Daily Mauritius

On parlais récemment du problème de circulation a Maurice et de l'immobilisme du gouvernement à prendre des décisions (sauf pour faire venir les copains expert bien entendu), voila ce que l'on peu lire aujourd'hui dans le journal

Source : l'express dimanche

Ou comment le gouvernement contribue à la fuite de compétences...

Although the charge against Cehl Meeah for giving instructions to commit the murder of three Labour Party activists and the charge against Bernard Maigrot for the murder of his mistress Vanessa Lagesse were both withdrawn by different DPP?s at different points in time does not mean that those two cases are comparable. The only comparability is in the DPP?s use of his discretionary powers.


Cehl Meeah - a ?political prisoner?
Cehl Meeah was the leader of the Party of God, the Hizbullah Party, and he had been seriously denting the popularity of the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) Party in Port-Louis. In an alliance with the Movement Socialiste Militant (MSM), the MMM came to power in September 2000. Cehl Meeah was held in police custody in December 2000 based on the allegations of one or more self-confessed criminals, one of whom, in the name of Toorab Bissessur, allegedly already obtained monetary favours from Mr Paul Raymond Bérenger, leader of the MMM. The charge against Meeah was that he gave instructions to murder three Labour Party activists at Rue Gorah-Issac in Port Louis in 1996, when the Labour Party was in government.

From the beginning, Paul Bérenger held Cehl Meeah responsible for the murders, and what is generally regarded as the pro-Bérenger press had been leading a systematic campaign against Mr Meeah. In his editorial « Après quatre ans » on 4th December 2000, Gilbert Ahnee, chief editor of le Mauricien, reinforced his earlier comparison of Meeah with the Sikh pro-independence leader Sant Bhindranwale who was shot dead by the Indian army because he was considered a terrorist. He admitted that it was thanks to the Party of God of Meeah that the Labour Party candidates Rashid Beebeejaun and Siddick Chady were elected on 11 Sept 2000, because the Hizbullah had divided the votes of the militants. The chief editor also admitted that the effective arrest of Cehl Meeah was a direct result of the militants coming into government, for which he appeared very thankful - « ?il a fallu attendre qu'Anerood Jugnauth et Paul Bérenger soient à nouveau au pouvoir pour qu'on ait les moyens, dans ce tout petit pays, de faire la lumière sur l'affaire Gorah-Issac. »

To assassinate the character of Cehl Meeah further, l'Express of 5th December 2000 described him as "dangeureux", "megalomane", "autocrate", and referred to the fanaticism of the Party of God. For its part, the weekly paper 5-Plus Dimanche apparently made out, on an alleged tip-off, that Cehl Meeah was running a 'terrorist' camp at Mont Blanc, which was totally and utterly false. Those papers were clearly spearheading a crusade against Meeah who was leading an Islamic movement [cf. the favourable treatment of the religious movement of Priest Grégoire]. Such campaign against Meeah was criticised as being his trial by the press to the extent that even the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions threatened to take the matter to the courts to put an end to such campaign. Me Nargis Bundhun, the then President of the Bar Council, also complained about trial by the press since this would seriously undermine the fair trial of the accused.

Cehl Meeah's case was debated before the Magistrate Lutchmee Parsad Aujayeb at the District Court of Port-Louis, in order to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to refer the matter to the assizes. However, Meeah did complain that he was not being given a fair preliminary hearing because he felt Magistrate was prejudiced against him [cf. The Judge in the Braintree Barn Murder Case]. Me Jacques Panglose for the defence even told the magistrate : « Your Honour cannot in law direct the accused as to how he is going to give his statement and in the more so, he is in the course of giving his statement as this goes against the law. » [News on Sunday, 14 June 2002]. Cehl Meeah himself had been crying out against political vendetta against him. The case of Cehl Meeah, who was refused bail for nearly three years (Dec 2000 ? October 2003), retained the attention of Amnesty International and other Human Rights organisations. He also claimed that he was tortured in custody but he never confessed.

On 19th February 2003, the Magistrate Lutchmee Parsad Aujayeb decided to refer Meeah to the assizes although the allegations of the main witness and self-confessed criminal, Hateem Oozeer, were never independently corroborated. Toorab Bissesseur, who had previously obtained money from Paul Bérenger, had also implicated Meeah, but he was never summoned before the Magistrate. On 30th October 2003, Me Abdurrafeek Hamuth, the then DPP, withdrew all charges made against Cehl Meeah.

Case of Bernard Maigrot
The case of Bernard Maigrot may come under what is usually called « crime of passion ». Believed to have had the motive, Bernard Maigrot was accused of the murder of his mistress, Vanessa Lagesse, on the night between 09 and 10 March 2001 in her beach house in Grand Bay. He was arrested on 23rd April 2001 by the late Police Superintendent Prem Raddhoa. Mr Maigrot conceded that, on the eve of his mistress?s murder, he did speak to her several times over the telephone, but that he did not see her on the night of the murder. He also provided the names of his alibis, Mr François and Mrs Martine Desmarais with whom he alleged he was having dinner [le Mauricien, 28 May 2008]. But, while confirming that Vanessa Lagesse was indeed the mistress of her husband, Isabelle Maigrot confirmed in the Supreme Court that, on the eve of the murder, she was having dinner with her husband and their two children in a restaurant in Grand Bay [l?Express, 03 March 2004]. Moreover, his fingerprints were not found at the crime scene. Mr Maigrot claimed his innocence but later confessed to the murder while in police custody, although he subsequently retracted and alleged that his confession was extracted through torture by the ex-Superintendent Raddhoa and his officers. After listening to 71 witnesses at the preliminary hearing, the Senior Magistrate Azam Neerooa decided, on 28th November 2007, that there was sufficient evidence to refer the matter to the assizes. Having carefully gone through the evidence, the DPP Me Gérard Angoh decided, on 27th May 2008, to withdraw the murder charge against Mr Maigrot on the ground that there was insufficient evidence.

Earlier, Bernard Maigrot had lodged a claim against the ex-Superintendant Raddhoa and three other members of his team, namely Constable Dookhony, Corporal Fareedun and ex-Superintendent Bala Kamatchi, claim later amended after Raddhoa?s death to include his heirs, for damages for alleged torture while in custody. This case is still pending.

Powers of the DPP
Under constitutional powers, the DPP can withdraw charges and stop any prosecutions, whether or not entered privately, and he is under no obligation to give reasons. The private prosecutions entered against Paul Bérenger in the money to Bissessur affair were also stopped by the then DPP, Me Ah Foon Chui Yew Cheong, and there was no outcry for explanations or for the review of the powers of the DPP. But, in the case of Bernard Maigrot, Anne Rogers, the elder sister of Vanessa Lagesse, wants the DPP to offer explanations. Although there is nothing which prevents the DPP from justifying his decision, it is unlikely that any DPP would do so. However, as stated by the Chief Justice, Me Bernard Sik Yuen, an interested party can apply for the review of the DPP?s decision. [l?Express, 4 June 2008].

Conclusion
The case of Cehl Meeah has often been referred to in the aftermath of the withdrawal of the murder charge against Bernard Maigrot. But there are fundamental differences between the circumstances of the two cases. First of all, Meeah was not suspected as the perpetrator of the murders, but as someone who allegedly gave instructions to commit those murders. Meeah never confessed to any crime.

On the other hand, the case of Bernard Maigrot appears to bear the hallmark of a « crime of passion » Although Mr Maigrot alleged torture in police custody for which he has entered a claim in damages, he did sign one or more confessions while in custody. Normally, such confessions, when disputed, tend to be viewed suspiciously in deciding bail, but not in deciding torture in extracting such confession. Such matters are usually left to the jury in the light of all the evidence. However, it appears that the DPP may have been satisfied that there was torture in this case, hence his ?rejection? of the confession of Bernard Maigrot, confession that is central to his prosecution.

While, when charges against Cehl Meeah were withdrawn, there was a virulent campaign to curtail the powers of the DPP, in the case of Bernard Maigrot the emphasis is for the DPP to justify his decision. As an interested party, the victim?s sister, Anne Rogers, may well consider applying for the review of the DPP?s decision. Interested parties can also be any of the defendants (the heirs of Prem Raddhoa et al) in the case of damages for torture brought by Bernard Maigrot because the DPP?s decision not to prosecute the prime suspect Mr Maigrot may damage their defence in that the DPP could not have believed that the confession of Mr Maigrot was made of his own free will, hence his decision to withdraw the charge.

M Rafic Soormally
London
09 June 2008 (abridged version)

Un pont de Royal College à Roche Bois et un "périphérique" de 12 km de Sorèze à Quay D avec un tunnel de 775 m. La construction démarrerait en 2009

Sithanen dans le Budget Speech 2008/2009

"103. A 12 kilometer Port-Louis Ring Road will be constructed on a PPP basis from Sorèze to Quay D roundabout including a tunnel of 775 metres through Quoin Bluff."

"104. The Harbour Bridge will also be a PPP project. It will connect Port-Louis at Royal College to Roche-Bois roundabout. The bridge should divert traffic going through Port Louis, thus, together with the ring road significantly reducing traffic congestion at peak hours. Construction works on both ring road and harbour bridge projects are expected to start in July 2009."

quelqu'un avait déjà entendu parler de ça ? Ca m'a surpris.

Extrait du Budget Speech de Sithanen d'hier

"we are making today the decision to adopt Summer Time in Mauritius and move the clock forward one hour from 1st November 2008 to 31st March 2009 ......
However, the Summer Time will be introduced on a pilot basis and will become an annual feature if it proves to be successful and brings about the benefits expected not only in terms of energy savings but equally in terms of having more sunshine for sports, leisure, shopping and other activities.
"

Rama Sithanen, the Minister of Finance, is right not to listen to the ?advice? of the anonymous writer under the initials R.A.J. as he (she) demonstrates not only a poor understanding of the market-oriented principles of and complexities in government budgets but also because of his hidden agenda under the cover of his pretended caring for the poor.


Reading R.A.J.?s article « The next budget : Time to alleviate the living conditions of the poor », le Défi Blog, 28 mai 2008, a reasonable person would find it preposterous how someone who displays hardly any knowledge of government budgetary and accounting methods and controls with all its complexities can possibly even dream of advising, under anonymity, the Minister of Finance Rama Sithanen on how he should allocate his budget under constraints of which only the Minister and his expert technicians have first knowledge. Then he finds it strange that the Finance Minister will simply ignore him. « But Sithanen won?t do it », says R.A.J. Of course he won?t, and rightly so !

Socialism
R.A.J. wrongly believes that socialism « is fundamentally based on the redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor », without stating which type of socialism he is talking about. Socialism is an intermediate state between capitalism and communism where key manufacturing and service industries, land and property and the distribution of wealth are owned by the State but democratically controlled. Mauritius has a mixed economy. Taxing the rich to help the poor is only one element in the redistribution of wealth. But the « redistribution of resources » which the anonymous author mentions without explanation may mean something completely different, although he wrongly takes it to mean imposing « a tax on petrol/diesel » which already exists anyway. He probably means increasing the tax. But such a measure would affect both the rich and the poor. He even goes not to quote the petrol tax in the UK, an oil producing nation, without the slightest idea of the type of oil extracted in the North Sea. No wonder, he knows that Mr Sithanen will ignore him.

Provoking riots
R.A.J.?s sees in his ?crystal ball? that, within the next two years (probably until the next general elections), there will be such shortage of grain supply that he predicts « the risks of food riots and malnutrition » in Mauritius similar to the riots in Italy, India, Egypt, and so on, he said. He ?advises? the government to « delay non-essential public projects » to stockpile food but, instead of identifying those projects he speaks about tax on petrol. While elsewhere people are advised to grow their own potatoes, vegetables and fruits, R.A.J. is raising the conscience of Mauritians affected by this global phenomenon in the riot strategy like in India, Egypt, etc. This may well be seen as an incitement.

Education in male homosexual sex and AIDS
Ignorant of the fact that the Minister of Finance can only budget upon approved heads and figures, and that biology is already taught in our schools, R.A.J. wants him to budget for « sex education » in « all secondary schools » which may not even be an item in the budget. For him, sex education effectively boils down to male homosexuality and AIDS since he based his ?advice? merely upon figures, which details he does not provide, allegedly showing an increase in the number of children tested HIV positive without specifying where. If it affects other countries, why should it be budgeted in Mauritius? Since R.A.J. knows that Mauritian children are learning about sex through the internet as he has witnessed those « mechanical thrusting and heaving of online porn movies », is it not for responsible parents to ensure security and for government to tighten the laws? Why is he so keen for Mauritian children to have secular education in male homosexual sex and AIDS introduced in Mauritius by copying others? Why not copy others? advances in science and technology? Readers should note that, in his article « Corporate Social Responsibility », le Défi Blog 21 May 2008, R.A.J. already introduced the personal philanthropy of homosexual singer Elton John towards AIDS sufferers when this has nothing to do with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Now we know where he was coming from.

Although Europeans make out that AIDS originated form Africa through the practice of sex by Black Africans with monkeys, research shows that AIDS originated form male homosexual practice amongst White Europeans which have consequently spread to heterosexuals and children through infections. The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in New York and California in the early 1980?s among male homosexuals. Do Mauritian parents want such education for their children in schools, given the high risk that this might arouse their experimental curiosity and affect their sexual orientation? R.A.J. quoted the Holy Bible to Priest Grégoire in the context of créolité (which is not a biblical term) [Ref. The six demands of Père Grégoire, le Mauricien 6 mai 2008] but ignores the Holy Bible in the case of male homosexual sex. And then he has the audacity to accuse Mr Sithanen of not listening because « too many pandits, imams and priests » will object. One wonders who he is really targeting amongst those three.

Conclusion
Once more, Mauritian readers are being duped by another April the first style narcissist interpretation of budgetary and other principles in order to push forward one?s personal depraved agenda under the pretended caring for the poor.

M Rafic Soormally
London
01 June 2008

cc. Rama Sithanen, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

Narcissus, the Greek hero after whom narcissism is named, became obsessed with his own reflection. When calling upon Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam to sack Minister Dharam Gokhool, R.A.J. was merely looking at his own reflection and believing in his "celebrity" status in anonymity.

Following a French grammatical rule, I will refer to the un-named author writing under the initials R.A.J. as a he. I have read, with a certain amount of disgust, his article « April the first : When sanctimonious idiots queue up to spout nonsense », posted on the Défi Media Group website on 1st April 2008 and also published in Le Mauricien of the same date. He believes that by quoting (perhaps from a Book of Quotations) from well-known figures such as, Napolean Bonaparte, Albert Einstein, George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair), Rudyard Kipling, Mark Twain, this would make him a big shot as he would like to think he is. He is so much in love with himself that he even quotes himself to spew out even more nonsense. His flaw is that he uses quotations as recommendations upon which he bases his own thinking and then holds them to be true for every other person. On the other hand, he denies Cassam Uteem, ex-President of the Republic of Mauritius, the right to think for himself when he insults and accuses Mr Uteem of suffering from 'thought paralysis'. [Ref. R.A.J. comments on the Défi Media Blog, 29 April 2008 : « Cassam Uteem et la nation mauricienne » of Parvez Dookhy]. In fact, by stating that Paul Bérenger should not present himself as PM at the next general elections, [Ref. Mr Uteem's interview in le Week-End 27th April 2008], Cassam Uteem does not base his thoughts by copying any author like R.A.J. tends to do incessantly. One wonders who is truly suffering from « thought paralysis »!


R.A.J. quotes Mark Twain as saying that « April 1st: This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other three hundred and sixty four. »This may be true of him and Mark Twain, but not necessarily true for other people unless he possesses the heavenly gift to reflect their minds when he admires himself. He uses this totally inappropriate quotation to attack and insult the Minister for Education Dharam Gokhool who, through a self-quote (of 229 words), R.A.J. describes as a « most incompetent and ludicrous Minister », « arrogant », « proverbial rabbit », « unsuited for the post of Minister of Education », « the young child hiding under the blankets in the hope that the nasty monster will simply vanish », and much more, all in the context of Gokhool's proposals for Star Colleges, and demanded, under anonymity, that Mr Gokhool be « removed » from office « to take him out of his misery ».


R.A.J. then uses those attacks, insults, allegations and opinions against Minister Gokhool to back his further opinion that the Minister should resign in the aftermath of the sad death of one 13 year old student as a result of the torrential rains on Wednesday 26th March 2008 which could not even be predicted by the Meteorological Office. In fact, four people sadly lost their lives in this Act of God, but R.A.J. only discriminated against Mr Gokhool by barking for his resignation and who he clearly holds responsible for the death of the student Laura Paul when he says: « Laura Paul's memory deserves nothing less than those responsible for this squalid level of incompetence to be sanctioned ». He effectively demanded that the Minister should have used his discretion and ordered the closure of all schools in the absence of a report form the Met Office forecasting torrential rains that day. But he is unable to show that the Minister acted unlawfully by not using his discretion. Surely, even though many people may be unhappy with what they regard as Mr Gokhool's inaction, R.A.J. is in no position to tell a Minister when and how to use his discretion. Who does he think he is? He is merely pushing his narcissism (love of himself) to the extreme. When he sarcastically describes the PM Dr Ramgoolam as « the astute politician he likes to think he is » when calling upon him to sack Minister Gokhool, R.A.J. was merely looking at his own reflection and believing in his ?celebrity? status in anonymity. In fact, the « idiocy » and « nonsense » he is talking about can only be a reflection of himself which he is trying to hide through his anonymity, the use of big words (often made up and inappropriate) and bombastic language.


R.A.J. accepts that Minister Gokhool « should not be made to carry the can on his own », but he does not single out any one else for resignation. He argues that the « opposition is rightly condemning Gokhool and the Met Office for the tragedies of last Wednesday » when, in truth, Paul Bérenger, leader of the opposition, has absolved the Met Office and held Minister Gokhool and the PM Ramgoolam solely and entirely responsible [le Mauricien 31st March 2008 « Bérenger : Gokhool et le PM seuls responsables »].


In fact, R.A.J. has misinterpreted and misapplied Mark Twain's saying, since he has done the reminding for Minister Gokhool when the Minister should have done his own reminding about himself. His delusion through his love of himself makes him believe that he can enter the mind of Mr Gokhool and do the thinking for him. It never crossed his mind that Mr Gokhool may not share Mark Twain's and his view of how people think. The un-named author couples his misunderstanding of Mark Twain by doing the reminding for Robert Mugabe and the Governor of the Bank of Mauritius as well. This is a clear attempt to link Dr Ramgoolam's government with the Mugabe's of this world, which appears to be his hidden agenda. R.A.J. has completely misunderstood the substance of Mark Twain's quotation, which is pivotal to his article, and is misleading readers in the process by writing over 2000 words of sheer drivel.


M Rafic Soormally



Posted on Le Défi Media Group Blog, 8th May 2008
Le Défi Media Group - The narcissism of R.A.J.

Published in le Mauricien, 14th May 2008
Le Mauricien

In his article « THE JUSTICE GAME ? Deals behind closed doors that corrupt the justice system », le Mauricien 19 February 2008, an unidentified author (regarded here as a he) who writes under the initials R.A.J. clearly points his finger at the Director of Public Prosecutions when he states that « some faceless bureaucrat is reducing charges of murder to manslaughter » if the accused pleads guilty to the lesser charge. But he does not make a clear distinction between the two charges which he says is « almost impossible to answer », nor does he demonstrate an understanding of the burden of proof in murder cases, nor does he show the complexities involved in the granting of bail. For his information, the DPP who is very much involved in decisions affecting murder and manslaughter cases cannot be regarded as a « faceless bureaucrat ». This is most insulting and defamatory as it attempts to lower his estimation, as well as that of the other Civil Servants working with him, in the eyes of the public. On the contrary, R.A.J. is the one who is faceless as he is hiding behind anonymity while insulting and defaming others, and misinforming and misleading people in the process.

Malice aforethought
To prove murder beyond a shadow of a doubt, the prosecution must prove two things ? actus reus (the act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). This is a very arduous task for the prosecution; even where the accused has admitted the act, proving the guilty mind is not so easy as the circumstances of each case vary tremendously. Moreover, in the case of mens rea, the prosecution must prove malice aforethought, the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), which is the area where the complexities of murder cases tend to lie simply because the mind is unfathomable. The slightest doubt in this area could lead to an acquittal or a mitigation of the charge. Even where malice aforethought has been proven, the charge of murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter (homicide volontaire) on the ground of diminished responsibility, provocation or acting in pursuance of a suicide pact [Ref. Archbold].
Involuntary manslaughter (homicide involontaire) is « killing withoutthe intent to kill or cause GBH », but all the elements of the offence are the same as in the case of murder. Involuntary manslaughter is caused either by the accused gross negligence or by his unlawful act (not omission unless there is a duty of care). Self-defence is a defence to both murder and manslaughter.

In R.A.J.?s referred case, « Cannibale raped and beat to death his 10 year old niece » and was « aided and abetted » by two other persons known as « Loup garou and Puce », and they were all found guilty (presumably of murder). But, strangely, according to R.A.J.?s representation (or ?misrepresentation?) of facts, Loup garou and Puce were the ones who were sentenced to 45 years each for murder while the charge of the principal offender Cannibale was reduced to manslaughter in a (corrupt) deal with the prosecution and sentenced to only 10 years with remission.


Habeas corpus
As it stands, a person accused of any criminal offence is assumed innocent until proven guilty whether or not the accused has confessed to the crime. Unless the police have reason to believe that the accused, whose offence carries a custodial sentence if found guilty, would abscond or re-offend if released on bail, the accused is normally freed under certain conditions. Otherwise, he (or she) has the right to apply to a higher court for habeas corpus. However, a person charged with murder, manslaughter or attempted murder is not generally granted bail if previously convicted of any such offence. And, if the court decides to grant bail to a person charged with murder (for the first time), it can only do so on specific conditions, such as, that the accused undergoes medical examination

Again, in R.A.J.?s above stated case, as Cannibale has re-offended by committing murder with another of his friend known as Mangouste, the chances are that he will not be granted bail while Mangouste may be allowed bail under specific conditions if it is his first ?offence?. This has to do with the way the justice system works, and nothing to do with R.A.J.?s gratuitous allegation of « criminal abuse of the bail system by the very people [meaning the Civil Servants] making a handsome living from the law and order industry ». Also, he is not in any position to know, through his own reflection or otherwise, whether the DPP?s office is labouring under any form of « gross misapprehension » as he alleges.

Hence, he is making a very poor case against the Bail Act. He does not appear to be aware that any presumption against bail is rebuttable. Moreover, someone cannot be deprived of liberty for an inordinate length of time without being brought to justice. For example, Mr Cehl Meeah (suspected of giving instructions to commit murder) was never tried but was kept in custody for around three years based on the allegations of a self-confessed criminal. It is very strange that R.A.J. did not mention such an important and widely reported case in the very context he is writing. Or, does he believe that the refusal of bail to Meeah was the result of corruption in the justice system or political interference? Although Meeah never confessed to any crime, ?confessions? in police custody nearly always tend to be viewed suspiciously in deciding bail unless there is compelling corroborating evidence.

Conclusion
R.A.J. has given an improper and misleading treatment of the matters of murder, manslaughter and the granting of bail under the Bail Act. It appears that he is merely using those topics as excuses to attack the DPP and other Civil Servants involved in such important decisions without an understanding of the compromises which sometimes have to be made with alleged criminals in the interests of justice, having regard to the onerous burden of proof that bears on the prosecution.

R.A.J. further makes as if he is so concerned with the victims but makes absolutely no case in their favour, for example, how the government can help the families in coping with the trauma, and what financial assistance can be provided for them. After all, the government is responsible for law and order. The character?s main concern is with the « handsome living » of Civil Servants in the Office of the DPP and his usual rant and obsession with their salaries and other benefits.

If R.A.J. is a Civil Servant privy to confidential information, he is clearly abusing his position and he should be investigated. In alleging that deals made by « some faceless bureaucrat » « behind closed doors that corrupt the justice system », he unmistakably identified the DPP and the class of « handsome living » Civil Servants involved in what he believes are corrupt decisions made behind closed doors which « corrupt the justice system ». In so doing, R.A.J. is lowering the estimation of this class of people in the eyes of the public in a clear attempt to defame those people, perhaps in the belief that this would boost his estimation of himself.


M Rafic Soormally
London
27 May 2008

cc. : The Director of Public Prosecutions & The Prime Minister Dr N Ramgoolam

Bonjour,

Je voudrais savoir s'il exste une solution technique pour contourner le probleme d'adresses IP fixes a Maurice. Aujourd'hui nous avons au bureau une ligne IP-FR avec MT afin d'obtenir ces adresses IP, ce qui coute enormement cher vu que la finalite principale de ce ligne est simplement d'avoir quelques adresses IP fixes.

En plus nous avons besoin d'augmenter la bande-passante (aujourd'hui 128 Kbps) mais MT ne propose pas 192 Kbps, l'option suivante est d'opter pour 256 Kbps. En effet on se demande pourquoi l'option 192 Kbps n'est pas propose, est-ce que c'est du a un raisonnement purement commercial ou plutot technique ?

Merci de vos conseils !

PS : Did you say Cyber island ????????????????

l'express
Y'a pas d'autres mots. Comment peut on faire ça à des familles avec des revenus aussi modestes ?