Why delay? Mr Snaggs has just a few months left

THE EDITOR: I wish Mr Lester Piggott to know that I have never met CoP Everald Snaggs, and therefore I do not classify myself as a “supporter” of Mr Snaggs, Mr Guy or anyone else. I was more concerned that the more mundane matters like appointing a Commissioner of Police to tackle our crime situation, was a lesser priority to Mr Manning, than getting into the Red House. The comparisons made by Piggott between the Guy and the Snaggs appointments are however not appropriate. When Mr Mohammed reached retirement age, Mr Panday wanted him to continue. We may not agree with Mr Panday, but at least it was his stated position.

When Mr Guy retired in July 2003, which date had been known several years before, Mr Manning declared himself “unsure” about Snaggs, unable either to say “yea” or “nay,” notwithstanding that Snaggs had acted on 27 previous occasions. In any event, Snaggs could only be CoP for about 12 months since he becomes 60 in July 2004. An error in appointing Snaggs could only hurt TT for one year, but an error in electing Manning will hurt TT for five years. To explain his delay in accepting Snaggs, Manning further made the public comment, that if Snaggs were not appointed, he might work harder to earn his confirmation, or words to that effect. Such thoughts about a man who must head a Police Service of 6000, are unworthy of a Prime Minister who himself aspires to promote himself from Whitehall, to the more spacious, elegant and prominent Red House, even evicting our Parliament in the process. Promotion for Manning, but not for Snaggs! Do you see the ego overflowing Mr Piggott?

MICHAEL J WILLIAMS
Maraval