Dear Sir,

It is with regret that Mr Stuart Bostock is downplaying the threat against premier designate Mr McKeeva Bush and his family. Mr Bostock must take these threats seriously if he is to convince officials and the public in general, that the Security Centre system is fully functional and efficient; we will accept nothing less.

As president of both The Security Centre and the Chamber of Commerce, Mr Stuart Bostock said police would likely conduct a risk assessment of the threat against Mr Bush, seeking to trace the telephone call to determine “whether it was a real threat, a perceived threat, or someone who was unbalanced mentally; or perhaps under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” (More likely to conduct a risk assessment?)

Give me a break!

This is a mandatory procedure in matters of security; especially where a government leader is concerned. Who’s training these guys?

Most telephoned threats, he said, proved hollow. “Someone who calls in is usually not incredibly intent on committing the act. They are usually just trying to generate a response.”

Those committed to act, “most of the time will do it first, then claim responsibility,” he said. In genuine cases of danger, authorities create layers of protection around the target, “like an onion”, with the target at the core, “and every layer can stop or slow the threat of a person getting to the target,” Mr Bostock said. He declined to say if personal threats had become a trend, saying it was “a difficult question without having intelligence of the individuals” committing the acts.

(As a writer, my opinion is that his tight lipped response means that it has become a trend) Mr Bostock continues to say that “We don’t know the reason for the Attorney General incident, or the one at Ramsay-Hale’s house.” Without an arrest, he said, “It’s hard to determine the reasons,” but acknowledged that recent upturns in crime were a cause for worry. “With the crime issues affecting the country, I don’t think anyone is immune from being a target,” he said. “We have to be more mindful of our surroundings and of the people we are letting into the country.”

Mr Bostock, what about ballistics?

What does the ballistics show?

What about surveillance cameras outside the homes of these people that we are paying $3 million per year to protect?

If taxpayers are going to pay that kind of money to protect these government officials, then there needs to be some results at the end of the day that someone was caught or questioned; not a dead end.

In the United States and developed civilized countries, people are jailed for substantial lengths of time for threatening the life, or violence against the presidents, premiers, prime ministers, and police and other government officials. Why are the Cayman Islands allowing time for these people to carry out their threats, or for security to wait around to see if they are really serious; that’s a big mistake waiting for a calamity to happen. Mr Bostock needs to sound more enlightened that Mr Bush is not just anyone who is not immune from being a target. As a Leader of Government Business and the possible first Premier of the Cayman Islands, about to make a mark in the history of the Cayman Islands, Mr Bush is without question a prime target and the security responsible for his safety needs to govern themselves accordingly and act responsible in every sense of the word, including press releases.

The above response is far too nonchalant and casual. Cayman is now ridden with crime and it’s time to wake up to reality and stop daydreaming. I suggest that a secret service organization be created and that those individuals be seasoned concerning the matters of secret service security. To date I am not convinced that our government has an efficient enough system in place. This is not a position for someone that still has milk around his mouth; this is a post that should be filled by individuals with military and international intelligence background, experience and expertise. All candidates of local origin are the most dangerous selection; they will never take the job of secret service security serious.

Why?

Because everybody is either their friend or family. That’s not good for serious government business.

I speak out of pure concern and not criticism; we want the best for our leaders and our people. That’s the bottom line.

Florence Goring-Nozza