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!!! 

and LOL Eddie.

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

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

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

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.

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.