am one of those persons who strongly believe that there needs to be better regulation of our airwaves if for no other reason than to protect our children. I am a strong proponent of the position that no music whatsoever should be played on public transportation. The reason is simple all passengers should have the right to peace and quiet. If a passenger needs to be entertained while he is using the public transportation system then he should rely on his walkman or iPod, it is as simple as that. The buses should be equipped with communications systems which would allow the driver to be alerted to any disturbance or irregularities on the road. The stereo systems need to be ripped from the buses. I think that there should be strict enforcement of the Noise Abatement Act. I should not have to endure another man's desire to entertain himself. Whenever I have an event, it should be for the enjoyment of my guests not my neighbours. The enforcement of these measures will go a long way in protecting our children from problematic content.

I strongly believe that the condition for the granting of licences to stage entertainment events should be contingent on the proper categorisation of an event. If an event is rated "adult", then it should be off limits for anyone under 18. A promoter who stages an event which is not classified as "adult" but which is deemed to have presented inappropriate material for the consumption of a minor should be fined for breaching the "Truth in Advertising" legislation. Strategy is about choice. An adult should, however, be free to enjoy whatever suits his or her fancy as long as children are not negatively affected. I for one think Kartel is brilliant. I might be one of the few people in Jamaica who like both him and Mavado since most people prefer one or the other. The fact is though, that I don't think my children have the appropriate filters to consume some of their material. Some will argue that children can gain access to objectionable material through the Internet and therefore it is an act of futility trying to regulate the airwaves. My response is simple, the fact that a man might be able to break into my house through my closed window does not mean I should leave my door open. However, it should also be remembered that the works of these artistes are not uniformly prurient. Many persons pass judgement on these individuals without sufficient appreciation of their body of works.

On the matter of the airwaves, it is clear to me that we have serious regulatory challenges as we seek to govern what is permissible. Our current regulatory regime seems to work retrospectively than prospectively. This means that in most instances the regulators are usually able to close the gate after the horse has bolted. In most instances the authorities are only able to react after the offensive material has been aired repeatedly. This, I would contend, is a regulatory deficiency. I strongly doubt we will be able to secure the kind of regulatory control of the airwaves which some in our society might be seeking without the introduction of some system of prior restraint.