Welcome to the News Navigators with me, Jeremy Deacon.
And me, Jonathan Starling. I've got to start off actually
with a bit of an apology to you, Jonathan.
I got it wrong last week. I thought the only public
consultation was the tax credits as part of the Tax Reform
Commission report. I don't think it was.
I think the public consultation was the whole report.
So I'm sorry if I misled you and our listeners.
It's OK. We're, we're human.
We make mistakes. I'm sure I've made mistakes on
the podcast. Well, whatever, but I it was a
bit misleading. So I want to clarify it because
the whole TRC report, I think he's up for consultation waiting
on very quickly. Yeah, maybe I'll quickly.
You and I were both intrigued, I think, about the premier's
speech in the House last Friday about parental responsibility.
He, he basically in, you know, wants to get parents more
accountable for steering away their kids from violent crime.
And he did say there was going to be a legislative review of
the Parental Responsibility Act, which dates back to 2010.
I'm just going to read you a quote, he said.
Recognizing that 15 years have passed since this Act was
brought into operation, I have asked that it be reviewed to
ensure that it continues to provide the legal framework
required for these times and that are helping agencies have
the capacity to fulfil the duties imposed upon them by the
ACT. Now, Jonathan, I read the ACT,
I'm sure you did, but just to quickly recap on it, this I
believe, started the use of antisocial behavior orders known
as Asbos in the UK, which actually have been phased out
just as this Act was coming in. They were being phased out in
the UK and it applies apparently when the child repeatedly
engages in criminal or antisocial behaviour and when a
parent is seen to have failed to take reasonable steps to control
the child. The courts, if you're entering
entering into an ASBO can actually require parents, it
says, to enter a parenting contract with a government
agency. I social services DCFS here I
guess, or something like that. So I think what it seems to say
is that if a kid gets an ASBO and repeatedly breaks the ASBO,
the parents can be also put on a contract to make sure they're
looking after their kids properly and they're showing
some responsibility. What I couldn't find when I
searched was any mention of an ASBO being granted in the
courts. I searched on chat.
I searched on Google chat GPTI searched on Google search on the
Royal Cazette. I couldn't find any record of
it. Which kind of makes me wonder.
Or maybe ask, would evidence of the use or the lack of it tell
us how effective or meaningful it actually was in shaping
policy? On.
Antisocial behaviour and parental accountability.
It probably wasn't just looking at it.
No go. No, I'm just going to say, I
mean, just because we don't have the data doesn't mean that the
data doesn't exist. So it might have been used, just
not necessarily. It might have been used some
more, like a warning, like if you don't do this, we're going
to do this form. But I agree with you, we don't
have the data. So it's hard to see if it has
been a success or failure or how that data might inform how the
premier plans to reform the legislature to reform the
legislation. We, we just don't know to be
honest. Yeah, I was intrigued though,
that I could find no record of that.
And I would have thought that a piece of legislation that
introduced, I suppose if one had been granted great play would
have been made of it. So I'm just wondering if it was
just never used, never in force, like you say, it might have been
a threat, but I know. But what I was, what I was
intrigued about that this is very much antisocial behaviour,
really targeting damage of property.
The Premier in his speech, in his statement in the house,
seems to want to take it a lot further than that.
And well, we'll come on to that as to what we both think now, I
think that parents do have a responsibility.
You know, you and I were brought up to respect others, to respect
the law, to respect other people's property and their
possessions. My kids certainly do that and so
we have the responsibility for that, but how much further we
have the responsibility for is difficult to say.
I mean, I think there's an argument for if, if you could
say a parent has been reasonably negligent.
For example, if the parent knows that their child has a firearm,
has seen the firearm, has reason to suspect the child has a
firearm and hasn't taking any action to do it, then I can see
you being reasonably negligent in that sense.
But for other things I I'm very aware of these kind of parental
accountability approaches to be honest.
Yeah. And I just wonder if it isn't a
bit of an overreach. I mean, there's a key question
here. Well, there's lots of key
questions here that don't answer.
If you've got this kind of parenting contract, if you've
got these court imposed parenting orders, the question
is do they help or simply have pressure already struggling
families? Yeah.
I mean, clients are likely, as you say, families that are
already on the lower end of our social system that are already
struggling, you know? Who are much more likely to not
be able to take responsibility for a child because they are
struggling, you know, and living, you know, where they
live. They'd be working two or three
jobs, single parents, et cetera, et cetera.
On the face of it, it does seem to target could target them
unfairly. Yeah.
I mean, to me, we'll have more bang for your buck if you if
you've pardoned the expression by addressing more the
structural issues of inequality in our society, which are kind
of the root causes for a lot of antisocial behaviors.
That is harder to do. It's a lot harder to do and
you're going to have to have a lot of political will to
withstand the kind of reaction or opposition to addressing
inequality. So in that sense, the parental
accountability things I assume doesn't really kind of modify or
pacify our position and say, look, we are doing something
doesn't matter if it's not effective.
I'm not saying it isn't effective, we don't have the
data, but that's just how I see it.
Well, I agree. And I think that kind of comes
back to the original act in 2010.
Look, we are doing something here.
It is, but then never really followed through.
But you, you were looking at stats for violent crime, weren't
you, earlier on? Well, I was looking specifically
at firearm statistics and the firearm statistics, at least at
that time, they recorded them into four batches, which was
someone being shot or evidence of a firearm being used.
You know, forensic evidence showing gunpowder.
It was gunshots being heard. It was someone being seen with a
gun. And what was the other one in
recovery of a firearm? So yeah, no, go on, go on.
So I was looking at it in context to the 2010 Parental
Act. I can't say that the firearms
were the reason, the reason why we had the Parental Act, but I
think it played into the social kind of ethos at the time.
And of course, 2008 we had the economic crisis, which related
to a lot of economic uncertainty in Bermuda and globally.
And that did seem to have an effect on the social aspect as
well. And if you look at the
statistics, so for example in 2007 there were under 20, it
looked like probably, I don't have the exact data, but it's a
graph. So I'm guessing it looked like
maybe 10 incidents in total. In 2008, there were just under
40 incidents and the biggest growth in there was careful of a
firearm, looked like just under 20 of that or firearms being
seen looked like maybe 10 to 15 on that area.
Then in 2009, in the aftermath of the economic crisis, which
was kind of in the fall of 2008, the firearm statistics just kind
of rock it up. In that time, there were over 80
incidents reported on, including just under 20 people being shot
or forensic evidence of a shooting, about 20 recovery of
firearms, about 20 incidents of a firearm being seen, and in
close to 20 claims of gunshots being heard.
And then in 2010, it just rockets even more.
In 2010, there were just under 200 incidents.
So we've gone from under 20 incidents in 2007 to 80
incidents in 2009 to just under 200 incidents in 2010.
And that included in 2010, forty people being shot or forensic
evidence of a shooting about, let's see, just about 70
instance of gunshots being had. You know, it's just a great
increase in firearms. And so I kind of think that as a
result of that kind of shock or trauma to the society at the
time of easel incidents, in addition to the economic crisis,
I kind of feel that the Perennial Accountability Act
when it was introduced to 2010 could be seen as kind of a knee
jerk conservative reaction to addressing the issue, whether
it's solved the issue. I mean, we're still having
gunshots and all that those. Current murders.
Incorrectly tied into the recent murders that we had on Core
Street just in was that in August.
Few weeks ago, Yeah, well. I'm not saying that the Parental
Accountability Act doesn't work because we don't have the
evidence whether it does or does not, but I'm just seeing it in
that kind of Emilio like. Yeah, that's happening.
I think that's really interesting context.
The one thing that about that though is these are being
carried out, I think it's safe to assume, by gangs.
And so often we hear that gangs offer a kind of family to
children who don't really have a family.
And I do wonder whether the Parental Responsibility Act,
even updated, can solve that, because these families, I think
it's fairly safe to say, are probably lower income families
who already probably lack access to resources as it is.
And I do wonder if punishing them because their 16 year old
has joined a gang because they are not, for whatever reason,
able to provide a family is really targeting the wrong
people. They're the people that actually
need help. Yeah.
And, and I think those assumptions are fairly safe,
Jonathan, don't you? But I just think you're
punishing the people who are already suffering or potentially
doing so. I also feel a lot of this is
cyclical. I mean, as I said, we saw 2008
and the aftermath of that massive economic crisis. 2008,
we just had a massive economic crisis with COVID and the
aftermath that we have a lot of economic uncertainty right now
due to what's happening over in the United States.
And I remember back in the 90s, so there was that was kind of
when the first kind of fear about gang wars really kicked
off and that was in the aftermath of the 1990s recession
as well. So I do think it was to the
economics, I agree with you that it is going to impact the the
less well off lower income families as a whole.
I also think that we are seeing a societal change when people
talk about the breakdown of the family unit with that's kind of
true, we are seeing that, but that's true to the different
economic systems that we have now back in the 90s.
You still have more extended families because of, you know,
people, grandparents and all that looking out.
That kind of went away in the 2000s because more people had to
work to just stay alive, even especially after 2008.
And we're saying that today as well.
So for that atomization of society, the breakdown of
community to a degree, well, also social media.
Yeah, yeah. I think that there was a,
there's a phrase, isn't it takes a village to raise a child.
And I think that village probably seems to be rather
desolated. Yeah.
You know, I do wonder about this law as well, whether question is
it about creating better parents or is it actually a signing
blame. I think whichever way you look
at it, if this law is enacted, if it's updated and properly
enacted, you will find that the reporting will be about blaming
the parents and that that cannot be applicable to 100% of cases.
And I think that could be quite damaging.
And I do wonder how Bermudians or anybody actually feels about
the government stepping into the home.
This is what you're doing. This is what will happen.
You are taking direct action within the home.
And I, I assume that before that happens, there'll be different
steps along the way. But then that begs the question,
do we have enough resources to make sure those steps are
followed repeatedly before we reach the stage of having to
take them to the court? And I don't, I can't answer
that. But it's a big question that
where do we put the effort into the courts or into the resources
needed to help the family to stop this in the first place?
Yeah, I mean, I I'm more into supporting addressing structural
inequalities to reduce me too as a whole.
Yeah, me too. I I.
It is important to note that, I mean, probably.
Well, first I'll just say we don't know exactly what the
Premier is recommending for the reform of the Parental
Accountability Act. We don't know.
Well, it talks about violent crime, hearing their children
away from violent crime. Yeah.
But we don't know exactly how he's going to mend the ACT to
address that, to address those issues.
So I mean the development was in the detail, right?
How's that happened? But I anyway said that because I
don't want to. I am speculating, but I don't
want to put words in the premier's mouth.
But what I am saying is we are in a piano in our history, not
just permuter, but I'm talking especially with what's happening
in America. America's going very much to the
right wing, very socially conservative, and you know
that's going to have an. Influence on Bermuda?
Undoubtedly so. It won't surprise me if more
social conservative ideas are kind of percolating or filtering
into the Bermuda social conscience and that politicians
might react to that. Without being less about giving
resources and more about punishment.
Right, there's some. It's kind of a punitive turn now
to. Come.
Here, it's not any social conservative in my opinion, so
I'm not saying he's doing that. But there is a general term
where the the idea of what is common sense is kind of shifting
to the right and we're planning to kind of situate this in.
We just had there a new leader of the Oba elected Robert King,
and of course he was the shadow minister for national security.
I'm assuming he's going to take that proof, but we haven't heard
yet if there's been a cabinet shuffle in the opposition
benches or who the new sentence are senators might be.
But he also ran as kind of his campaign to get elected to the
OBEA. I'm kind of a law and order
ticket, which was in a sense helped by these instance that we
saw in August. I'm not, I'm just, I have to be
careful Now I have phrased that. I'm just saying it was
advantageous in a sense for his campaign on law and order.
It kind of probably benefited his campaign.
So would you just say that maybe the PRP is responding to that
and trying to blunt any, any momentum that the RBA has on a
new law and order kind of campaign?
Let's. Just no.
I think that's a good point because I've seen that a lot in
politics at the moment. In the UK we just had a massive
March at the right wing, 110,000 people, you know, and you can
see how the politics of Labour has been influenced by the right
wing because the terrified of Nigel Farage getting more than
the toehold he's already got in Parliament, you know, so they're
moving gradually to the right on issues like that.
And, and to an extent the world is doing that as well.
You can see it everywhere. And it's a good point, Jonathan,
whether the the population here will actually want to see more
punitive measures rather than more resources poured into
stopping the thing happening in the 1st place.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Well, I wonder. I wonder what the medians think,
whether they should help or whether they should pun it.
Well still people tend to like simple answers to complex
issues. But complex issues cannot be
resolved by simple issues. But simple answers for better in
the social media age because you can condense it in like quick
TikTok kind of thing. Exactly little little little
little slogans stop the boat. Doesn't it?
Yeah, solve the issues, but it makes people feel that oh,
that's right, but it's. Yeah, I.
Don't know we need to come. Talking about Make America Great
Again is totally meaningless, but it makes people sound really
pumped up. Yeah, we haven't had that here.
I don't have that here, people who are advocates off that
approach. We don't get that in some of the
xenophobic kind of currents that we have.
I would say that we are seeing an echo of the social
conservative or authoritarian, I would dare say call fascism that
we see in America is having echoes here.
I see it primarily in kind of a Christian nationalist form.
And I think we're going to see more and more of that in the
next few months and years depending on what happens in
America. I mean the.
The murder of Charlie Kirk last year, that certainly has opened
people's eyes to the amount of people who agree with that kind
of sentiment over there. We've seen that in social media
over the last week. It's actually opened.
My eyes to how split America is actually.
Yeah, and we're asking that here as well.
Yeah, yeah, I, I was. I mean, I'd never heard of
Charlie Kirk before he was murdered, I have to say.
But I read the reaction afterwards and it is polarized
inside. I mean, I've been brightening
labs off the far right in America since 2016, so I I was
aware of Charlie Kirk and also Nick Fontes, the leader of the
kind of Griper movement, which is even further to the right.
Anyway, I realized I'm getting sidetracked from Bermuda's
stuff, so. Well, it's going to have an
influence, as you said, as you said, it's bound to have an
influence. I've seen a little bit on social
media a lot, mostly condemning the likes of Charlie Kirk, but
some definitely not, absolutely not.
Anyway, we'll see. I, I do think though, that
coming back to this parental responsibility thing that I
don't, I think I've asked a lot of question, posed a lot of
questions in this quite deliberately, but I think it's a
question of not who is responsible, but it's what do
they need to succeed. Yeah, I.
Mean we're a bunch of, we're a bunch of liberal lefties.
So we're going to criticize for this.
It will be really interesting actually to see what criticism
we get. I hope.
I'd love to hear it. But yeah, I don't favour
punitive action like that because as we've said tonight
and as I've stated, I think you're punishing and it's
already going to be struggling. The people that are good
lawyers, the people that haven't got a good home, the people who
are struggling to end, make ends meet, whose kids go off to a
gang because they've got the family there that they didn't
get at home. I.
Mean, I will say I'll be this is certainly some amendments that I
will be keeping an eye on. And hopefully once we see what
the amendments are, we can kind of revisit this and maybe get
the Premier or the minister of National Security back in and we
can discuss it in more depth or even address spoke to some some
individuals within the kind of social welfare system.
They get their expert opinions on these things.
Question to you, Jonathan, in your heart of hearts, everything
we've said, do you honestly expect there to be amendments to
this? Well, I mean, he's saying he's
going to reform it. So reform is amendments, right,
You know, just. But that goes down to the devils
in the detail thing. Again, we don't know what the
proposed amendments are going to be.
We have some telegraphing about what is going to concern going
to be concerned about in terms of violent crime, but I don't
know I really. I just, as everybody who listens
to the podcast knows, I'm a cynic and I do wonder if some of
this is posturing. I mean, we don't seem to have
used it as far as we can tell. Why don't you start using it in
its current form and see what happens?
Why does it need reviewing and amending?
Potentially we haven't used it. Let's use it, see what happens,
and then stop the talk do it. But I do wonder if it is just
talk to modify what's going on. I mean, I said we don't have the
data, we haven't seen the data. So we we don't know.
But on the surface, that is my impression that it is a kind of
social reaction to the dramatic events that we've had in the
last month or so. So it has.
Kind of under a lot. It is a human response, but is
it going to solve the issue? I don't think so, yeah.
Is it, is it a practical response?
I'm not sure perhaps. So I could say we should try
utilizing the law more forcefully and see what happens
from there. Even then I think we have to be
careful. The other big, the other big
issue which caught our attention we both talked about is in
before is government. Well, what should we say is the
public? The government's ordered the
public school system to act more rigorous rigorously on policies
regarding personal electronic devices, IE your cell phone.
And apparently the Education Minister, Crystal Caesar has
written to parents and guardians outlining this policy which says
that mobile phones, smartwatches, tablets, gaming
devices must be switched off and placed out of sight while
students are on school grounds. And MRSA goes on to explain in a
letter that there's concerns over the amount of time students
spend on cell phones, electronic communication devices during the
school day that they distract from learning, disrupt the
classroom. And as of September the 9th, so
last week, the schools will be enforcing mobile phone and
personal device policy more rigorously and they'll all have
to be turned off and stored away before entering the school and
won't be allowed to turn them on again until they've left.
The kids have left a verbal warnings and at the bottom of
the scale, the top of the scale, a student being banned from
bringing a device onto the school premises, plus
suspensions, detentions, etcetera, etcetera.
Right. I've been, I was looking at this
a long time ago when I was still reporting the Raw Gazette whilst
the policy was, and I did that in the wake of the Netflix
series. We won multi multiple Emmys
yesterday. We're recording this on Monday,
so that's Sunday, the programme Adolescence, and I was just told
there was a policy. Now clearly from that time,
which is about a year ago, I guess now they've decided to
strengthen that policy or actually properly implement that
policy. There isn't a particular reason
why. What do you think?
I'm in favor of it. What do you think?
Well, I'm in favor of it. I mean, I know I'm still working
on having a more healthy relationship with my phone use
our screen time. Having said that, I I'm less
concerned about students being kind of distracted by their
devices. I'm more concerned about the
issue of cyber bullying and the way these electronics workers
are being used in harassment and bullying situations.
I mean, I'm glad we didn't have phones when I was in high.
School. Me too.
We're going to have children navigating in this brave new
world that we have. I don't think it's just kind of
solve cyber bullying. It's still going to happen.
It's still going to happen, especially outside of school.
But I do think it can help clamp down or reduce incidences off
it. My only reservation is in
situations where students may need to record abusive behavior
by teachers or by people in authority.
And does this prevent them having that ability?
You know, if they can't trust the teachers of the adults at
the school, you know how they're going to be able to prove
instance of abuse. Now, this is a very small thing.
It's a minor thing. There's ways around it.
But in general, yeah, I thought I do support this idea.
That's just my only kind of concern or thought, you know?
Yeah, it's interesting actually. So I did some little bit of
background research and I came across the UK and it gave out
guidance in 2023. And I just read the summary and
it's said that today, this was 2023 by the age of 1297% of
pupils own a mobile phone, cell phone.
And they said that mobile phones risk unnecessary distraction,
disruption and diversion. So one in three secondary school
pupils, it'd be, I guess, middle school here report the mobile
phones are used in most lessons without permission.
And he says this not not only distracts a single pupil using
the phone, but disrupts a lesson for a whole class and diverts
teachers efforts away from learning.
He says by removing mobile phones from the school day, we
can create a safe space where pupils are protected from the
risks and dangers associated with social media and cyber
bullying, bullying, as well as peer pressure and possible
stigma associated with only what are often expensive devices.
Now it's actually said that head teachers and leaders reported
after removing mobile phones, the whole culture of the schools
changed for the better. As could.
The environment becomes safer, protecting pupils not only from
the short term distraction of a notification, but also the
background noise of their lives outside school.
There's a but. So there was some groundbreaking
report by the University of Birmingham and the study's lead
author, Doctor Victoria Goodyear, and I'm quoting from
the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, right,
saying that the findings were not, not against smartphone
bands in schools, but quotes what we are suggesting that
those bands in isolation are not enough to tackle the negative
impacts. So more needs to be done.
So you have banning a school, that's fine, but it's also
obviously what she's saying is outside the school.
You can't ban it in isolation. And she actually said the focus
needed to be on reducing how much time students spent on
their phones, adding quotes. We need to do more than just put
ban phones in schools. Now.
I think this is quite a nice segue to what we were talking
before, because I think this is where parents need to have some
responsibility. And it's why I mentioned
adolescence, because the boy in in in the in the in the series
teenage boy was done for murder. He was being cyber bullied.
The parents had no idea. There was a quote in the series,
which I won't forget and I I might be misquoting it.
When the lead character, Stephen Graham, that's the actor turned
to the his his screen wife and says he was in his room.
We thought he was safe and he wasn't because he was still on
social media. He was still subjected to
cyberbullying which caused him murder at I'll, so parental
responsibility here I think is huge.
Yeah, I, I know the government has, I think it's called Cyber
Tips. You've seen them on Bermuda
Parade Sit, that's Cyber Tips mascot going around.
So there are education courses that the government does hold at
least within the school system. I don't know if they're formal
courses are like square assemblies, but they do have
resources and I would encourage everyone to approach them.
I mean, I think we all need to develop a healthier approach to
our phones and, and these devices are designed to be
addictive. That is The thing is dopamine
rush. So it's hard to break.
They're probably more addictive than sugar or, or fat or, or, or
cigarettes. They're very addictive.
Things they are, but they're designed to be.
But my my point more than anything else is that on this on
this program, the parents, not the police even had an idea of
the of the language that was used on social media.
You know, they had they couldn't interpret it.
They were they were missing the point.
The police officer investigated the murder had to be put right
by his own son so he could understand to read the language.
So I think, you know, you probably, I mean, thank goodness
my kids have grown up and I hopefully passed this stage now,
but I had no idea. I thought there was safe in
their room. If I got out there and seen
something, I wouldn't have a clue what it meant probably.
And I think parents probably need to get a little bit more
involved. Well, I talked about the Charlie
Kirk murder last week already, but coming out of that, we're
there are a lot of people learning about sort of these
kind of online lingo, this kind of gamer talk, because they were
things written on the bullets that the alleged assassin wrote
and they were all kind of gamer talk stuff.
If you're not deep into the gamer culture, it would go right
over your head. Yes.
Yeah. Especially I mean I've.
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I mean, I, I knew about
Groy Bush. I don't know how to pronounce
their word, but a lot of people don't know about them and what
the kind of talk refers to. So yeah, it's.
I know what the symbols refer to, Yeah, I'm not even sure what
half the symbols refer to. Well, none of them do you quite
honest. You know I.
Mean, I weren't. I weren't mentioning because
they're a bit rude. I only found that out much
later. Yeah.
So yeah, I think we all have to kind of self educate ourselves.
But again, it wants to say people working two to three jobs
and you know, you get home, you're exhausted.
It's hard to keep on top of everything.
So that's why I think these, yeah, that's why I think these
two topics are really good to explore together because they
kind of go hand in hand. And they're like, and again, I,
I think it comes down to prevention.
I think there should be better education for parents or access
to better education, you know, a really strong campaign to help
parents understand what's going on with kids, you know, and the
language that they use, the symbols that they use, give an
understanding of what they're going through because it's, you
know, this, this, this culture has really only started, what,
in the last 10 or 15 years with the fans.
And they're certainly kind of mutated during COVID because
during COVID we are almost a year and a half, two years
almost off here is not being in school but being online, not
necessarily murder, but especially in the United States
and the UK. And I feel that has led to a
real kind of societal change that a lot of us who are not
Fred Young don't grow a grasp yet, and we're still trying to
come to terms with it. I totally agree.
My kids say something and I have
to, I have to give them, give me a detailed explanation of what
we're talking about because you know, it's media speak or
symbols or whatever. I just don't get it.
I mean slang words do change. I mean, there was slang words
from my youth, which I still use, but the the youth off today
look at me like I'm a boomer or something and thank you.
Thank you with how much I haven't looked back.
This means so that that is part of the generational change.
But I do feel we're seeing a whole different level beyond
what we knew before. Maybe yes.
I reckon that sound like a boomer, but you know.
Oh. Well, I I'll join club with you
there. I am as well, without a doubt.
But, you know, it's our age of the grandparents and the parents
and a little bit younger, obviously.
But yeah, there's so much change and it's very difficult to keep
up with. I appreciate that.
But a bit of public education, I think, would go a very long way.
And as his doctor said in the research, it's not just the
schools. It's what happens outside the
schools as well. And we know that.
We know that. And get us like his arena.
But overall, yeah, I do think that this policy by the Ministry
of Education and the public schools, it was a good thing.
I believe it's already instituted in quite a few of the
private schools already so. Yes, it's not.
But I do think it's definitely an additional tool in the
toolbox, if that makes sense. Totally agree.
Well, we're agreeing, Jonathan.
That's good. OK, I think on that then what's
that? I might do a lot of worry, but
we're all in agreement here. In Venice.
In Venice we usually do. I mean, we're both through the
Guardian, don't we? So yeah, you probably will do.
There we go. If you've got an opinion on
these couple of NIMBY left wingers and our feeling about
parental responsibility and cell phone use, please drop us a
line. The news navs@gmail.com.
Love to hear from you. To get a decent reaction, we'll
read out a few emails on our next podcast.
Love to hear from you. In the meantime is goodbye from
me. And goodbye from me.
The News Navigators with Jeremy Deacon and Jonathan Starling
distilling and discussing the issues of the day.
We help Bermuda navigate the news.