It could very well undermine the cooperation the Committee is seeking, and the public confidence it clearly needs in order to carry out its mandate with the required competence and integrity.

For the three-member Committee to say, as it did, that it was not created to "replace" either the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Police Force or the Civil Court system is, to put it mildly, begging the question. It is an ACB fantasy.

No one has asked, or can sensibly make such a request of the ACB. The DPP and the Police would be fully aware of their functions, their powers and what the Guyanese people expect of them in response to what the VCT and WHRM channels did last week.

Indeed, this newspaper will be monitoring very closely exactly what the Police and the office of the DPP are doing about the airing of that unsourced, unedited tape, as well as precisely what the Government itself intends to do, bearing in mind its mandate, secured at yet another free and fair general election just about 13 months ago.

We look forward to hearing from Prime Minister Sam Hinds, under whose responsibility the ACB falls, as well as some pronouncement from the Attorney General, Mr. Doodnauth Singh, who has been conspicuously silent on this most outrageous development in local broadcasting at a time when criminals are on the rampage, murdering, maiming and robbing.

So far as the ACB is concerned, it is to be hoped that this fledgling "advisory" body is not already cultivating a `cop-out' attitude, or developing a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to addressing sensitive, critical issues of national importance such as that highly controversial, inflammatory, race-hate, anti-Police, anti-Government videotape of the wanted criminal Andrew Douglas.

Should this prove the case, and we sincerely hope not, it would be a tragic waste of efforts, time and money to have such a mechanism in place. And the criminals and media violators will be "more the merrier", to borrow a line from the lyrics of the Mighty Sparrow.

It is disingenuous of the ACB to advance the argument that if it were to "do the bidding of complainants in relation to sanctions against stations, we would become simply another combative force in the melee. That is not our mandate".

The question of relevance really is whether, given the seriousness of the problem, the abuse of the airwaves, the gross irresponsibility demonstrated by the two television stations, the ACB considers it as part of its "mandate" to at least make an informed public pronouncement on the issue at hand, accompanied by recommendations to the authorities for appropriate sanctions?

Given its empowerment, it seems ridiculous that the ACB does not consider it within its mandate to even make appropriate recommendations for specific action against the worse kind of violations by two television stations.

Its press statement smacks more of boastfulness when it talks of being "a force for moral suasion, technical and professional improvement, and a catalyst for placing 'ethics' high on the agenda of the broadcast industry in Guyana..."

We wish the Committee well in its quest to achieve its objectives. But does it really expect to be taken seriously in its talk about exercising "moral suasion" as a substitute for sanctions, where sanctions, in whatever form, even an appropriately crafted written rebuke, are in fact necessary?

Does the Committee really believe that its "moral suasion" can work with those who have collaborated to make possible that unprecedented dangerous `Andrew Douglas' TV show? If so, then the ACB is in for a rude awakening.

We await further developments before revisiting this issue. We would also welcome hearing from civil society, not just political parties in and out of government.

Police Commissioner Floyd McDonald should, in the meantime, give a public update on what progress has been made in relation to the broadcasting of the 'Andrew Douglas' tape.