We also took the opportunity to ask the company's spokesperson about the opposing views expressed by the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association on the decision to permanently ban cane farmer Everaldo Uk from their Tower Hill Compound.
As we told you last night, BSI/ASR insists that this is the appropriate consequence that UK must face for his role in that public beatdown of Vladimir Puck, the Chairman of the Corozal Sugar Cane Producers Association.
The BSCFA disagree with that court of action because they say that Uk was not the only participant/aggressor in that fight.
Here's the conversation with William Neal on that topic:
William Neal, Communications, A.S.R./B.S.I.
"What we witnessed at the start of the crop this year is something that we don't want to see an increase in. And, we definitely want to discourage farmers from engaging in any type of violence and altercation. While we have banned the individual, we have not banned access to the mill. So, they are still able to have others deliver their cane to the mill. But, they cannot enter our premises, because we want to ensure that everyone, including our employees, including other farmers, including other associations, feel safe as they conduct business on our premises."
Reporter
"The BSCFA has pointed out that in their opinion, they think that Mr. UK was singloed out because he wasnt the only person who was engaging in the assault, yet he was the one who suffered the greatest consequence for it and then they also point out what they think is an injustice in the appeal process, because you are only eligle for an appeal after 5 years when the in our courts after a case ends, you have 21 days to file an appeal."
William Neal, Communications, A.S.R./B.S.I.
"There is a letter issued to the individual that is banned, and you have within a week or so, you can make an appeal. And, we do have an internal process that deals with that appeal. While Mr. Uk was the first person banned, we are continuing with our investigations, and we are using our close circuit video footage to make sure we identify the individuals. It was very clear that Mr. Uk was one of the main perpetrators, and that is why that action was taken at this juncture."
As you heard, Neal insisted that Uk has an avenue for a quicker appeal than that 5 years indicated in the lawyer letter he received. We challenged him on that discrepancy, and here's how that part of the conversation went:
William Neal, Communications, A.S.R./B.S.I.
"As I said before there is a letter that goes to Mr. Pook individually that he will be given the opportunity to make a case for his appeal, so that's the immediate first step and then we do have an internal process where he gets to make an appeal."
Reporter
"I have the letter in front of me and it says " you may appeal this decision after completion of 5 years of the ban when it may be rescinded or reduced" that seems like a completely different position from what you are presenting us here this morning that he can appeal early."
William Neal, Communications, A.S.R./B.S.I. "There is a process when he is served with the notice of the ban, so he can appeal the ban initially and then he goes in front of our internal process and we decide whether we uphold the ban or not, but then its for the period stated of 5 years, so if he has not received that letter yet, he should receive a letter, because that is a part of the internal standard operating procedures."
According to Neal, the factory has banned other farmers in the past for infractions such as threatening to burn down the mill, and operating heavy machinery while under the influence of alcohol.
