Gordon Robinson | The essence of breaking news

Over in Apocrypha, that fantasyland in a faraway Galaxy, R.U. Shaw seemed to be spending more time in old friend Oma D’unn’s office than ever.

It was only recently Oma advised R.U. to reduce road fatalities by buying a physics book (January 10; T he Essence of Physics) but Shaw was forced to visit again. This time the dilemma was what to do about a Road Traffic Law requiring child restraints for children in vehicles that was in force for years but which Government only just announced would be enforced in future. A furore from undisciplined transport operators attracted Opposition support so Shaw was under pressure from a multitude of potential voters.

He brought his quandary to Oma who was famous for solving political problems by parable. Oma told R.U. Shaw to buy a cat. Shaw was puzzled so Oma told him the story of two brothers named Michael and Audley.

“Audley still lived at home with their mother and was babysitting Michael’s cat so Michael telephoned to check on her.

Audley reported ‘She’s dead’

Michael was aghast: ‘Oh My God, that’s not how you break news to someone about a beloved pet!’

Audley asked ‘So how should I do it?’

Michael was patient ‘You say - I’m afraid I have some bad news. Your cat escaped, went outside, and started chasing a squirrel. The squirrel ran up onto the roof and the cat gave chase. The squirrel leapt from the roof, and the cat tried to follow but fell. We rushed her to the vet who did all he could, but I’m afraid she didn’t make it. THAT’s how you break bad news to someone.’

Audley thought about it for a moment then said ‘I understand. My apologies.’

Michael then said ‘I really called to check up on Mom. How is she?’

Audley replied quick as a whip ‘Well she was on the roof chasing a squirrel..’’”

Shaw was even more confused so Oma explained that Government should have stayed in the catbird seat as long as possible. Instead of springing a message of sudden enforcement on unprepared transport operators, the story should have been longer in telling and begun by emphasising Government’s concern for child care and protection. Once that’s the original focus, it’s difficult for anyone to complain when the details are finally spelt out.

Jamaica has a similar problem with Government’s inept handling of messaging regarding a long standing requirement for car seats to be available in taxis. Lazy thinking and uncoordinated communication (perhaps marketing guru Chris Tufton should’ve been consulted) in the context of a “bly” culture resulted in a massive uprising against a legal provision included for child care, protection and safety. The historical record makes it pellucid that this car seat provision has been supported, at least legislatively, by JLP and PNP for years so the swift backpedalling by Government in response to the uproar only exposes weak leadership.

Contrary to popular belief Transport Operators run BUSINESSES not Hustles. A car seat acquisition would simply be an additional capital expenditure to operate their BUSINESSES. They could easily keep it in the trunk (instead of cramming extra passengers there) and charge a “smalls” to parents who can’t provide their own. That’s how EVERY business recoups unexpected capital expenditure.

But it’s the fault of successive Governments obsessed with power in our winner-take-all Westminster system of governance. Everybody wants to win. Nobody wants to govern. We must NEVER FORGET that Public Transport is one of four fundamental obligations of every Government everywhere. The others are security, health and education.

Public. Transport. Should. NEVER. Have. Been. Privatised!

The results of THAT egregious abdication of public responsibility are biting us in our collective rear end today. So, now, Government’s response is to Pontius Pilate public transport and then grovel at the feet of undisciplined transport operators. And, to add insult to injury, not a peep is heard on the issue from the Office of the Children’s Advocate. Apparently nobody has heard the children’s cry!

If Government had any backbone; any inclination or ability for clear thought; any desire to discharge public duty; instead of hurriedly excising a provision vital for child care and protection, it could:

• reduce the age requirement to a more rational less than two;

• add reasonable defences to the charge. “It shall be a defence to a charge of carrying a child without a restraint device that....”

For serious, thoughtful legislators, THAT would be child’s play.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.