guilden to get out of the lurkmobile is to fire a few zingers their way. I expect retaliatory fire but no harm no foul. I'll switch to a smaller calibre chamber for future rounds. ;)

hokay.

ue:

yes. that is to say, we're not breaking this mess just for the sake of breaking this mess; it isn't a case of actively seeking out or creating situations to slapbang against the regulations. rather, if the issue happens to come up we're gonna keep on erring on the side of philosophical correctness while accepting the repercussions of that choice. more than anything else, it's all happening because it's the right thing to do and, as noel echoed, this is a legit way to challenge dumb legislation. why does objecting to these boundaries strike you as being so odd? and you hoped i was above what, exactly? honestly, i'm kinda confused about those two particular points. thanks in advance for the clarity.

lif:

i know it's our perspective. haven't claimed it to be anything else, frankly. but, we're willing to fight for our perspective publicly. again, we expect to get knocked for the infractions and take the process further along the path for legislative reform when that happens. although, upon further examination of the legislation, it's possible that us recording the spots falls under the realm of spot broadcasts as opposed to political ones, which would be absolutely legal. again, demonstrating the clumsy vagaries built into the situation. like noel said(am only quoting him since i think he understandably/rightly gets a bit more swag around here than my own p.o.v.), this action is a legitimate way of challenging the law. thanks for listening, we definitely do appreciate it.

kickinsand:

i appreciate the information, but it runs completely contrary to all the conversations we've had from different folk from different backgrounds of expertise on the matter. *shrugs*, at this stage though it is all pretty academic.

eddie:

i can't deny any of the stuff you cited as being anything other than confusing at best, gotdamn annoying as all get out at worst. but, i do think there have been far more incidences of legitimate, successful attempts to engage and communicate than these obvious failures. if you really look at the entire list of public interactions over the past 9 years, there are far more healthy chunks of dialogue than those that curdled up on the floor of it all. that doesn't forgive the sins, but if we're honest about their proportion and frequency, we can make a more balanced judgement of history and, as such, what to expect from the future.

also, i'm not entirely sure how people can be denied the right to critical thinking. i can kinda see how they'd possibly be denied the right to critical action, but even that's a stretch for me. despite the strange, sneering general consensus, bermudians are a hell of a lot more free to say and do what they like than they assume; so long as we can support our opinions with a performance record that supercedes any bruised egos. y'know?

let:

of course i'm not completely cool with everything that's going on. but, shoot, i'm not completely cool with everything that happens in my own family, personal relationships, my own head. just gotta balance the bad with the good and try to come out with the columns leaning in a way that satisfies you. it's how life works, y'know? the heady connection i share with my absolutely marvelous girlfriend, my oddly forceful anglophilia, the way i can't eat on paper plates with plastic cutlery without feeling like i've got creditors after my trifling behind, my support for the plp; these things all make sense to me, and are all made the more honest by the ways that they don't. because i'm aware of 'em, and that awareness assists/forces me to make the tough calls when rationalising the speedbumps gets a bit painful.

hope that's clear.

smokes:

dude, if you wanna talk, just ask a question. i'll unlurk with the quickness and try and be as clear as possible as quickly as possible. no need to get all assy about things. yeesh.

have a great evening.

hi Thaao  :-*

Tigga....ver dee hal yoo pahut doze raza blades.............or was it "RIZZLA" blades.................

An erection is comming up. All I can say is thank the Lord for making my guilda a little bit bigger than the Thaoo-ong I am wearing........................

Ouch! dis his gunna be a tite RACE.......................................

Yo!!! Who dee hal his hin charg uv Prop-up-ganda?..........

Gotta run run...Thaao horn dee line.........Vat? Vat? Vtaza raceal lyne.......? Yah Bermudian?.....Oh Ok...you have a voice here................................


G.................................

What are you trying to do, ruin my reputation? :-)

I did have some comments to make, been too busy to do so - I'll try and catch up in a bit.

Noel

"if the issue happens to come up we're gonna keep on erring on the side of philosophical correctness while accepting the repercussions of that choice." + "i know it's our perspective. haven't claimed it to be anything else, frankly. but, we're willing to fight for our perspective publicly." + "these things all make sense to me, and are all made the more honest by the ways that they don't. because i'm aware of 'em, and that awareness assists/forces me to make the tough calls when rationalising the speedbumps gets a bit painful." + "my support for the plp" + choosing to use the exact timing of a critical election period to step up on your pedestal of self-serving philosophical correctness? Hey Brooklyn- ya got anymore bridges for sale?

BTW - From one dickhead to another:  :-* my assy. :)

Coffee or real green tea helps me
However, the witching hour approaches
And it's rum and pineapple juice
in a plastic cup, strangely enough
Chartreuse
Must remind me of summer.

                         - Smyte Mei

Sorry, sweet Smokes interloped, Noel. Had to say, otherwise another cryptic comment. Did you receive the key to your query?

Love,

Eddie

Darling that is beyond cryptic. I don't even think a full hot Rummy could decipher that one. :)

Dear Perplexed,

I just received a telex from Smyte Mei, Poet Laureate, correcting the record. I can just see his pursed lips as
he pronounces "grapefruit juice, you idiot."

Love,

Eddie

I still don't get it... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

So sorry Smokes,

Noel had said he was too busy to comment just yet, so Smyte Mei (Smite me) came up with a lyrical ditty, including suggestions for refreshment, to help him on his way. And it's not even Friday night.

Love,

Eddie

Thanks Eddie - I'll sleep better now.

But there is still one thing I don't get... how can someone be too busy to comment? It's only Monday and deadlines don't have to be met until Friday... :-\

Thanks for the response Thaao. I think it's good that you're trying to change a law that  you believe is wrong, but perhaps your timing makes it all a bit suspicious to a lot of people. Having listened, I'm sure you'll stick with yoru convictions post Dec 19th, and get the law turned around for next time. However, you know this opens it up to an opposition radio station!  ;D

Ren e W ebb, former Telecommunications Minister, and responsible for "updating" the current broadcast laws in 2003, says in todays RG:  "Hott is breaching broadcast laws."... and "the United Bermuda Party is right to complain about the pro-Government bias on Hott 107.5." There ya go Thaao... from your own people.   ::) 8)

Yeah I heard that this morning.

if that isn't a BIG middle finger up from Renee to her party i don't know what is..

wish she was a member here so i could give her karma


still have a crush on you though Thaao  ;) :-*

Im beginning to think Ms. Webb doesn't like Dr. Brown... :D

hokay.

something else:

hi back. and front. and the part of the side where the hipbone gets all dangerous and necessary. ;)

smokes:

ok. you've clearly drawn your idelogical line in the sand with the hardest part of your head, so there's not a hell of a lot i can do short of saving your first born from a grease fire to convince you i'm a standup guy. that said, i'm an ass, so i'll give it one more shot.

the timing of this only coincides with the election period is because we only noticed the issue during the election period, since this is the only period when it is at all relevant. that's it. no motivation beyond a general logical and moral distaste for the regulations. ok? christ.

lif:

thanks for understanding. i do understand why the timing of all this could and should have people's eyebrows knocking into their hairlines. but, after having the conversation and getting some clarity, i'm not sure why they're still left all askew. *shrugs*. what're y'gonna do, y'know?

as for my auntie renee's comments in the paper today. 3 things y'gotta remember.

a) this article was a byproduct of monday's more thorough piece on her election perspective. it's not like she called the paper clamoring for her perception on the matter to be shared with the nation. matt asked her a question, she answered it. because of the perceived relevance of the issue, he saved that nugget for a separate story. no big whoop.

b) she's completely correct on the issue. well, then again, maybe not. the regulations are so gotdang vague, it's kinda hard to figure out what side of the argument to come down on, but i can understand why she said what she said and can't responsibly inform it with any malice.

c) she was directly involved with amending the regulations, so her pooh-poohing 'em in anyway would be kinda weird, even 4 years on.

beyond all that, i still have a gargantuan crush on her for all the wrong reasons and some of the right ones. growf.

deuces.

"'no employee of an undertaking [ie a broadcasting organisation] shall take part in a political broadcast unless he is a member of the Legislature or a candidate and he takes part in a broadcast in that capacity'."

That's vague?

keep reading.

there are also items designated as spot broadcasts, which are not limited to members of the legislature/candidates. their only restriction is that they be under 60 seconds. which all our spots were/are. y'dig?

believe me, i know you're not particularly open to the concept, but we're not being dicks about this. it really is some foolish ass business.

You're openly, admittedly breaking the law! And doing it for political gains!

There are ways to fix broken and unfair laws, this "We're protesting" thing is, all excuses aside, just a way to get a biased message out and nothing else.
It's completely hypocritical. If any other station were doing what you are, but doing for the UBP, there would be a hue and cry about it and you know it!

I think the smoking ban is bullshit, but if someone walked into a bar and lit up, then, when told off about it, said they were doing it as a political protest and continued to do it, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

What you are doing, by continuing to openly flount this law is wrong and no amount of justification, or accusations of not being open or hardheaded will change that.

i'd like to suggest that all plp supporters protest the fact that their government has to win the next election by public vote by... not voting !

Then why don't you apply for the job of the Premiers Spokesman/Smokescreensman. Sorry old mate forgot, damn the pay is the same......yet you get to speak without forked tongue.

Um wotin PLP....detz rite........muney muney muney...................plus $35million for cheap Jim Butterfield concrete houses.................(no offence Jim you know that, but whatch your back man, could be another Honkey Tonk Container job)

Gotta run.................satin hup security at the airport for the new Governor. Getting all those retired Imm/Cust Officers out there and 12 new drug sniffing dogs......can't trust deese peeple ya no...........

Damn...hang on....hang on.............Ewart just landed...put everything on hold....I mean in the hold..shit what do I do????????? ;)

Just curious Thaao, do you see yourself ever running for election?

yes... that just might work.  ;D

ue - nope. not for political gain. i mean, based on the premise you're presenting if it WAS for shameless political gain, then we wouldn't be breaking the law to let the opposition on the air and run more spots than is legal. again, it's not being done simply to push a biased message. if it was, gina and louise would've been prevented from appearing on the station on that core principle. however, since they did get about 2 hours total time and wouldn't be turned away from appearing again, then that obviously isn't the core principle we're operating on.

we WANT ubp supporters/members to call the station and interact and holler and argue and join the dialogue. anyone that's ever listened to the morning show with any kind of regularity would be aware of that freedom and desire. it broadens the conversation, and gives folks a chance to think about information they ordinarily wouldn't consider. BUT, under the current legislation that is illegal. which is wrong, which is why we're demonstrating as much in this way.

dude. c'mon. even though we're not doing this specifically for either of the groups since they've been getting equal access, of course people would be hollering if a station was doing it "for" the ubp. just like you/y'all are hollering now, right? just like there have been press conferences called to fuss on it, right? just like our liscence has been challenged, right? don't act like this is getting universally co-signed, 'cause it's clearly not. shoot, the commissioners met to discuss the matter today, y'know? it's not happening in a vaccum of social approval, and i have absolutely no idea why you'd imply that it was. if that wasn't your implication, forgive my misinterpretation.

other media entities and their bias does bug me, but i'd NEVER suggest that they're obligated to get more balanced. say whatever you want to whoever you want, however you want to. it'd be nice fjust give us the same latitude. i mean, if you really think that it's important to manage how information is shared, ok. that's cool. let's make it plain, then.

in a country 10 radio stations deep vs just the 1 daily paper, your focus on preserving regulations preventing on-air bias as opposed to developing some to apply to in-print leanings is kinda weird, frankly. or does that waxy ball of hypocrisy not feel as comfortable rolling around your palms? and that isn't a strawman, i'm not changing the conversation. just asking why this annoys you so much, or, rather, why do you get all this subtext from?

yeesh. forgive the tone, i'm just not understanding why you're informing this with more intent than it has. be pissed that we're breaking the law, but don't add the political gains/biased message/ubp alternate hypothesis stuff. it muddys things up in a way that they absolutely shouldn't be.

reality - almost certainly not. i'm too committed/comfortable with being silly and honest and, well, odd to ever be successful in the current context of elected office/public service. i think, anyway. *shrugs*. who knows. it's not sketched out anywhere in my life-plan, i can definitely tell you that. and my life plan includes 3 chapters dedicated to my on-again/off again relationship with phylicia rashad circa 1983. so, if politics is too fanciful to be included in a plan that features me and claire huxtable fighting crime and picking out china patterns in eastern latveria 24 years ago, it really ain't that likely. ;)

something else - ha. not bad. well done you. ;)

Thaao - just for the record my hairline is knocking on the hardest part of my head. ;)

From the Sun:

"Broadcast Commission rules against HOTT
TUESDAY, DEC. 11: The Broadcast Commission ruled against H0TT 107.5 today for using their employees in PLP political ads. There wasn't any penalty but Elizabeth Christopher, chairperson for the Broadcasting Commissioners, said that any of those ads must be removed and not aired any more.

DJs Thaao Dill, Kristy Burgess (Miss Thang) and Jamel Hardtman were singled out by the United Bermuda Party for breaking the law by lending their voices to the ads.

The broadcasting law was amended in 2003 and reads "No employee of an undertaking [ie a broadcasting organisation] shall take part in a political broadcast unless he is a member of the Legislature or a candidate and he takes part in a broadcast in that capacity".

UBP chairman Shawn Crockwell wrote in a letter to the Commissioners: "The United Bermuda Party is concerned that radio station Hott 107.5 is not strictly adhering to the Political Broadcasting Directions in the frequency and objectivity of the political ads and announcements currently being aired for the Progressive Labour Party."

HOTT's owner is PLP MP Glenn Blakeney."

Just want to repeat: "There wasn't any penalty but Elizabeth Christopher, chairperson for the Broadcasting Commissioners, said that any of those ads must be removed and not aired any more."

With such a lame decision expect Thaao to be full hott on the PLP for the rest of the election. ::)

I guess they have to base their decision on the existing law.

And here is a good example of why I'm glad The Limey is back posting on his site:

"The wrong tone
Posted by Phil
I'm glad to hear that Thaao Dill has admitted that he and Hott 107.5 are breaking broadcasting laws. I'm disappointed, however, that he seems to regard it as a legitimate act of civil disobedience.

"We're in breach of a dumb law, and we will probably be fined," said Mr. Dill in a post on Bermuda Sucks recently. "BUT. by the time we are, everyone will know how wilfully repressive and potentially unconstitutional the law is, and it should be appropriately repealed by whoever has the juice to do so... It's a foolish, muddleheaded law and needs to be demonstrably treated as such to reinforce why it must be changed."

If Mr. Dill were protesting against segregation laws, I'd be standing right next to him wilfully breaking them. But this legislation is far more prosaic. It is not only arrogant of Mr. Dill to think that he is entitled to protest a law he does not like by deliberately violating it, it's dangerous. Mr. Dill is doubtless regarded as a role model by some of Bermuda's young people and it is irresponsible of him to suggest that ignoring the law is a legitimate way of protesting it. Would carrying a machete in a public place be a legitimate act of protest against the mandatory three year jail term that such an act carries? I think not.

Even if Mr. Dill sees nothing wrong with that, his boss, PLP MP Glenn Blakeney ought to be making it clear that Hott 107.5 does not condone breaking the law. His failure to do so plays into widely held suspicions that certain members of the PLP consider themselves above the law.

The PLP ought to be thankful then for Renee Webb, their only member that has so far unequivocally condemned Hott's behaviour. "It is clear that based on the Political Broadcasting Regulations that using Hott broadcasters for political announcements and or ads during the election period is going against the regulations," she said. "It is not acceptable to remain silent while the law is being broken. It sets the wrong tone for a law-abiding populace."

It's unfortunate that Mr. Dill is unable to recognise that."

I swear The Limey and Reality were seperated at birth.  Either that or they both got dipped in the level-headed gene pool at about the same time.

Thaao:

Please - cut the crap. Nobody seriously believes this is an act of high-minded civil disobedience on your part. You're breaking a law you disagree with because it prevents you from doing your party's bidding on the air. It's fine...we get it. But your arrogance in pretending that it's anything else frankly astounds me.

If that BELCO prank you pulled a few years ago is anything to go by, I'm guessing the notion of civic duty has never been fully explained to you. Suffice it to say, if you had any you would be using your considerable influence to lead by example. Clearly not.

I can only hope that the next time you lament the rise of crime in Bermuda on your show you haven't the nerve to give moral instruction to the island's crimnals about obeying laws when you and your colleagues have failed to do just that.

Merry Christmas,
Cicero

Thanks SG, I'll take that as a compliment. The Limey blazed quite a trail in Bermuda's online world (possibly not all intentionally but he handled it with good grace). I don't agree with his posts every single time but more often than not... I'm glad he's posting again and hope he'll continue after the election.

So far as I know we're not related but since we were raised in England and I think of similar age group then we probably have some of the same influences and taste for satire.

As for Hott... I don't find resistence to these laws especially surprising. What is stranger to me is that in Bermuda a sitting MP would own a radio station.

I think we have found the root of the problem, the conflict of interest here is a bit glaring.

I disagree, Bermuda is so small it's tough to find suitable candidates. The MP should never USE his position to leverage either relationship, but you can't stop someone doing what they do because they become an MP.

I think the good dj is forgetting that Hott and all other radio/tv stations are licenced by the Bermuda government as they broadcast their messages over public airwaves, free to the listener.  Attempts to compare Hott's admitted bias with the print media is a non-starter as we pay to read those publications, unlike radio where we need only tune in our dials.  Given the foregoing it is reasonable to conclude that licenced broadcasters (should) have different and higher standards of care to avoid being partisan or being seen to be partisan.

Purposefully flouting (recently promulgated) legislation is not an act of civil disobedience.  It's disrespectful to community standards and flies in the face of decency and the responsibility that comes along with the privilege of having a licence in the first place.

UE's smoking analogy above is helpful but I think a more universal example would be the issuance of driver's licences and the implied duty of care all road users are compelled to adhere to upon receipt of one. 

Should someone all of a sudden feel that stop signs no longer apply to them and unilaterally chose to avoid obeying the rules of the road they would, with almost absolute certainty, be banned from driving following repeated abuses. 

Driving is not a right ... it is a privilege.

DJing (for lack of a better word) is not a right ... it too is a privilege

People obey road rules in Bermuda? Maybe I was reading the wrong rule book ;)