During the electioneering campaign the Anguilla United Movement was constantly campaigning for Mr Roberts as the Movement did not field a candidate in Constituency Number Two – East End District. My question is, why is the Movement, now that the results of the Elections of 15th February 2010 are known with the AUM having a clear majority, imposing the stipulation that Hon. Roberts forthwith abandon his party unequivocally and align himself with the Anguilla United Movement?

Mr. Vivien Vanterpool

Fellow Anguillians, I can come to one conclusion. I surmise that there was some doubt about losing Constituency Number Four, anticipating that the Goliath would have slain their David. In wooing Mr Roberts, should there have been a three – three tie, the AUM would have already been openly canvassing for Mr Roberts, or there must have been some ulterior motive entertained by the Anguilla United Movement.

During the campaign the AUM built their motto on these three words – TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE. After the results of the elections were known, why more stipulations that Mr Roberts must immediately sever all ties with the Anguilla Progressive Party? It must be remembered, members of the Anguilla United Movement, that Mr Roberts has been part and parcel of the APP for a number of years and do you, seriously think that he would do that? In Anguilla we have a saying “Love so wont have so”. Let us assume it was the other way round, would a member of your Movement have done what your Movement has asked Mr Roberts to do? Of course, not. Please follow the good book: “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you”.

Using the theme of your campaign- transparency, accountability and good Government - you have erred very much in transparency. In changing so quickly the transparency as outlined between your campaigning for Mr Roberts and on knowing the outcome of the elections, you have placed conditions for him to join the AUM.

At this particular section in this article, I want to make an open apology to the Hon. Jerome Roberts. My reason for so doing is because of the fact that I did it openly at his meeting with his constituents. You see, readers, I did not know of the conditions dictated by the AUM. As soon as this fact was known I decided that Mr Roberts should stay with the Opposition.

The Anguilla Progressive Party, the newest of the three parties on the island, has done much more than the two older parties in the following ways:
• It has energized the youth of Anguilla to be actively engaged in the politics of Anguilla.
• It has carried campaigning in Anguilla to a higher level by having introduced it over the radio and electronic media, thus making it easier for Anguillians to listen to their campaigning in the beauty of their living rooms or in the cosiness of their bedrooms. By this means Anguillians everywhere are kept abreast of the happenings in Anguilla.

• The organised setting up of constituency cells not only for politics but for assisting pupils and/or students with their homework assignments, story telling, vocational activities, learning special skills etc.

As an Anguillian, I like to say it as it is, no matter who it hurts. As a former principal of four of the primary schools in Anguilla, at one time or another, I stand for sound principles and tried to inculcate them in pupils. I stood for no nonsense. When it was time to play we played and when it was time to work we worked.

I seriously thought that since the election was over that there would be a period of healing and peace in the island, but I listened to the talk show host of TO THE POINT, and was alarmed that the host, in my view, had opened up serious sores in Anguilla’s wound. In fact, the host exhibited a very uncouth, undemocratic and undiplomatic attitude to some of the callers, particularly those who tended to agree with the Honourable gentlemen. In my view, he allowed those who were against Mr Roberts’ decision, all the time in the world; whereas those who wanted to side with Mr Roberts’ decision would be abruptly cut off the phone lines without any courtesy whatsoever.

This to my mind is unbecoming of any host, period. Continuing on here, he concluded that the majority of callers (four) were disagreeing with Mr Roberts' decision. What about the three hundred or so silent voters who did not call? How did he conclude that four callers were the majority? One should be careful of one’s remarks particularly the host who could be sued for libel.

It appears to me that there was a number of people on the political platforms of the various podiums who had their individual agendas first and foremost, and Anguilla’s agenda second. Listening to the comments of some of the callers, it appeared to me that these callers have not achieved agenda number one. When one hears statements like "I am campaigning as of tonight against Mr Roberts,” “Mr Roberts political career is finished” etc. one can only conclude they are making judgments which are the sole prerogative of the Almighty. Kindly let me direct them to the rich farmer in the New Testament, how he broke down his former barn and said he would build bigger barns; but what did God say to him? “This night thy soul shall be required of thee and to whom shall these goods belong?”

The foregoing comments in the above paragraph indicate to me that the above callers of the night’s programme are devoid of principles, biblical as well as secular (as if there are secular). I would admonish such to think first before about the principled Hon. Jerome Roberts. As an Anguillian, I stand firmly behind your decision which I am confidently sure that you prayed before coming to your decision. Continue to seek God's divine guidance in all you undertake in your present position in life and the hereafter, and may God continue to bless you especially in light of your present decision.

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News