Monday, June 27, 2011


In my last post (below) I exhibited an e mail that had been circulating that I said if true was absolutely awful! I have now received absolute confirmation that the story is indeed true! Serious questions now arise: Firstly, why did the mainstream media not publicise the story? no doubt there may be any number of reasons, any one of which I would be prepared to accept if it made sense, but frankly, the only reason that I can think of that makes sense is that the mainstream media are not prepared to go up against the rich and powerful. So, if this is correct, the newspapers and the radio stations (forget about the television stations) will not publicise a story that is obviously as newsworthy as it is important.

The next question that comes up is what exactly is Movie Towne going to do when it "revises" its security procedures? Clearly, there was a dreadful failure of security. But why? Was the security guard fired? Did the closed circuit television cameras work? If so, what have the tapes revealed? If they weren't working, then why weren't they working? What can the owners of Movie Towne do to ensure the safety of all of their customers? What are they doing now? Is it too much to ask for a "zero tolerance" attitude towards any kind of misbehaviour in places like Movie Towne which are privately owned but where the general public gather in large numbers?

Another question that we should be asking ourselves as a society is given that we are so apparently reluctant to criticise private enterprise for failing dreadfully to protect the citizenry from crime when citizens visit the premises of private enterprise is it fair to criticise the government for its failure to do anything about crime? In other words, if we are prepared to accept the failure of Movie Towne for its obvious lapse in security and are not prepared to demand of that private enterprise that it do something then is it fair to criticise the government for its obvious failure? I ask this question quite seriously, for it has to be a lot easier to make Move Towne a crime free zone than it would be to make the whole country crime free. And the biggest deterent to crime is the fear of getting caught. The criminals have obviously "sussed out" the security (or lack of it) in Movie Towne and have realised that they simply ain't gonna get caught!! So, they go where there are "rich pickings". Bad news for the rest of us! But are we prepared as a society to demand that private enterprises also "step up to the plate"?

Since this story went "viral" on the internet I have heard other horror stories coming out of Movie Towne that are almost as dreadful as this one. But the mainstream media are completely silent ... and for their silence I criticise and condemn them roundly and put the label "hypocrite" on them. I challenge them to show that they are not hypocrites by making this story as important as it ought to be.

One thing is certain: the internet is now such a powerful tool that we need no longer be beholden to the media and press barons as we were in the past for information. The truth can and will come out ... even when those "at the top" don't want it to. We are living at the dawn of a new age. Thank goodness for the internet and those persons brave enough and smart enough to use it. If the mainstream media wants to survive ... at least in T&T ... it will have to come to terms with this new reality and understand that its credibility (which is already in trouble) will go the way of the dodo bird if it continues to try and suppress important truths.


  1. And do you really think that the mainstream media care about their credibility Senator??? this land of daily bacchanal???... or shall we say untruths, lies and innuendo???

  2. YUP!The internet will bring some changes for sure...
    It would be easy to set up a 'News and Whistle Blower' network outside of T&T that can be fed anonymously from T&T and accessed from T&T.
    You Tube has rapidly changed the way the Music Industry does business and Electronic News Distribution will eventually drive Trini Newspapers into DoDo Bird territory.

    Keep pushing the concept of 'No Tolerance Zones' . This model is now so widespread that it can no longer be ignored (applies to No Smoking areas here in Florida where entire college campuses are no tolerance/no smoking.. etc etc)

    hang in there,

  3. Excellent blog about the internet there. I really like this. It is so true!!!

  4. Robin,
    I have a wonderful book for you to read - it's called "What the Dog Saw" by Malcolm Gladwell. Your comments about the security guard made me think about it - in the book the author attempts to look at events from a different perspective - hence the name of
    the book. Looking at events from he perspective of a dog would certainly be interesting.
    One of the areas of discussion is the Los Angeles police force around the time of the Rodney King beating. He shows how a new police chief came in and effected change merely by applying the rules already in place consistently and with the full support of the entire force. Specifically, if a complaint was lodged against an officer there was a full, proper and fair review - and if the officer was found to be acting out of line consistently then the appropriate disciplinary action was taken. It turned out that, let's say, 95% of the problems were caused by 5% of the force because these officers were simply never disciplined - much to the chagrin of the honest cops on the force.
    I draw this point out because I would suggest that the security guard is not to blame in the events described in your blog. He would have had his ass kicked if he had tried to intervene. The problem rests with the employer who took half actions to provide a semblance of security without really doing anything. The security guard needs backup - moral support and actual muscle. Either in the form of another officer, police or weapons. My suggestion would be that if the mall hired one or two more officers who were mobile and immediately available to address problem areas, then there would be an effective deterrent. In fact one officer in a control room monitoring cameras and directing two others who could move and respond to instructions would be enough, and probably reduce overall security costs.
    I am suggesting that sometimes it is worth taking a different approach to solving a problem - jumping in head first may not always be the way.

    That's my 2 cents, anyway.