Cronyism - Triple Crown Winner

Usually, if I find something to comment upon, I rant a little on my blog, get it out of my system and leave it alone. Too many things to see and blog about to really keep any one topic alive.

But my blog on cronyism seem to hit a few people quite hard, especially the ones related to Hazel Rogers-Dick. Look, I didn't do the deeds accredited to her, I only commented on them. And my comments were quite innocuous. Anyone who take offence definitely does not understand the meaning of the word cronyism. So here it is.

Cronyism: doing favours for friends: special treatment and preference given to friends or colleagues, especially in politics.

Get this straight. While Hazel may be guilty of cronyism, in no way does that imply she is a criminal. While English is a difficult language for some to grasp, I am fairly cognizant of the fact that most of my blog was quoted from the Guardian article and my observations were that denials would start all around (which they did).


Now, I re-read my blog (link above) and in no way did I say or imply she is guilty of a criminal offence. Which is why I am perplexed that her relatives are keeping my thoughts (and blogging) alive on this topic by their comments.

Hear one Anthony Hines:

I am speechless at your act of opportunism. Have you no shame, this someones mother and daughter you are talking about. I wonder how your family would like it if someone was trying to rubbish you like this.

My response:

Frankly Anthony, I never do things like this to have people comment about me. I do live an ethical life, sadly to say, which is why I am still scrunting.

But if you look and read, and understand my blog, I never said anything that wasn't said elsewhere. I only highlighted what was in the newspapers. You have a bone to pick, check them first.

But since we are on the subject, there is definite cronyism in this, and look carefully at today's newspapers and you will see the cover up started already.

Anthony Hines said. . .

You say in your blog you didn't know her, well I did as she was a good friend of my dads and my godmother and If you knew her and the work she did in her community, I would hope you would've thought before accusing her of cronyism. If you want to have a go at so-called cronyism, I would have a go at the hospital as Hazel would not have taken something without permission. The hospital could've said no and there would be no story.

My response:

Seems you write from the emotional point of view that you know Hazel, Anthony. Fact is, the papers won't publish anything if they can't back it up. . . they can get sued you know. Therefore, there is some truth in the reports. I suggest you do your own research.

I respect your position, but I don't make the news, I only comment on it; the way I see it.

She may have done good works, but sadly, her passing leaves some unanswered questions. The facts speak for themselves.

Anonymous said. . .

How dare you write this crap about my mother?

First of all, my mother was gravely ill and needed the heart monitor constantly.

Second of all the bed came from the hospital's inventory and did not deprive anyone of a bed on the ward at all.

Thirdly, the oxygen tanks belonged to us. Paid for with our money and carted up and down the stairs to be refilled by us. That is why there is no mention of the oxygen tanks being returned in any of these ill-researched media stories.

Fourthly, my mother absolutely gave her life to the City of San Fernando. She did not die rich and might have lived a little longer if she did not continue doing community work from her death bed. So as far as I am concerned, you can find something else to do besides trashing her name and her reputation on some stupid Internet blog. And, to suggest that my mother was anything but ethical is a testament to how completly uninformed you are. My mother could be called names by anyone, but even her enemies know that she was ethical.

(The paragraphs were my idea to separate the rants. The misspellings I left, I didn't feel like doing ALL the work).

My response:

Hmm. Offence.

Let's see, your mother needed the heart monitor so she took one from the hospital?? How many other people 'needing' a heart monitor gets one from the hospital? If your mother was able to access one, it's because she was a member of the board/former PNM mayor. That's called cronyism. Which is what my blog is about.

If the bed came from 'inventory' then it did deprive a person because the public is aware a lot of them have to sleep ON THE FLOOR! The bed should have been on a ward. But aside from that, WHO AUTHORISED the bed leaving the hospital? That's called cronyism. Which is what my blog is about.

Thirdly, the SWRHA were enquiring about the tanks... so for you to say it belongs to you... well, you need to prove it to THEM, not me.

Fourthly, if your mother did good works, bad works or indifferent, it made no difference if she accessed care/facilities beyond other people because of this. The whole point is that she did, and that's called cronyism. Because she was afforded these things because of her relationship with the SWRHA managers... OTHER PEOPLE CANNOT ACCESS THE SAME.

The main question in my mind is: how do you confuse cronyism with criminality?

The second question is: why pick on my poor blog when you have a whole parcel of newspapers to sue if the arguments are offensive and untruthful?