Dear Editor,
Do we have a record of the number of court cases which government has won as opposed to how many government has lost? I have been asking myself and others this question for quite a while now, because in my opinion it is a very long time that I have not heard of government winning a court case. I stand to be corrected, but that vote-buying case is about the closest government came to winning and then we did not hear anything for a while again.
Some might ask where is Russell going with this now. Is he not content that the civilian is being redeemed or cleared? That is not the case. I was listening to reactions to the article on the front page in which Heyliger wants more information on the one million euros which was agreed to pay VAMED (without VAMED lifting a straw in the building of the hospital).
What I picked up sitting there is that because it has become the norm that after headlines (like in this case) in the paper, nobody hears anything else (there is rarely follow-up) about those cases in which as a habit it involves plenty money. Just like in Donald Trump cases, so-called other smoke screens are created and the last case is forgotten. I sat there and thought, this is exactly what happens.
When I wanted to say something in defence, I was interrupted with: This is what we have learned to do. The Dutchman, when he gets caught resigns in order not to have to hang out dirty linen. Here, we go to court because we know we are going to lose and there will be no follow-up and all is hushed later.
Theo is making noise now because that should have been his deal and Lee is getting the credit. Oops, wrong word. It will look as if Lee brought the project. Which reminds me of when Lenny Priest was commissioner. So with all his experience of how things work in government, is Theo surprised?
By the way, I got much more feedback than usual in connection with the barrier by L'Escargot. People are of the opinion that whoever opens the barrier without permission should get a fine, of which he proceeds should help pay for the upkeep of that barrier.
I am not sure how the layout of Front Street was in years gone by, where the heart of the shopping is concerned, so I would not be able to comment on which stores were there first or not. In any case, I think the person who said it is discrimination against the stores below the barrier, has a valid point.
One taxi driver wanted to know if she had a disabled passenger (person in a wheelchair) for Sea View Hotel what should she do. I told her she should find out from the Minister concerned, what motivated him to sign that decree? What I would like to know is if this was discussed with the emergency departments? For your information, motorbikes and bicycles pass on the side of the barrier regularly.
Russell A. Simmons
