Baron Jeffrey Howard Archer surmised in his novel A Prisoner of Birth that:

“We all suffer in our different ways from being prisoners of birth.”  

His story mirrors the one Alexandre Dumas told in The Count of Monte Cristo.  Both men were failed by the systems that should have protected them.

Last week the members of the Honorable House threatened solidarity when they united to lambaste the recommendations made in volume two of the “Law Enforcement Review Report.” 

At the time the COI report was published, the Governor’s group emerged unscathed compared to the treatment meted out to entities managed by the government.

We were especially intrigued by the way the police was handled given the internal corruption issues of the day.  

But at the time, the Force was run by someone with whom the COI Commissioner could identify having come, like him, from the mother country.  So, he and the National Security Minister were trusted to do the right things.

But during the making of this report someone homegrown sat in the Top Cop chair.  So, it is not surprising that a well-documented list of shortcomings has been presented.  

We do not raise this to suggest that help is not urgently needed nor that the analysis is incorrect.  Rather, that it only throws a spotlight on perceptions, norms, customs, values, stereotypes and expectations.  

The human psyche is a study on its own.  And we can’t help but believe King Duncan (Macbeth) that “There is no art to find the mind’s construction in the face.”

Nevertheless, this report noted that “The first duties of any government are to keep its citizens safe.”

While that is true, the security portfolio is held by the Minister for National Security, the Governor, and that responsibility is enshrined in the Constitution.

For years, we have been calling on the Minister for National Security to keep us safe.

We have seen, in real time, an armed heist from a jewelry store in the central business district in the full light of day.  And there are many other unsolved crimes that weigh heavily on the community.

And when cases finally get ventilated in court, the accused and their lawyers run circles around us.  (The Minister for National Security is also responsible for the administration of the courts.)

The Minister’s portfolio touches everyone in the Territory, yet he hardly speaks to His Majesty’s loyal subjects, here, about his work on our behalf.

And it is clear to all who would care to look that we can do with some success stories in policing and prosecution.

But, in the end, the people will hold their government to account, at the polls, for all the decisions made in running the Territory regardless of who makes them.

Notwithstanding, the Finance Minister must ensure that the Police are well funded and trained.  If he fails in that duty, the National Security Minister can require the Treasury to pay, as we have seen one Minister do in recent times.

We are not like the French who consider their overseas territories to be Departments of France and support them financially.

We are required to pay our way.  And that is fine.  It certainly gives us a sense of pride.

Still, as a UKOT, we are lumped with the foreign nations of the world and managed through the Foreign Office instead of the Home Office.  Perhaps that is a root cause of the treatment we receive.

But to the report and its recommendations.

The report has some good points that show how we can get our security issues right.  Of course, some of the recommendation would kill our tourism business, overnight.  And luxury tourism here may cease to exist.

We struggle to understand if the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services considered the uniqueness of the BVI and why he thought our ports of entry, save one, should be closed.

His premise for recommending a Coastguard, which we need, with its proposed staff complement made up of recruits and independent to our Customs and Border Control Department, and under the control of the Minister for National Security, suggests to us that a belief exists that only corrupt, drug runners work in the Territory.

Ethnocentrism?  Bigotry?  ‘Examine the horns!’

Real collaboration with the Territory, if its appearance were not proscribed in this report, would be, at best, a challenge.

We, like the 13, believe that if His Majesty’s Government want to help and develop the people of the BVI, then the modus operandi should be to help us to develop our institutions and our competence rather than pushing us aside.

The report drives a very hard line between the governor and the government; us and them; and makes it seem that Recommendations 22-25 of the COI Report are in play.

We do not believe that taking Customs and Immigration from us is a positive step.  Neither is the way forward to allow British Officers to manage them under the Governor’s portfolio.

As it stands, the Governor’s UK staff are almost entirely unknown to the Territory; Hardly known to the Governor’s BVI staff in the same office.  So, to whom will the people of the Territory turn when issues arise?

Are all the nations of the world that we seek to emulate, turning their backs on democracy?  

The COI, although important, has made government terribly ineffective and inefficient.  The security report blames the government for shortcomings and believes only the Governor can help.

Suddenly the police force is inadequate and ill equipped to deliver.  We expect that narrative to change once a new Police Commissioner is appointed.  

We wonder what Whitehall sees as it looks across at the group of Territories it manages through the Home Office as opposed to those managed through the Foreign Office.

We know that differences are ascribed in, for example, areas of financial services.  The one group appears to have a measure of protection while the other does not.

So, where does that leave us in this part of the Kingdom?

We have one of the best regulated Financial Services Industries in the world but Europe does not care to see our existence in this arena so we are harassed.

The FIA does a credible job but if they do not dish out sufficiently large fines to destabilize businesses, the entire jurisdiction may be placed on ‘grey’ and ‘black’ lists.

If the recommendations in the Law Enforcement Review go through in their entirety; If Whitehall grabs responsibility for Customs and Immigration; We lose control of our own comings and goings in our own ‘country’ and a stake is driven into the heart of tourism.

We will have to ask people we do not know if our guests or ourselves can come into and leave our own Virgin Islands.

So, we are not to live by Financial Services.  We are not to live by tourism, let alone luxury tourism.  We are not to have control over our very borders.

And the UK unlike the French, does not and will likely, not support us financially.

So, what is the real game plan?  And what are we to do, as sentient beings?  This almost feels like a passive aggressive form of abuse.

Thankfully, the writer of the Law Enforcement Reports is not threatened with the fate he recommends for us.  If he were, he would be incensed.

Must we cede our right to step on the higher rungs of Maslow’s pyramid in our developmental experience?

Or should we be content to consider Shakespeare’s poem about the 509 BC tragedy provoked by Sextus Tarquinius?  The British Virgins (Is) should never have to ponder such a fate.

Are the haughty recommendations in these recent reports fair to the people of the Territory?

The English lexicon should, probably, redefine oppression;

Unless it is true, as the Baron postulates;

“We all suffer in our different ways from being prisoners of birth.” 

Our Fridays are, increasingly, fraught with pain and disappointment.

Happy Good Friday and;

Happy Friday!