Online feedback

Below are edited excerpts from comments posted by online readers reacting to articles in yesterday's Gleaner.

RE: The editorial 'RM's clarification needs clarifcation'.

RM should apologise

The magistrate in this case does not need to clarify anything. What she ought to do is to apologise that she had erred significantly, and ask all parties if they are comfortable with her continuing to preside over the trial, failing which she should recuse herself.

Her comments are a matter of public record. What bothers me is not just the text of her comments but the rancour that accompanied them. At the time I wrote several comments in support of the position of the director of public prosecutions, whom I knew to be a competent lawyer.

There are those who are asking that judges be given more power. May I remind all that judges in Jamaica are pretty much tenured, despite the fact they are not elected by the people. In the same way we seek to fix other public bodies and are hawkish on their performance, we ought to pay attention to all and be just as hawkish about every public body. None is above scrutiny or the law.

- Mike Beckles

A real pity

This dispute is a real pity - the matter of whether a magistrate can actually order a DPP to give a witness statement and/or whether the DPP could seek judicial review was not settled. Apparently, there is precedent overseas.

- Carlos R King

RE: Devon Dick on improving the PNP's integrity

Does not go far enough

I've said in prior posts this much-hyped and vaunted 'Integrity Commission' that the PNP has established won't have much teeth/effect if its role is simply advisory. If that's the case, the PNP leadership might as well have asked me to be on that commission. While the PNP is at it, they might want this Integrity Commission of theirs to look at the current bunch of elected representatives they now have, because I can almost guarantee you that a good number of them are not 'fit and proper' to be in the House.

- TrevDiMan