Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio freedom 106.5.
[00:00:08] Speaker B: All right, so we have an interview, a guest in studio with me this morning, Mikhail Campbell, youth community advocate, as we deal with crime and the crime fightings and the expectation. Good morning to you again, Mikael. It's been a year.
[00:00:21] Speaker A: Yeah, approximately a year. Approximately a year.
[00:00:26] Speaker B: So Mikhail Campbell, youth advocate, community advocate in the Tinapuna area.
[00:00:32] Speaker A: Correct, Correct.
[00:00:34] Speaker B: So your new mp.
[00:00:36] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:00:37] Speaker B: Is he doing all right?
[00:00:38] Speaker A: Well, firstly, Dave, good morning to you and your listening audience and those who are streaming live on your web.
The question you asked me is if the Minister of Home Security, if he's.
[00:00:48] Speaker B: Faring well, if he's fearing thus far.
[00:00:50] Speaker A: Thus far, I think that question will be properly answered if we allow other members to chime in. But also look at the numbers that we have seen thus far.
And I will say that because we are looking at since he took office as the Minister of Homeland Security, we had about approximately 84 murders since that period. I think there was a shooting last night, about three persons died or yesterday. I should be the day before, day before.
And when persons interview him to ask him what is happening, what is going on, because remember, people could only judge you based on what you promised them. And you promised them a safer Trinidad and to Tobago, you have this, you have the solutions because they piggyback their campaign on we're gonna fix crime.
So to say that if he's doing well, if I answer that question to you at this point in time, I may have to come back and say, I don't think so, because the numbers don't lie. People are not feeling safe as, as they should be feeling based on the promise made to them.
[00:01:51] Speaker B: So with the expectation of what the campaign trail led persons to believe would happen. Is it that you're saying that during the honeymoon phase, this government taking office with a number of things, even under the past administration assuming office in 2015, a number of things had to happen. Are you saying that you're holding this government to account for their failure to address crime within their first 90 days in office?
[00:02:21] Speaker A: So I would not say that I'm holding them to account in that regard. And here's why.
Everyone needs time to settle in, to understand what is happening and the environment when they go into a new office, a new space, that's life.
However, when you tell the population that I have the solution and if you vote for me, I will fix crime, they're not thinking that you're going to fix crime. Give them, give my Time. As he's quoted in saying any express have patience, have time. They want a fix. No, because when someone dies you can't tell them have patience because they are gone. People are losing family members every single day. And to tell them have patience after in the height of campaigning. I will protect you. I have you, we have the solutions, we are there for you. So it seems as if that what I'm purchasing when I receive the package.
What is this? The delay is causing too much of pain to persons. Because if we could remember there was a.
A role play or incident that took place during the campaign where I think it's prices or course cutters they said that was somebody robbed the grocery and in Tutus the minister of homeland security and police officers were on the scene to show that how serious they are about crime fighting.
Now that you are in the position that you are in the tray you are saying that have patience, have time. Have patience, have time.
To me devi, I mean that's not.
That's not good enough. That's not good enough at all. Because if you also could recall there are persons and that particular government at this point every day they were saying that crime is. They politicized crime. You know, they made crime believe that it is only high when this government is in power. But when we are here, we have it solved. But I do believe crime is a political thing that you should be kicking around like a football.
But I will rest on that matter.
[00:04:19] Speaker B: On that point there. Under the past administration for the first four months of this year.
All right. If we are to.
You want to say well you promised me something, right?
[00:04:30] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:04:30] Speaker B: And we supposed to get it immediately.
The first four months of this year, from January to April, there was over 100 and something murders under the past administration.
How would you feel? How would you attribute that now?
90 days. 84.
[00:04:50] Speaker A: Right.
[00:04:51] Speaker B: 90 days 84.
If you want to balance the scale the metrics is maybe a few tens right outside of that scope. Right. But is the same count under the past administration.
[00:05:07] Speaker A: Right.
[00:05:08] Speaker B: And I'm glad you brought not addressed it.
[00:05:10] Speaker A: And here's what.
For those who believe that crime is a government issue alone, they are infer rude awakening.
We tend to see crime as PNM will solve it, UNC will solve it or whoever in government will solve it. But that's not how crime operates.
For instance, we know we have corrupt officers, we know we have citizens who know crime is taking place, but they're afraid to report or they have members who involved in that organization of crime and they would not Report it.
Crime also has a part to play, yes, in the government, but I believe it's a relationship that goes three ways.
You, I and they who have the powers to assist us in fixing it.
So I tend to steer away from trying to put crime as hey, I solve crime. Crime is also a cultural issue in terms of how we see and how we view life as people in a society.
We're looking at crime and we're saying that, hey, but David, before I even do that point, we only see murders here. But crime starts within the office, within the schools. It goes far about. But we only focus on murder because why that is what probably sells newspaper.
I don't want us to continue on thinking that crime is a UNC victory or a PNM victory or UNC loss or PNM loss. Is our country losing lives? We are losing precious persons who really could contribute to society. I'm not speaking to the gang members who decide that death is the life they want to choose because that's a whole different topic. We go down the road there. But I want us to continue along this interview. Understand that crime isn't just political. It shouldn't, is a national issue.
And all of us, all of us have a part to play.
[00:06:52] Speaker B: What do you think about the fact that both sides of the fence, the UNC led administration under the people's partnership by the then current prime minister when she was in charge then, and the nine, almost 10 years of the PNM not dealing with the judicial issues that are plaguing us, because you would have persons, police officers, sweating to bring persons before the courts and then bail comes easy and they back out. And then they commit the other infractions, go back in, get bail for that infraction and they back out. And you have persons on bail for numerous infractions.
Why didn't the PNM administration or the people's partnership, why do you think these issues of judicial, I don't want to say misrepresentation, absence of critical issues of bringing persons to justice, why you think that has failed us?
[00:07:49] Speaker A: And before I answer that question, I want to make a point right there. You see, when it comes to making legislation or ensuring that the judiciary functions properly, that's government. They have to have the political will to do such things as opposed to crime on the ground. It involves all of us because you can find a common man going to the court and telling the judge, hey, speed up, speed up the case. Clear doc. So in this case, it is the government's responsibility, whoever they may be to deal with it. And now to delve into the question, David, when you. When you look at how our country thinks at times, we don't apply the real pressure to the government for real matters. You know, we apply pressure to sensationalize issues, but not issues that require you to be learned or what requires you to understand it. So the common man may not. They may know that the court system is taking long. But why is it taking long? What's the reason? Is it that the judges are overburdened, or is it the judges not doing their job? Is it that they know they don't feel excited enough, or their incentive is too low, or they just got a raise the other day, but that's our next issue. Let's leave that alone.
Or is it that.
But when it comes to judiciary functionality, they don't have the administrative support to get the job done.
So the issues could start from 1 and go to 10.
But we as the people may not ask the government, what is your plan to really and truly help judiciary function to optimal standard? Because that is less exciting than seeing, you're gonna raise my pay.
Are you going to do this? And then sometimes where the government is concerned, they say they're going to do it.
And they may decide to put a political appointee within the judiciary to think that will solve the problem.
But my honest opinion is that we don't really address real issues. We put plasters on major wounds. And what we say to make the people forget is that, hey, is the PNM did that, is the UNC did that, but who has the political will or the country at heart to decide to make the change necessary to ensure that that arm of the state functions properly?
[00:10:08] Speaker B: We understand what type of firepower our criminals have. We know this Christmas lists came to Trinidad and Tobago and he went to other countries, too. But he gave us video footage insight as to the type of firepower men in Belmont and other areas have.
Why doesn't our authorities engage to get up into these areas to address and look into securing and procuring these weapons off the street rather than to charge a man for sedition?
Wouldn't look at it.
I didn't see him. Do I partner? Public opinion. Court of public opinion. Right. What is that?
I'll give you a minute to think about it while I go to this next commercial break, and then when you come back, you respond to me. Because we saw those footage.
But instead of attacking those, trying to solicit the information to get into those areas from a man who was able to make Inroads we charged him for sedition and left a bitter taste on the international sea because why we felt embarrassed.
Good morning again, Trinidad and Tobago. It's just about 24 minutes and the upswing to 8 o' clock this morning. Morning we are talking about the 100 day crime plan, if it exists at all. Mikhail Campbell, Youth Community Activate is in the building with me this morning as we get chatting about these very, very important issues. Your response to the statements made just before the commercial break as we were talking about that gentleman, Chris, highlighting the type of firepower these criminals have and we decided to charge him rather than try to make inroads with the footage that was provided for the national social media viewers and deal with those criminals, we decided to hold him. Your thoughts?
[00:12:24] Speaker A: So I would deal with the question in parts and here's why.
Earlier this year we had a state of emergency. Well, it started last year and it spanned for three months.
And I want to quote at that point in time the acting Commissioner of Police, Mr. Benjamin. And he said, we have carried out 1953 operations.
We have targeted at least 1731 parity offenders. We have conducted at least 12,000 plus searches and we have arrested 1500 approximately persons.
We have recovered 73 firearms and 1532 rounds of assorted ammunition.
And he went on to explain what they would have done during that soe.
Davy, it is easy for us to do maths if we look at it during the soe, the police service is saying that they had a success.
We could actually assume that that success to get all those firearms and those ammunitions off of the street could have been as a result of seeing what Christmas List would have showcased in these various communities. That's one, two.
You're saying that we could have engaged Christmas List in a.
[00:13:45] Speaker B: No, not engage him.
[00:13:47] Speaker A: What you're saying exactly the footage that.
[00:13:48] Speaker B: He provided, rather than if you hold him and you take it from him, maybe secretly, privately, get some answers, get some questions, how he was able to do it, you know, without the national diaspora away of what it is, that would be a matter of national security.
[00:14:04] Speaker A: Right.
[00:14:05] Speaker B: Maybe Chris could have been treated a different way, you know, understanding that you can. He can be compromised if information leaks that he's chatting all these things. Yes, you know, could have been done.
[00:14:16] Speaker A: So Devi, tell me, who knows that it did not happen?
Because the SOE is telling us that a lot was done during that period where we got arms and ammunition off of the streets, especially in those areas as well. So perhaps it happened, but not in the way in which you and I may probably expect it to noted so the results are there.
However, we always recognize that we one life is too much so there were still crimes happening within well murders happening within the soe but I would say that the government had of the day at that point in time would have used the SOE and acquired the arms and ammunition that which we probably would have seen in the.
[00:15:00] Speaker B: So in your respective opinion the SOE proved the point. It did what it had to do then.
[00:15:05] Speaker A: Well it did what it have to do because persons really were arrested, guns were off of the street. Street.
[00:15:10] Speaker B: How much Boy.
[00:15:11] Speaker A: So according to the. The commissioner of police at that point in time he said 73. That was then. All right, 73 guns off of the street Would you say that's a good.
[00:15:20] Speaker B: That's an alarming figure. That's a lot.
[00:15:22] Speaker A: Come on, that's a lot.
I believe at that press conference you would have broke down how the assault, the kind of weapons it was and imagine you have 73 undocumented illegal weapons on the streets waiting to cause mayhem. Waiting, waiting to cause pain and terror within the streets. I believe that is a success and of course in our society we think that better could be done and yes I believe better could always be done with as concern.
[00:15:47] Speaker B: All right, let me see.
[00:15:51] Speaker A: Morning Davy.
[00:15:52] Speaker B: And I guess there well I mean I'm not going to cast aspersions but on the get go it started with allegations and trying to make judgments on people.
How does he know what evidence does he has that that incident that took place in El Dorado with the Homeland Security Minister was a stage event made.
[00:16:17] Speaker A: A song like that. So partner you're trying to song educated but you're so one sided so rock and come again.
[00:16:27] Speaker B: All right what I would say to everyone out there and I would use this opportunity to issue of this very stern caution whole morning and every morning I say we're dealing with the message be respectful of our guest or you would be banned. I do like doing those things, you know me, I'm very neutral. But if you continue at any point to berate any one of our guests or any one of our callers this is a very very stern caution to all of you. We value your contribution, we appreciate your thoughts but respect is of the essence. I do not care which side of the fence you're illuminating from, I don't care.
Be respectful of one another.
I would mandate people to be respectful of you and if you cannot your number 334.
That's all I will say it's on record you have been cautioned.
I take a call. Good morning. Do not respond to that. Hello. Good morning.
[00:17:39] Speaker C: Hi. Good morning.
[00:17:41] Speaker B: Good morning.
[00:17:42] Speaker C: Good morning.
I. I just. Well, good morning to you and your guests.
[00:17:47] Speaker A: Good morning.
[00:17:47] Speaker C: No, I've been listening to a lot of the things he said, but it was so much that was said that I don't know if I could give it in one response.
But how about this, baby?
If we've had a government that has had been in power for the last almost 10 years, right?
And your guest is saying that the public, you know, they have a great part to play in southern crime. I agree, but how much of the public would come out and tell the police, look this and that and the other, and get themselves in problems? Because look at the fellow, the Canadian Musk, Lisco, whatever you call him, he had all the information and he shared the information region. And look at where he ended up. So people, he's not living here, so he can pick up himself and go to where he lives. But what about the people who is living here? How much do they expect to do police work and be exposed? They can give tips. I agree. We all have eyes and we all can give tips, but we can only go so much because the law is the people that does the job. But besides that, that's not the point. The point is that, you know, the last government said, let the police do the job. Let the. You must have plans. You must have a ministry of you know, where you have plans and you, you, you implement the plans. You cannot leave it upon the police to do all the work. The police takes guidance from the Ministry of National Security. What was happening, but with the ministry then, was it a slave sleep?
How many people died?
And then to do a comparison with the first four months from January to April, and you say 100 people died and then you do a comparison. But the new government has just come in. It's not even three months old. You say 80 people died, but what about all the guns on the street, the open borders, the ports where everything was coming in? How many gangs have come from over the border? And the. I saw in the newspaper a whole set of.
I don't even want to call the name of the people. Eleven of them before the courts is terrible. The situation, we can't walk. And you expect the government will work. But we have to. What do we do as people? We are in a mess with crime.
Thank you.
[00:20:20] Speaker B: All right, thank you very much. And you know, as she mentioned that I wanted to ask you as a youth advocate, when it comes to crime and criminality, you know, you. You have an agenda to see a safer. A safer nation.
[00:20:31] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:20:31] Speaker B: What are your thoughts and recommendations as to how we can get youth away from this life of crime and the. My lot or my lot. And you see those programs, while I am not downplaying them and I think they are very, very great initiatives.
One lecturer there was a story that broke about a young man.
And I'm saying this to you very briefly in summary because I want you to respond quickly. This young man said to. He said, sir, two years are in this program. I enjoy it. I learned a lot. He said, but sir, when I lie down in the night, the demons come into me, sir, and they want me to go and kick. He explained when he exits this program, then what next going back home wa go and do. What's the follow up. So how are going to get help? I'm not sure if that gentleman is still alive today, to be honest.
But he cried out yeah. And he explained what he's feeling because when he got into that life of crime and often or not, I don't know, you and I have never been on that. But we have heard person say that John B. Is this thing that's come on you. I don't know.
[00:21:37] Speaker A: Right.
[00:21:37] Speaker B: How do you, Mr. Campbell think we can go forward even to the minister of Homeland Security to save our youth? Not to just rescue them when they already own it. Because when I come to rescue you, it's because you're already in it and are taking you out. I trying to prevent you so I don't have to rescue you. How do we save them from getting in there?
[00:22:02] Speaker A: So thanks for that question. And I also want to thank the caller who called previously who mentioned that you know is not safe.
We should never put our heads in the sand to think that crime only begun 10 years ago.
Crime has been an issue plaguing us since the beginning. It happens, it just increased.
And when it increases, we have to be able to work faster than the increase happening. We have to have the apparatus to ensure that as the weapons become more upgraded, we are there to meet it. The drugs become more evasive. We are there to meet it. I don't want us to continue seeing crime as it now starts 10 years ago.
And it's not that we are being had on a particular government to score political points. It is our country.
I myself have been a victim of crime. I was robbed while I was in secondary school. I did not see a particular party at that point in time. I saw that I needed to go to the police station in Arima and they took me for a general and they said see if you see the young persons because it was seven of them who robbed you and identified them. They didn't ask who you support five years ago or who you're going to support.
If we come out from that mentality to see crime as all of us as a unity, we are against this fight against crime, I believe the solutions will be faster and we will be able to hold whoever it may be to account. That's one and in two to your question, Davy, the follow ups in NGOs, MPOs, any organizations, the successful rate is known by the outcomes, the follow ups, what happens after you go through the program. So you're so right. And I can recall that same interview where the guy was talking about how it feels like the demons are calling him because he lives in that environment, he grew up in it, that's all he knew. And he took the chance to go, go and try something better. But he has an appetite, it can be said as spiritual appetite or just environmental appetite for that killing.
That's why people say crime to fight crime. It's just that guns and policing is, is, is a multifaceted approach. It has to be done in a particular way where after my life what happens? Because there's a gap, you just identify a gap that. How do we deal with these persons who see crime as a. It's like a demon on me.
Where is the, the churches, where is the religious bodies that are there now to deal with that issue along with where is the social programs that are there to deal with them at the same time? Because sometimes do we.
Is crime cancerous enough for us as a society for us to relocate people if we see potential in a young man or a young woman.
Is crime affecting us to the point that we are saying there's a program in which we could really relocate you and give you an environment which could influence you to go differently.
But I don't believe that is so cancerous as yet because we haven't made that choice as yet because we still live in a society where it didn't affect me, I'm minding my business and we move on.
But who knows if we had took that young man Davy and put him in an environment where there are other like minded young persons to want to be better, he could be rescued, he could be saved.
And crime needs to be taught in the primary school as well. You watching 8 year olds, 7 year olds, even 9 year olds learning how to Strip a gun and tell you how they're going to kill you.
[00:25:35] Speaker B: On that point, parents are being called into question for parenting their children.
All right. And this Commissioner of Police, Alistair Guevara says, parents, if all you, if you all don't deal with your wayward children, we will. What are your thoughts where that is concerned between parent and child addressing issues.
[00:25:59] Speaker A: Where with their children, parents are ultimately responsible for their children.
Let's break it down.
We have children making children.
So I don't believe, and I hope that the Commissioner of Police, if he's listening, it was not a broad brush statement that, hey, I don't care. Once you're a parent, we will deal with your children first.
[00:26:25] Speaker B: You. And we come in for you.
[00:26:27] Speaker A: We come in for you depending on.
[00:26:28] Speaker B: What it is and correct when they.
[00:26:29] Speaker A: Do the investigations, because we have children making children.
There must be some social support to help those families, those single parent families who the child, the mother is 17 or the mother is 18, 19 and the child is in secondary school, in primary school. We have that happening. But I believe that parents had to take responsibility even more for their children and instill moral values because my personal opinion is that our moral fabric within society is fading.
It is fading because sometimes the love that parents have for their children, they see them doing wrong and you know what they would say, don't worry, stop, do that now, please. But to take the as the aspect of tough love and give it to them.
Would you report your son to the police if you spoke to him about five, six, seven times about robbing people? Davey, there's a question that people will battle with. And just to go back with that same young man, the example you give, when the former Commissioner of Police, Ms. Lola Hayward, said that we have to pray, you know what we did? We laughed.
Because I understand that we put you here to fight crime, not to give spiritual guidance.
But with that story, there was a point that she was alluding to that many of us missed.
There was a point that she was alluding to that many of us miss. And that young man highlighted the point because you could kill them, but they will come back up.
It's like, it's like you're planting something and it will continue to grow.
[00:28:02] Speaker B: You know, I had a gentleman on this program, not on the Morning Rumble.
He spoke to me on the Overdrive show in the afternoon.
He said, people doesn't understand Mommy.
He said, mommy, I, I home, I sleeping on a mattress. This is in his vernacular.
And I watching Mommy, Mommy have a, have a, have a man and A man beating Mommy and Lee. Mommy, I is the bigger brother. I watching my young brother and my little sister and them suffering a boy and, and. And Mommy, Mommy sit down in a state of bewilderment. I walk downstairs and I see the man by the, you know, the big man in the building.
And he gave me a little hundred and you know, tell me big, hey, small man, we're going on by. Oh, you're feeling what? And I take the little hundred from him now by. And you know, diara money boy. I go upstairs and I get Mommy.
Now Mommy, Mommy know me walking, you know.
But Mommy need this hundred them children eat. So Mommy take the hundred and say, son, you all right? I hope you're not doing nothing wrong, you know. And Mommy spend the money.
When I thought about that, is Mommy enabling Because he said, mommy going through she own thing too.
[00:29:24] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:29:24] Speaker B: Mommy, Mommy under pressure. Mommy, Mommy hurting the man hitting Mommy. Mommy watching little train crying. And it's go by your father. So go by your father. So and I I homeboy Davy boy, we all me do boy, you know, I go downstairs and Tony gave me a forte and tell me, well, you know, you could buy a bourbon and a cold call my boy. And I I get I that is money to me. I said, Mommy, look at 20. And me and my brethren, we go me and my little bread and then we go spend the next till 20 and buy some snacks. Now, he painted a real picture that he lived. Thankfully, he went through the jail come out and he's struggling to keep his life. I had him in studio here. He, I I haven't seen him in a minute. But he was struggling at that time.
He became a shoemaker. He learned to repair. A shoe repair person. I don't Shoemaker. Shoe repair.
[00:30:16] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:30:17] Speaker B: And he was struggling to keep it now, boy, because the.
What happened is that we, you and I at times disconnected from what is happening on the streets.
[00:30:32] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:30:33] Speaker B: So when he gave me that and the way I spoke it, that's how he was speaking it.
He raised my paws. The callers, the listeners, because we now looked at Mommy.
And as adults, sometimes we go into our personal problems.
[00:30:47] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:30:47] Speaker B: Our children are affected. And while we want to take charge with them, we had to also take charge with our personal health, mental health.
So Mommy sitting down, no bread, no Just sugar water.
And she son, come inside and say, mommy, hold this. Now she not sure how he get it. Ka you working away. Who give it to him? Who give it to him?
What he had to pay for it eventually. But the need to be to fulfill the hungry mouths in the house, the absence of a dad or the man who promised who breach he and get you the last child and promised his fake.
Think about those things before you comment. We take your calls in the next hour. We'll keep Mikhail Campbell with us for at least 20 minutes and as he has other engagements, we take a break. Your news is coming up to the top but I want Mikael to put ponder on that because his response on youth advocacy in the community is very important because this is dealing with the youth and how we can save them from a life, a potential life of crime, not just rescue after they get into it.
Good morning again, Trinidad and Tobago. It's 8:03 3 after the hour of 8:00'. Clock. Good morning, good morning and welcome back to the Morning Rumble. Davey Murray is my name. Mikhail Campbell, our youth advocate in the Tinopuna area is in studio with me. We talk in crime and saving our youth. We are also talking about the hundred days in office and the crime plan that the current administration is yet to unveil for Trinidad and Tobago's safety and security.
We are also chatting along the lines of saving our youth from a life of crime as opposed to rescuing them from it. And we did share in the last hour a story of a young man that gave us the other side of the coin dealing with mommy and mommy's position.
So Mikael, I know you would have had a minute to think about it.
Let's get your thoughts.
[00:32:58] Speaker A: Dave, that story moves me because it just told you that life isn't just black and white and there are some grays and it's just based on who you are at that point in time to make a particular call. Because you're looking at mommy who is in a position of need. She has a void to fill and she recognizes that there are multiple children in the house and her mission at that point in time is just to feed them.
And the older son, which you described, who father wasn't around, he automatically picked up the role to be the man of the house and get the finance, get the money.
The boss downstairs gave me the money. And the mother not caring at that point in time where that money came from, because what is at the forefront of our mind, she wants to feed her family. She wants that.
So that that situation in itself is really tough.
It is not easy. Some of us who may not live it because I drink sugar water before that, the end product of that isn't good. And you being 13 years of age and trying fed up a Senior mom being abused and going through that cycle.
Dave, if you put us in a scenario like that, I'm not too sure if many of us will make the conscious decision of saying nah, something, something will work out, something will happen, somebody will see us. And if you're that mother, would you ask where man you'll come from if the need is great upon you and you're seeing your children, probably you've seen the ribs because they're hungry.
And we tend to try to put social intervention to prevent that. That's why we have the Ministry of Social Development and these things. However, the bureaucracy behind it. Sometimes you go in a plan, you have to wait three, four months which in three four months you just lost your 13 year old son to crime and violence. Because four months, 120 days, I believe the math is correct. To go hungry for a pretty long time and then look at again. It may borderline politics. But those persons which was just released from CPAP and European those persons are not the middle class in society.
Many of them who are the workers are actually depending on that institution to provide something for their families to eat. And I honestly believe that some of them, I actually know some of them who would have moved away from a life of crime, Dave, to do an honest day work to see what it feels like and then to come to hear that they are being, they are dismissed with hopes of being rehired because I'm giving each person the benefit, you doubt that they're going to be rehearsed. That's what the government said. But at this point in time, what are they supposed to do?
Could we not have put things in place to prevent that 10,000 persons plus from having the propensity or the temptation to return to the life of crime or to go hungry like their mom who in a situation because making money on your own gives you some sort of independence not to depend on anybody. Especially to depend on any abuser.
[00:36:01] Speaker B: Hello. Good morning.
Good morning.
Hello.
[00:36:06] Speaker D: Good morning. Good morning Mr. Davey and good morning to your guest. Good morning Princess Tong.
Mr. Davey, I would want to compliment your, your guest for taking up the the responsibility of advocacy and activism in the area of crime.
But I want to ask him if he know or he knew of a gentleman by the name of Dr. Morgan Joe and, and whatever the answer may be, if he's aware of some of his writings, his books, one of the most popular one is Think Again.
I would humbly suggest that he should read a copy of that book Dr. Morgan's you because he has a Lot of insight and research that was done on sociology and politics and economics and human development governance. All those topics is well researched and covered and discussed in some of his writings and so on. And I think it would help him in terms of articulating the whole question of criminality and saving the nation.
But I also believe, Mr. David, I'd like to hear his opinion on this. The state of itself of Trinidad and Tobago, our politics, economic, social, political, cultural. Crime is a choice.
Crime is a choice.
Aided and admitted, of course, by other things and factors.
Like for example, this whole thing about single mother.
There's no one institution in the country I can understand, biologically speaking, how you can have a single parent.
What is the state role in ensuring that fathers live up to their responsibility of fatherhood? All they have to do is impregnate and move around and mothers go to the social welfare department and. And look for some kind of assistance because they can't find the father, they know the father and so on. And this has become in itself is a culture, it has been institutionalized, this thing about single parents.
And I think we have to address these matters at the core, at the foundation and deal with some of these issues if we really want to change the whole culture and the thinking and the choice of Christ. Or else we just be regurgitating and. And dealing with it from the. The end point of view, the consequence and not dealing with. From the source.
But keep up the work and. And we will. I mean we have to work together to solve the issue. I agree with that. Thank you, Princess.
[00:38:55] Speaker B: All right, Princess Tong. The government is a new administration. You cannot get everything done right away regardless of what. What was promised by them. Be real. No political party could stop killing and white collar crimes. Give the UNC a period to deal with the major issues.
There's a message coming to you this morning. Another one is saying here, yes, Davy, the parents of the child, of the children.
The police were searching high and low for Inkover recently. Those parents seem to have been hurt harboring those children. You remember the situation. I don't know if you're familiar with it.
[00:39:30] Speaker A: Which one is that exactly?
[00:39:31] Speaker B: The situation with the Holy, Holy, Holy name Holy Faith Convent.
What do you think about those parents? I mean the school identified them. Police couldn't find them when they went and it.
[00:39:44] Speaker A: And you see when the commissioner of police made the statement that we will come for you and we'll deal with you.
Dave, you see the caller that called before. Thank you for recommendation that told me to read Morgan Joe book of Think again.
And he also made a point about single parents being an institution and the state in essence should be doing more with the fathers are concerned. So the state tells you that we carry to court, they pay maintenance.
But Dave, look at this. Let me a real scenario. You actually put, put a father in court to pay maintenance which would not suffice because the, the quantity isn't enough because it's never enough. Never enough.
That father could still be absent.
[00:40:28] Speaker B: Normal, normal, normal.
[00:40:30] Speaker A: That father could still be absent.
[00:40:31] Speaker B: All the, all the state is doing is providing financial assistance and that's it. That's it.
[00:40:35] Speaker A: So now we, we are saying look at the core. And you're right. But when you, when you say that the state needs to do more on it, that's you and I issue. We have to take responsibility for the fact that if I'm going to start a family or I just. We have to educate people as well to him and understanding that you're going to, you want to start a family or you want this have a good time. There's consequences because you are, you are contributing to no fatherless or motherless children because it happens on both sides.
And in addition to that, our father is very important not just being a financial giver. And I'll tell you a story, my story. I have a 14 year old brother who lives in my tower and he goes to Mount Hope and he plays football every single day after school.
And one given day he came over, he said, dad, one of the boys and them tell me come and check him. I check him. He said, yes, I'm meant to sell when I look at it, this weed my father put on his slippers and went straight into the den. And for those that he block in the house and say this is my son.
I don't care who and what all you feel you guys are doing in this community. But they see him, he's off limits.
He stood up in the middle of the den, which could have had guns, whatever the case would be and with my brother and said this is mine and if you are to interfere with him again, it will escalate.
That was a father, not just a financial giver, but a protector who was.
[00:42:09] Speaker B: Willing to lay his life on the line to save his son from a life of crime.
[00:42:14] Speaker A: He doing that.
There are some mothers who do that as well.
But understand the impact and effect will have when you stand up to a man, Mannos to Manos and said leave my son alone.
And he did that because my brother, as he, as the young guy said before crime Is a choice. That is debatable, Strongly debatable. Because a choice means you have options. And if I grew up in the beast of crime and all I see is crime, what option are you telling me about? And if I can't go to the community with having the social programs because I could die because I'm welcome in.
[00:42:49] Speaker B: That community, because I'm from this area.
[00:42:51] Speaker A: From this area.
[00:42:51] Speaker B: I'm born here and I'm a victim of my birth, of the place of.
[00:42:56] Speaker A: Come on, Dave. While we could make educated assumptions and say this is our choice and that's our choice, who feels it, knows it, and we can't afford to be making decisions and we're not connected and have real life stories where it's impacting us because we'll have greater empathy. Not encouraging the nonsense, you know, not at all. I'm saying that.
But come on. So at that point in time, when I asked my father, I said, but you crazy, you know, nobody else. He said, hey, that's mine's boy. And if that's the last act to do as a father to show what it means to have a father in your life, somebody to protect you, I'll do it.
We need more fathers like that. We need more uncles and grandfathers because women alone cannot do it.
We need for them to stand up and say, hey, what's going on? And you know, a responsibility that doc doctor already mentioned at a point in time in his early term when he get licks free.
Be mindful of those who you bring into your bedroom.
[00:43:52] Speaker B: Yeah. Choose your husband or your child.
[00:43:54] Speaker A: Father, wife, get L is going and coming.
[00:43:58] Speaker B: But look, I. I had a conversation and there was a video. I saw these women.
You watching a man. And for those of you watching us on social media, let me see if I could get in front of the camera.
Mikhail, there's what you're seeing. They in a vest, put a white vest, Adidas slippers, Jordan slippers, a proper sneaker, a slip on the foot. And this is them whole day holding the hand, twisting, twisting in this little apparatus. Then they knock it out and there's them. And whole day, the licking and sticking. Whole day and suiting your daughter.
[00:44:43] Speaker A: Cuckoo. Cuckoo.
[00:44:47] Speaker B: I say, where's cuckoo?
Them calling a girl.
Not a girl. It had to be a gal, because a woman, a young lady answering to them calls. So it had to. He used the correct analogy, the correct pronoun. A girl had to be and gal.
Or women. Young ladies watching this man. Where in some instances. I don't know why you don't hang his pants on his shoulder and walk with it.
Hang your pants on your shoulder or just come outside with your jockey shorts your boxers wear coming out every pants for hang your pants on your shoulder and walk outside or leave it on the on the bench inside and come out in your in your boxers because you seem to want to show your boxers. And these women are attract. They're sleeping with these men putting themselves, getting on having unprotected sex, getting pregnant and then want the state to look after your child and fund you.
Dr. Rowley was correct.
But you get licks because a man of his stature got to be careful what you're saying now. You got to toe the line.
But sometimes those stern wake up calls are necessary. If your guild children seem to be attracting to them kind of men.
You what hold it A man on the block. You know Michael, you go and you come from work east and I'm begging my 29 dog he seen market drink a beer boy.
[00:46:14] Speaker A: I just watched it.
[00:46:15] Speaker B: I could drink a beer boy. Seen my dog boy. You and your daughter go and sleep with this man. Come home pregnant.
He don't have time he go anyway.
[00:46:25] Speaker A: But there's a question to ask watches in those household. Where's the father?
[00:46:31] Speaker B: Pause. There are some situations where both parents.
[00:46:34] Speaker A: Are present and it happens like that.
[00:46:35] Speaker B: And it happens.
[00:46:37] Speaker A: You see with those situations I believe how rare. Well how often does it happen.
But with the majority that produces that cycle.
Mom sets the example and father sets the example. But not being there.
I in some instances where I see for myself and you are right in terms of both parents are there. But are they really there?
Are they paying attention to what's happening within their homes and you know they've looking at the whole landscape. Somebody mentioned in the comment section that you know give the UN chance. Yes. Okay, good.
We have to give governments a chance to prove themselves and let the the. The machinery work in which they want how they all they alter it. Yes, correct.
But if we put politics aside again and we work together to fight crime.
So okay.
How entwined our agencies and when I say agencies. Yes all the National Defense Force, National Security, immigration, the full works and then how intertwined is our political landscape to understand when it comes to crime. Hannah blame game is you and I because persons are still held bent that we are speaking here and I'm coming to chastise the government who is only two months and some days old. You know, it's not that it is never that I want us to go in the direction that crime should not Pause and start. Because election happened. It should never be that way.
[00:48:06] Speaker B: So then why are we putting such a heavy expectation on the Minister of Homeland Security given the fact that he is only in office? Not only that. Let's look. He was a former police officer.
[00:48:18] Speaker A: Superintendent.
[00:48:19] Speaker B: And then he reached the superintendent. He never sat down as a government minister. There's a difference between a manager and a worker, you know.
[00:48:26] Speaker A: Correct.
You're correct.
[00:48:28] Speaker B: There's a difference.
Me being, me being the worker, I'm the skilled laborer, I understand the work. You have the managerial skills. You are the solicitor, you get the business for us.
That is what the contractor does. You know, I the contractor, I go out there, I have the academic tenacity to sit down and negotiate, get a contractability house, call my laborers. I may not physically know to do electrical work, I may understand it, but I'm not qualified to do electrical work. I hire my electrician, I'm a plumbers, I get a contract, I pay in all your salary.
So the Homeland Security minister, he may not necessarily have the managerial skills. You know, I just saying. Are we just talking? You know, he's a minister today and I congratulate him in all sphere.
He worked his way through and he made it. Congrats. But are we to truly hold him accountable now for 84 murders when he just assumed office? Now himself himself learning the transition, remember it was Minister of National Security. Now it transitioned into two ministries. He has to sit down and they have to understand roles. And of course a lot of reading then he still has to be seen.
He still has debate in parliament to address. It's a lot.
[00:49:37] Speaker A: But Dave, tell me, count your cost when you decide to go into politics, especially in our country.
Trinidad and Tobago is a lovely place, but also we are in Finland given we, we tend to hold politicians and those who put forward themselves to the highest standard.
It is the highest standard in regards to. And you have to know that it's not something that you, you now see in politics for the first time. And we know understanding that this is what it takes. Anybody that's going into politics will recognize that when you get in there, you have to hit the ground running. The first mode that the country is going to say it is is your fault because you the bug stops with you. And plus we don't take responsibility, we give somebody else it. So if it is, if he resigns today and somebody else comes in and five murders happen under that person's name in the record of that person's 10 years, national security, homeland security or defense or whatever it may be at that point in time that five murders will be under his name.
[00:50:39] Speaker B: Well said.
One person is saying good morning Mr. Murray. Oftentimes I heard you mention not to attack the messenger but rather the message. I respect your position fully as a moderator of the of a respected radio station notwithstanding. Can you please advise the listening public how to separate message from the messenger when the messenger is usually the creator of the message or content which is usually contaminated by most of us who are politically biased. Secondly that's a good point.
We don't it's a good point but it's a simple explanation to understand message and messenger. Secondly, to your guest who appears to be truly neutral, a neutral commenter given his open in his opening comments is he really neutral Now Mikael is not a first time to freedom correct. His political alignments was always clear. We we have no mistakes about it. But this morning's conversation did not is not to spark a political debate as to who party is better. This morning's conversation centered around saving our youth the crime plan that the current administration should have unveiled and to say that the past administration failed us. He never disagreed with the hundred plus murders on the the past administration for the first four months of the year.
But we not Putting aside the 84 under the current administration it continued unabated. And I was the one that said to him are we to waiver magic one he said no. But he also said that if you in office you're gonna get blamed.
[00:52:22] Speaker A: That's how that's how it goes.
And to the person that commend that I understand your plight. You know you see we don't have much patriots in Trinidad and Tobago. And here's why I was saying that Dave. Because you wear particular color or you support a particular party in person's minds that prevents you from being neutral on real issues.
So if it comes to crime and I'm saying I don't care which party you're from crime affects us all and is not a political football person on the opposite side may say here you go against the poisonous party. And persons on the side that I support may say yes get them good. But it is not about that Dave, else you will still be harboring this contrasting we call crime. And we will never be able to come come out of it because here's what I am going to agree with you because you look like you're pushing a particular agenda. The agenda this morning remains crime.
How it affects us. Do we have confidence with this with what is taking place at this point in time's position that I looked at and do some research, they have. They want to reduce crime by 50% in five years.
Dave, what's wrong with that?
Reducing crime is supposed to be a jubilant thing. But here's what we will do as a population and we must, we must hold you to account so that you will keep your eye on the ball in this football match we call crying and score them goals.
[00:53:58] Speaker B: Noted.
[00:53:59] Speaker A: We have to.
Because if we say, all right, somebody died with 184 and we win. Quiet. Give them time. Give them time. Give them time. Where is the population? Where's the public pressure to say, hey, Olia, we can't afford not to hold ourselves to this mandate because the people are watching? That's what we're doing this morning is not about push your side. I push my side because at the end of the day those persons if I bung up in quarrel, we go in and have a good time. You go in and quarry.com you're going to relax and hope that the safety is guaranteed. Come on, we.
[00:54:31] Speaker B: Well said, man. Good morning. Quickly.
[00:54:33] Speaker A: Good morning, Davy.
[00:54:35] Speaker B: You don't have much time again.
[00:54:36] Speaker E: And good morning to your young champion.
Danny and Mr. Mikhail. I just want to say a couple of things to you. Some persons calling on the program and they said the PNM had been in power for the last 10 years. And some people say it's 52 years.
[00:54:51] Speaker A: And all of that facts.
[00:54:52] Speaker E: Well, for the last 10 years the PNM had not been in power.
The PNM had been in office.
[00:54:57] Speaker A: Office.
[00:54:58] Speaker E: In our constitutional arrangement, power is the preserve of the parliament. And if you want to pass laws to change our security system in this country, you need 31 votes in the lower house and you need 24 votes in the upper house. The UNC has never joined with the PNM to give them that 31 votes. But I've told the UNC before that Ms. Becker said that she will bring the good legislation and she will vote for it.
[00:55:25] Speaker A: So this is the time for the.
[00:55:26] Speaker E: UNC to forget this chippiness about honeymoon. Come to the Parliament, Mr. Jeremy. Come and say this is what we are going to do with the police service. Come and say we need a secondary policing authority, something like the FBI in Trinidad. Come and say we're going to do something about customs. Come and say something about the Coast Guard men who on the high seas. Yet these people have an underground railway going from Venezuela to Trinidad with all kinds of things. The last time they carry guns at.
[00:55:54] Speaker B: The Venezuelan president, all Right, Paul, Paul, you're rambling. Get to the point quickly now.
[00:55:58] Speaker E: So at the end of the day, at the end I just want to make a point that it is a legislation that is going to get us out of this. If anybody believe different, they're living in la la land.
[00:56:08] Speaker B: All right, now this is a caller that all that often advocates for legislation under the past administration since saying that they could not have solved crime when they bring certain legislations to the full the opposition did not support at a point in time. Can, can we hold government accountable if our legislation isn't? Do we not currently have laws and let tools in our arsenal that we could use? Or are we to continue passing the blame the buck or the battle to this person because we wanted a new legislation we couldn't institute what we already have? Is that what, what are your thoughts, Dave?
[00:56:44] Speaker A: I believe that when it comes again, I will sound like a repeating music box.
Legislation that will yes, give the police an executive arm, well, the enforcing arm to do what they're supposed to do, to enforce protection, to enforce the law.
But if we as the people don't obey or even try to be mindful of what is the taking place because we could have, we could disobey the lawyer. Now, at 3:00am in the morning, how many of us stop by traffic light when they turn red?
[00:57:12] Speaker B: Well, I for one depend, I gone, you're gone.
[00:57:15] Speaker A: And even me too, I not stopping. So while I like the fact that he's pushing legislation, there's as I said before earlier, it has to be us as a society willing to abide by the legislation and also the social aspect of it. And then you can't default persons or a particular opposition or whoever if they don't believe in the law that the government is going to pass. But if you're not doing it because you want to score political points, then shame on you and your team members. Because look, for instance, ministers has been robbed before.
So crime doesn't say, well user minister, user MP are going and you know, pardon you. No, they work like that.
So it's time for us to as well as he reminded the opposition leader of today, the honorable Penelope Beckles mentioned that once you bring good law, they will support we as a people on the right and black. We need that sort of bipartisan collectively that togetherness. And when we can see that on top there, it could start something.
[00:58:22] Speaker B: So you think if we move away for a ret racism, friendliness, nepotism and all these things, we can tactfully and systematically attack the criminals and crime in this country, white collar crime especially.
[00:58:32] Speaker A: Well, you see that, that white collar crime thing.
[00:58:35] Speaker B: Because listen, you and I, you have how much money you have by how.
[00:58:38] Speaker A: Much money you can bring.
[00:58:40] Speaker B: You can bring in our container guns. You're that kind of paper boy nobody. You're that kind of tenacity, right? I'm a point.
[00:58:45] Speaker A: If I hide, I've been bringing guns.
[00:58:46] Speaker B: Exactly. You're looking to bring in some cars, you understand? So who really bringing the guns in the country? Is it the little fellas on the block, high power? I those them fellas can't even afford to buy our shoes.
How they bring in a container of.
[00:59:02] Speaker A: Guns, baby, If I'm funding you, if I'm paying for the operation of your lifestyle or your entity, organization, and you have the ability now to arrest my and stop that water that, that fountain, would you do it?
[00:59:19] Speaker B: Good question.
Good question. And that is the problem we have right there.
That is the problem we have. Because when you put political appointees in positions that they should not be politically motivated. Big up the cop on this. What I'm saying here, you give me a walk, I am attended. I mean, I supposed to be an independent organization, but as you appoint me, I'm grateful for the position.
It could be perceived by the national diaspora that bias exists because of the political hand in these institutions.
Suffer it to be so. Constitutional reform is not necessary. Would this administration champion the cause for it?
[01:00:12] Speaker A: And if I may mention in closing, I would want to see the Minister of Youth Development, Minister Watts, to not close down any programs. But if you have to push more or revisit the ones where you see needs improvement, don't let our youth have nothing to do. Work with the times. Become innovative.
If there's good things that you saw in the previous administration, use it and come with your own ideas and improve it.
[01:00:45] Speaker B: That's it.
[01:00:45] Speaker A: Youth need to be active and active and point them in the right direction.
[01:00:50] Speaker B: 21 minutes, not 21. Sorry, my mathematics.
Not 21, eh? But actually 28 minutes on the upswing to the hour of 9o'. Clock. We take a break. The time check brought to you courtesy jta. We have been chatting with Mikhail Campbell, youth advocate for the community.
Communities. And not just Cheetah for Tunapuna, but for communities. We know you want to call and get on the program. We can talk after the commercial break. As Mr. Campbell has to leave, he has other matters of importance that he must attend. So thank you very much, Mr. Campbell for chatting with us this morning.
[01:01:27] Speaker A: Thank you, Dave.
[01:01:28] Speaker B: I look forward to us revisiting and chatting again in the not too distant future.
[01:01:32] Speaker A: Nice connecting man.
[01:01:33] Speaker B: Indeed, sir.
[01:01:34] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
