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another lateral thinker, if you actually muddle through the regulations, you'll find it absolutely clear that they're outdated and regressive.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.

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?

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

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.

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,

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.]

I have to say Elvis, I admire your optimism .

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.