Barbados Senator Irene Sandiford-Garner Tells A Whopper Of A Lie

Typical Politician Thinks Media Should Serve The Plans Of Powerful Elites – Not The Rights Of The People

irene sandiford-garnerSenator Irene Sandiford-Garner gave Barbados media folks a piece of her mind the other day at a “sensitisation and familiarisation workshop on issues of national development hosted by the United Nations Population Fund for media workers.” (Nation News article: “Media Must Grasp Power“)

The Parliamentary Secretary in the office of the Barbados Prime Minister slammed the media for creating “a generation of young people who have rejected traditional moral values in favour of those propagated through the antisocial lyrics of popular music…”

She urged the news media to “define reality and what is newsworthy” (God forbid that the citizens themselves should do that on blogs like this one!) and then she blamed the media for remaining silent on a number of her favourite “safe” issues – like popular music’s propagation of the drug culture and “the reluctance of the developed world to help solve problems of the developing world.”

“the reluctance of the developed world to help solve problems of the developing world.”

Good Lord! What nonsense. Apparently Sandiford-Garner hasn’t noticed the billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid shelled out every year to beggar nations like Barbados that, for instance, irresponsibly spend hundreds of millions on a few weeks of cricket while neglecting foundational necessities like clean water, professional police, modern hospitals, and protecting our precious few remaining natural environments.

She also said nothing about the refusal of governments to accept foreign aid when it is tied to performance standards and accountability reviews by the donor nations – like our refusal to accept the EU sugar subsidy when standards and reviews were mentioned. Or, that bottomless foreign aid pit known as Africa where only a few pennies of every dollar make it to the people. (See BFP’s article: Would Barbados Be Better Off If Foreign Aid Was Linked To Government Performance Standards and Accountability Structures?)

The Really Big Lie About The Power Of The Barbados News Media

To appropriately end her speech with one huge bombshell of a lie, Irene Sandiford-Garner said the following“In a democracy the media can hold everyone accountable, including Government, and force them to explain the actions and decisions which affect the people they represent.”

What a damned lie from Irene, for the truth is this…

Neither The People, Nor The News Media Can Hold Government Accountable Without Integrity Laws & Freedom Of Information Legislation

The news media can publish all the exposes it wants, but thanks to Prime Minister David Thompson, there is no law that makes it illegal for Barbados government officials to accept gifts from people they award government contracts to. There is no law that prohibits Barbados government officials from awarding fat government contracts to companies owned by their spouses.

We have no Freedom of Information laws, so the corrupt government officials can do what they want, safe in the knowledge that no independent citizen or journalist can see government documents and hold officials to account.

We have no campaign financing laws, and no duty for politicians to disclose how much money they receive from corporations and individuals who profit from government contracts, land use permissions or tax concessions. Our Prime Minister can use CLICO’s corporate jet and then give millions of our tax dollars to his friend’s company without revealing how much money his party received from CLICO as (cough, cough) “campaign donations”.

During the last election Irene Sandiford-Garner and her Democratic Labour Party promised integrity legislation, freedom of information and an “immediate” code of conduct for Ministers.

Irene lied to us about Integrity Legislation. The DLP lied to us. Prime Minister David Thompson lied to us.

Now Irene lies again – saying that the news media has the power to hold the government accountable.

OK Irene, we’ll take you up on your party’s damned lies.

When you, Irene, were running for election and someone shot up your home and smeared faeces on your door, you Irene were happy to come onto Barbados Free Press to comment and ask for our assistance.

Irene: let’s see if you really believe in accountability. Let’s see how it really works when you tell the news media to hold the Barbados government accountable…

Answer this Freedom of Information request Irene…

Dear Irene,

In a detailed list, please inform us how much in “campaign donations” the DLP and/or its candidates received from CL Financial, CLICO or related companies and principals during the last five years.

Yours truly,

Barbados Free Press for the people of Barbados


Filed under Barbados

63 responses to “Barbados Senator Irene Sandiford-Garner Tells A Whopper Of A Lie

  1. RRRicky

    DLP government member tells Barbados news media to hold the government accountable?

    That must have been some kind of joke on the part of the senator.

  2. RRRicky

    It looks to me like Barbados tax money went to CLICO to cover the money that CLICO gave to the political campaign in Trinidad!!!!!

  3. Chicago

    Good luck waiting for the Senator to answer a basic question, BFP! Not going to happen.

  4. Only me

    stupid article i said from the beginning if the D L P got in yall would be sry but all ur kept doing was spouting nonsense bout the good bees ,, idiots

  5. Only me

    same old same old with only different faces in parliament and cabinet , same old same old wasting money and hiding it

  6. anony

    The trouble with running an election campaign on promising to pass integrity legislation is that when you don’t pass it with a majority government you are proven to be a liar.

    What’s the plan now? Introduce the promised legislation just before the next election and not have it passed; then ask the electorate for another term to ensure it passes?

    Thompson is so easy to predict.

  7. anony

    Who do we vote for? BLP = crooks. DLP = crooks.

    We need a new party with decent people as candidates.

  8. King Dyall

    Why take on this little girl who trying to fill a big man’s shoes? Look how licks like peas going to share. My back is broad

  9. Donald Duck, Esq

    What about the 2008 financial statements of clico mortgage and clico insurance. According to Barbados law these should have been published in the official gazette since the end of april 09.

  10. From Senator Irene (Not really)

    Dear BFP,

    Thank you for your support. I look forward to hearing more of your opinions.

    Yours truly,


  11. Think on it

    I must say you lot are really scratching the bottom of the barrel, you lot are getting poorer by the day really you are.

  12. reality check

    very sexist King Dyall?

    most women ( not little girls ) don’t need to fill a mans big shoes especially those shoes which have the stench of corruption and betrayal.

    This Senator needs to stop white washing the same old, same old just because she has now come to power.

    She needs to remember she was seriously victimized as a DLP representative and to use every breathing moment to stop that behaviour in its tracks. Alternatively, she should resign.

  13. paul sealy

    The One World Leader would be glad to read this statement right now..this is what the elites want..the citizens of every country to be totally fed up with any political party that claims to have the best interests of the citizens at heart,maybe the world as we know it is really coming to and end because i have no faith in no political party in Barbados.

  14. paul sealy

    The good bees??..lmbao

  15. Let Freedom Reign

    Think on it doesn’t like BFP to continue asking where the promised integrity legislation went to. Mia and her brood can’t ask the government about the integrity legislation, can they? The government MPs saying nothing about it now that they have power.

    Thank you BFP for continuing the campaign. If we ever get integrity legislation, FOI etc, we will have you to thank first.


    All I can say to you, BFP, is: keep on exposing. Keep up the pressure. My only disappointment is – ‘unpopular’ information does not reach the ‘general public.’ A way must be found to achieve this.

  17. Fellow Bajan

    Dear Senator Sandiford-Garner,

    Please tell us how much your last campaign received from CL Financial, CLICO or related companies.

    Yours truly,

    A Fellow Bajan

  18. 199

    BFP, you’re beginning to sound hysterical which could have the consequence of your losing credibility in the eyes of your readers, vis. ‘the rantings of a mad person’ which would be a pity as we all inherently, support your call for ITAL!! Do you think you should tone down your rhetoric?

  19. Hmm?


    and just how does this thread relate to the article?

  20. BFP

    That’s the latest from the DLP, is it? Those who continue to call for ITAL in the face of DLP stonewalling and lies are now “ranting mad persons”.

    Meanwhile, visitor #6 million has just been welcomed to BFP. Frankly 199, we couldn’t care less what the die-hard DLP and BLP supporters think of us. We are focusing public attention on the corrupt activities of the political elites and will continue to do so on the national and international stage.

    Those like yourself who do not really desire reforms like ITAL and campaign financing limits and disclosure will always be discomforted when people like us ask straightforward simple questions that expose the corrupt DLP and BLP.

    Now, please tell us how much money that CL Financial, CLICO and their associated companies and principals gave to the DLP in the last five years, and how much the DLP government has given to CLICO etc in contracts, guarantees, tax relief and outright support.


    or… STFU

  21. Hants

    BFP says “we could care less what the die-hard DLP and BLP supporters think of us.”

    Didn’t know you felt that way BFP.

    Thanks for letting me know.

  22. BFP

    But Hants… you are not a diehard DLP supporter. You are simply a man who has been offered no other options. If there were a viable 3rd party built upon reform rather than the same old piggies at the trough mission, you would switch your vote in a second.

    Come back to Barbados and work with others to establish a network of independent integrity candidates in time for the next election. We couldn’t win first time out, but we could be spoilers that would let old guard know things must change.

  23. The general populace of Barbados seems quite content with their government.

    Either that or the fluoride in the drinking water has dummed down the masses into a melting pot of cuckoo slurping, okra slushing, flying fish scoffing obsessives whose primary joys has been relegated to transonic soca and raga, raga music, a stiff drink and a piece of forbidden sexual fruit.

    Anything else is a minor detail wrapped up in cheap talk sensualised through a cornucopia of talk shows, blogs and media shenanigans disguised as serious literary art.

    We categorize a domestic revolution as a spat between two lovers where the man was caught out in public with his mistress or the other woman and a fight ensues.

    Integrity legislation is the pseudonym used for identifying individuals who are incapacitated by mental, physical or political disability.

    So unless as a nation, we are willing to drag the government to court with a majority popular citizen consensus – all we are doing is pissing in the wind…

    Excuse my French….

  24. Themis

    ” DUMMED down…” I like that!

  25. PiedPiper

    Beautiful piece of writing, Terence.

  26. Speaking of CLICO, there was a strike at CBC today and the root of it appears to involve the Chairman, LeRoy Parris

  27. Pingback: » CLICO: Trinidad Politicians Before Policy Holders? Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA.

  28. 199

    Hi BFP, and ‘thanks’ very much for cutting-my-backside! lol! Truly, you might be surprised to know that I’m as much in favour of ITAL as you are but simply would n’t like you to lose support by ‘excessive hyperbole’! Do, please, get the swine, and with my full blessing!

    Inspite of your scepticism, I am still hopeful that the DLP will implement ITAL legislation within their current term of office.

  29. 199

    Come back to Barbados and work with others to establish a network of independent integrity candidates in time for the next election.


    This is no more than I suggested some time ago, i.e. the creation of our own party but you ignored me then! What’s changed!

  30. BFP

    Only after they have filled their bellies for 3 years, and then whatever they introduce will be full of holes but they will market it for election as a complete solution.

    Thompson and the DLP are really no different than the BLP of Arthur/Mottley.

  31. Sargeant

    After reading the story in the Nation I can only ask “what else is new?” Local Pooh Bah institutes a rule and is the first to break it. Those rules are only for the little people. Stories about his arrogance seemed to be confirmed. I can imagine him asking the guard “Do you know who I am?” The guard’s response should have been “Yes I do, you’re the local boy who made good, now you’re acting like a male donkey”.

  32. 2009

    Irene Sandiford……has brought a breath of fresh air to issue of governance and transparency in Barbados.

  33. BFP

    What transparency has Irene Sandiford brought?

    Please state exactly what rules and procedures she has put in place to give Barbados citizens the right to examine government information and documents?

    What the hell are you talking about?… or are you just mocking her?

  34. Kitty

    BFP, you will never speak for me or thousands of other Barbadians. Not the way you have bad-mouthed and maligned our country.

    Most of the so-called 6 million who read your blog – but obviously don’t contribute – read it for the nasty, salacious gossip and lies that you spread with impunity.

    All I ask David Thompson and Owen Arthur to do is to speak the truth about Peter Allard. You might get 10 million visitors!

  35. PiedPiper

    hmmmmm, shades of WMWR

  36. Anonlegal

    BFP stated in the article:

    “The news media can publish all the exposes it wants, but thanks to Prime Minister David Thompson, there is no law that makes it illegal for Barbados government officials to accept gifts from people they award government contracts to.”

    I may be misunderstanding the above statement. If I have, I apologise. But it seems that BFP is suggesting that there is no Law in Barbados that makes it illegal for officials to accept gifts from people in exchange for the award of Government contracts.

    But just in case I am not mistaken about your analysis of the law, I wish to suggest that you take a look at the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    The Act specifically makes it an offence to corruptly accept a gift for oneself or for any other person as an inducement to do anything in respect to a transaction in which the Government is concerned.

    In other words, if a Public official corruptly accepts a gift in exchange for an award of a government contact then he/she is guilty of an offence.

    In fact, if it can be shown that a person employed to a government department has received money from a person seeking to obtain a contract from that department it will be presumed that he received the gift corruptly as an inducement.

    So just to clarify the law on the matter:

    (a) If you are employed to a government department and you agree to award a contract in exchange for a gift or advantage (for you or someone else), you are guilty of an offence.

    (b) If you are employed to a government department and it can be shown that you have received a gift from a person who is bidding for a contact, it will be presumed that you accepted the gift as an inducement to award the contract.

  37. PiedPiper

    I seriously just about fell over laughing at the above. Like the people of Barbados do not know that there a hundreds of laws on the books but no one enforces them or, for that matter, pays them much mind………one big long steeuuuuuupppps.

  38. Red Lake Lassie

    anonlegal, you are totally wrong. First of all, BFP said it is legal for a government official to receive a gift from a government contractor.

    That is true.

    If it can be proven that the gift is “in exchange” for the contract, then it is illegal in Barbados, but it can never be proven that the gift was “in exchange”.

    No one has ever been charged.

    Therefore when Prime Minister Thompson accepts a “gift” of free jet rides from his friend Leroy Parris, it is legal because no one can prove that the jet rides were in exchange for the CBC job, etc.

    BFP is 100% correct on this and you are in La La land.

    It is not (as you state) that all gifts are prohibited by the current law. Gifts are prohibited only under very narrowly defined circumstances that are impossible to prove without either the giver or receiver swearing under oath “YES, I confess. I corruptly took the gift in exchange for giving the contract.”

    You are nuts if you can’t see that.

  39. Anonlegal

    Red Lake said:
    “First of all, BFP said it is legal for a government official to receive a gift from a government contractor.”

    As I said, I could have misinterpreted what was being suggested. I apologised before hand. What they typed suggested to me that there was no law against receiving a gift as an inducement to award a government contract. If that is not what was being said then fine, my mistake.

    Red Lake said:
    “It is not (as you state) that all gifts are prohibited by the current law.”

    In the same way I may have misread BFP, you have misread me. I never said that all gifts are prohibited by law. I said that it is an offence to receive a gift as an inducement to award a government contract. I am not sure whether you have actually read the Prevention of Corruption Act but my posted merely repeats what is outlined in it.

    Red Lake said:
    “Gifts are prohibited only under very narrowly defined circumstances that are impossible to prove without either the giver or receiver swearing under oath “YES, I confess. I corruptly took the gift in exchange for giving the contract.”

    I don’t agree with this point. The Act places a reverse burden on a government employee that receives a gift from a person who is bidding for a contact. In other words, if it is shown that a gift was received by a government employee from a person bidding for a conract, then it is assumed that it was corruptly received as an inducement for awarding a contract.

    It is up to the person being accused to show that it wasn’t. In other words, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.

    PiedPiper said:

    “Like the people of Barbados do not know that there a hundreds of laws on the books but no one enforces them.”

    As I said earlier, I may have misunderstood what was being said. It seemed like the suggestion was that Barbados did not have anti-corruption laws that prohibited certain types of behaviour. If the argument is that the laws are not being enforced then that is a different argument on which I wouldn’t feel the need to comment.

  40. RRRicky

    Anonlegal, nobody ever been charged with any offence under Barbados anti-corruption act and there is a reason for that. That act was established in such a way that it is unenforceable. This reverse burden you talk of is nonsense because all one needs to do to get around it is to have the gift given to one’s spouse or son or daughter. How you think some of the politicos’ childrens attend school over and away? The reverse burden also is got around by delaying the giving of the gift until after the contract is awarded. Also there is no law requiring any gift to be declared and no limits on the gifts.

    Barbados current anti-corruption laws are a real joke. Thompson knows that and that is why he promised to bring in new laws. The people want new laws and he promised so he would be elected.

    Then, the DLP government did not do as they promised. Thompson said all that about integrity legislation just to get elected. When he got in he didn’t do it because the DLP was enjoying the power and the gifts so much.

    Reverse burden of evidence? Sh*t! Thompson got a free plane ride from Parris THEN put Parris in charge of the CBC. According to you Thompson is done like a dinner because of the reverse onus.

    Your interpretation of the current anti-corruption law is total shite. Pardon my french, but no one ever been charged and never will be because the law is shite. It doesn’t work.

  41. paul sealy

    Both parties are useless..they do nothing to uplift the spirits of Bajans to give them hope for the future,the youth are lost due to lack of vision by politicians who have either been ordered or just plain don’t care about their future..all they do when they get in is get fat,rich and restrict Bajans from achieving their goals,i guess this all ties in with taking orders from the international bodies who know best how to run the world.

    Our future hangs in the balance because from what i see going on right now especially with all the broken promises by the DLP, people getting laid off left and right,just now Thompson is going to tax us for breathing because since he got in he has taxed everything that can be taxed,crime is on the rise and increasing,immigration problems,high cost of living and these bastards still making plans to steal more money,Democracy is not working and if i know the average Bajan they don’t react until it hits the fan and when it does especially with the everyday Bajans i see on the streets we will be begging for the good old days again..enough of the lies now..i’m tired.

  42. Anonlegal

    RRicky said:

    “Anonlegal, nobody ever been charged with any offence under Barbados anti-corruption act and there is a reason for that. That act was established in such a way that it is unenforceable. This reverse burden you talk of is nonsense because all one needs to do to get around it is to have the gift given to one’s spouse or son or daughter.”


    RRicky, I dont think you have actually read the Act. Correct me if I am wrong.

    I dont know why no one has not been charged under the Act nor am I willing to speculate as to the reason.

    I would just suggest that you actually read the Act and interpret it for yourself.

    I’ll help you. Go to the link below:

    Section 3 states:
    Any person who, by himself or by or in conjunction with any person, corruptly solicits or receives or agrees to receive, for himself or for any other person, any gift, loan, fee, demeanour, reward or advantage whatsoever as an inducement to, or reward for or otherwise on account of any member, officer or servant of the Crown or of a public body doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction whatsoever,
    actual or proposed, in which the Crown or such public body is concerned, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

    Section 7 (the reverse burden section) states:
    Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence under this Act, it is proved that any money, gift or other consideration has been paid or given to or received by a person in the employment of the Crown or any Government Department or a public body by or from a person or agent of a person holding or seeking to obtain a contract from the Crown or any Government Department or public body, the money, gift or consideration shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as inducement or reward, unless the contrary is proved.

    Those are the sections to which I referred. You have asserted that these sections are worded in a way that makes the law unenforceable. You have also asserted, that my interpretation is total shite. Maybe you can illustrate exactly where I went wrong.

  43. RRRicky

    Anonlegal, I have read that useless piece of law many times and I understand it very well.

    It is the requirement to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the items, cash or gifts were received IN EXCHANGE for certain considerations that makes the act totally unenforceable.

    The act was designed that way. To be unworkable and unenforceable but good for show to say “we got an anti-corruption act”

    The reason why no one has ever been charged is because the act is doing its job of being unenforceable.

    In modern anti-corruption legislation societies recognize that any gift between government contractors and government officials breeds corruption.

    Therefore limits and rules are placed upon relationships between contractors and government officials. Gifts of any kind must be reported publicly. It is OK for a government contractor to take an official to lunch, but not for a “discussion” in Las Vegas for the week. It is ok to give a Christmas card and a present valued under $50, but not ok to pay for the son’s tuition at Harvard or Oxford. Failure to report a gift is an offense. Spouses are included. Declarations of assets must be made when a person takes a senior position with the government.

    If you can’t see all this, that is too bad. Prime Minister Thompson saw it and that is why he promised to change things. But then he got into the position of power and decided that he like the rules as they are just fine. Also some of his ministers rebelled at their being restricted from profiting from their new positions.

    Your attempted justification of the status quo makes you the enemy of integrity and ethical behaviour in government and public service.

  44. Anonlegal

    RRRicky stated:

    “I understand it very well.”


    I am not justifying the status quo. If you believe that it should be amended, so be it (no argument from me).

    But I am suggesting that you don’t understand the law as well as you claim you do.

    This act creates numerous offences. I am just focusing on one.

    It is an offence to receive (or agree to receive) a gift as an inducement for awarding a government contract.

    There is a reverse burden imposed by section 7 (whether it is constitutional is another story). That reverse burden means that if the prosecution shows that a gift was received by an employee of a Government department, from a person who is seeking to obtain a contract from that Government department, then it will be presumed that the gift was received corruptly as an inducement to award the contract. The “burden of proof” then shift to the defendant to show otherwise.

    You have said that my interpretation of that section is “shite”. You have also said that my reference to a reverse burden is “nonsense”. I am merely asking you to tell me the error in my ways.

  45. 111

    July 14, 2009 at 11:25 am Only after they have filled their bellies for 3 years, and then whatever they introduce will be full of holes but they will market it for election as a complete solution.

    Thompson and the DLP are really no different than the BLP of Arthur/Mottley

    Do you really read the utter rubbish that you send to press??

    How can you even be so dumb to compare the two programs of operation??

    Come on man show some maturity and logical good sense.

  46. BFP

    Ok… we’ll bite.

    Just tell us about the rules and laws that constrain the behaviour of government under the DLP and how they are different from the BLP government.

    And… tell us how much money in “political donations” the DLP received from CLICO over the past 5 years.


  47. I sat here reading the tirades of both of these honorable gentlemen AnonLegal & RRRicky trade jurisprudence uppercuts in the hope of canceling out each other’s argument.

    The sad irony is this “boys” – until we can drag these “unscrupulous dogs” before a (politically unbiased) court of law and have them account for their corruption – again, I must reiterate, “we’re only pissing in the wind”…


  48. BFP

    Hello Terence

    Myself, I see wisdom in what you are saying and in RRRicky’s arguments but I don’t see much worthwhile in AnonLegal’s position.

    “politically unbiased court”

    Ha! That is a good one considering that the Chief Justice was the Attorney General and often acting Prime Minister! He was never a judge until he was appointed to the position of our highest judge. What a pickle.

  49. The Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC) has been signed by the 34 Member Countries of the OAS and ratified by 33. Only Barbados has not yet ratified it.

    Bajan MP’s are elected representatives, they must be accountable to the people of Barbados and they must act in the public interest.

    The DLP was elected on the strength of what they stand for, and the party’s MP’s should be able to explain what they have been doing to carry out their Manifesto pledges, promises and programs.

    There have been times when our elected representatives’ personal or business interests conflicted with their roles as MP’s representing the public interest.

    MP’s are expected to register their financial interests in Parliament and those of their spouses, dependents and permanent companions every year.

    According (Inter-Parliamentary Union) –

    Ministerial Codes of Conduct usually require members of Parliament or State Legislature to disclose their interests concerning:-

    • Tax returns
    • Ownership interest in a business
    • Sources of patrimonial income
    • Real estate interests
    • Investments
    • Offices and/or directorships held
    • Sources of income of business of a partner or shareholder
    • Creditor indebtedness
    • Leases and other contacts with public entities
    • Retainers
    • Compensated representation before public entities
    • Fees and honoraria
    • Professional or occupational licenses held
    • Reimbursement of travel expenses from private sources
    • Deposits in financial institutions
    • Cash surrender value of insurance
    • Private employer or nature of private employment
    • Professional services rendered
    • Identification of trusts by trustee
    • Identification of trusts by beneficiary
    • Names of immediate family members
    • Financial interests of spouse

    This information should be open and transparent to the public for robust scrutiny and criticism.

    The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund will come knocking at the door of Barbados in the next 2 years forcing STRUCTURAL MONETARY ADJUSTMENT and a radical overhaul of its current economic system.

    One way or the other, Barbados will have to step up and be accountable as the global economic picture worsens and balance of payments can’t be met and the economy contracts from socioeconomic rigor mortis.

    It is time for the current government to get its house in order – the writing is on the wall…

  50. After waiting for decades to become PM – The Right Honorable (am I allowed to say that… oops) David Thompson ought to have been strategically poised to really make a historic difference to the nation of Barbados.

    As a political clone of the late Tom Adams and a tour de force of the late, great leader Errol Walton Barrow – one would have assumed that our PM would have had the “foundations of the prophets” to build on in creating a strong, prosperous, egalitarian society.

    Well, it seems as if I sure got that wrong!

    Is it too late for our PM to pull these horses back seeing they have already bolted out the stables like Usain in a 100m dash?

    The jury is out on that one…

    What I will say is this – for our government to instill a modicum of trust back into the electorate, will call for a solid enactment of policies which will allow for greater transparency, integrity and accountability….

    Bottom line – “misappropriation, embezzlement, bribery, kickbacks and all forms of dubious, salacious behaviour must end NOW!!!

    Government must uphold the highest standards of moral integrity if we are to be taken seriously as a democratic society.

  51. Anonlegal


    Let me be clear, I am not taking a “position” on an issue . I was just seeking to explain the Law so that no one labours under any misconceptions.

    It was said (in colourful language) that I misinterpreted certain provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. I merely asked for a response as to how those “interpretations” were incorrect.

  52. Themis

    Can you BFP point to a single court decision in Barbados which was influenced by politics?

  53. Cliverton not signed in

    Ronja Juman

  54. Cliverton not signed in

    Roy Morris

  55. Cliverton not signed in

    Paul Vaughn

  56. Cliverton not signed in

    Nitin Amersey

  57. Cliverton not signed in

    Kingsland Estates

  58. A Mottley Group

    Financial irresponsibility

    Can you imagine that after 14 years at the helm of a Government, Opposition Members of Parliament are asking questions about unfinished projects?

    The question from Member of Parliament for St. Thomas, Cynthia Forde, regarding an unfinished road in Jackson, revealed the untenable position that the Rural Development Commission (RDC) has found itself.

    Minister Sinckler was quick to point out the problems associated with the completion of that particular project, along with 43 other road projects.

    The decision of the Arthur administration to “jump start” 44 road projects at the same time has compromised the financial integrity of the RDC.

    The irresponsible financial action on the part of the former administration assisted in helping Barbadian voters to rid the country of their inept political management style.

    What would compel a Government to simultaneously commit taxpayers to 44 road projects at the same time?

    These roads have millions of dollars outstanding that led to an investigation in funds disbursed and owed. It is this type of action that has led to the disintegration of state institutions and a break down in the morale of public servants.

    This irresponsible financial action of the Barbados Labour Party defined their priorities.

    Their action was located in political expediency as they sought to give voters the impression that they were busy.

    The reality is that there is currently “no money to finish it” or other roads as left by the last administration.

    This follows on the heels of the Ministerial Statement on the St. Joseph Hospital Commission of Inquiry, which the Barbados Labour Party engaged over a decade ago.

    Yet again, we have witnessed the financial irresponsibility of the Arthur administration.

    A sum of 1.6 million dollars was allocated by the then Cabinet in 1998.

    Ten years later and some 3.5 million dollars down the road, the Report is completed.

    This was done in an effort to show up and ridicule a gentleman who has come to be known as the best Minister of Health this country has ever had.

    Senator Branford Taitt has lived to see the fruits of his labour pay dividends.

    He continues to serve this country in the Senate as President and is a mentor for many of our young Democratic Labour Party Members of Parliament.

    There can be no doubt that financial irresponsibility was the hallmark of the former administration.

    They have left a financial mess that we are now asked to correct and restore financial appropriateness.

    Can you imagine that they now sit on Opposition benches giving Barbadians the impression that they care about transparency and accountability?

    They have bastardised the image of the public service and its institutional fabric in the name of political expediency.

    We appreciate that we must continue to deliver in the face of the financial mayhem left for us to clean up.

    It is clear that the Arthur administration was good at camouflaging reality.

    They performed excellent on the world stage with little care for the consequences of their actions.

    We intend to restore financial prudence in our political actions as we go about strengthening our safety net. We will continue to deliver as we have done since coming to office.

    Our policies will help to create Pathways to Progress as we build a better Barbados.

  59. Given these blaring misappropriations, lack of parliamentary oversight, maladministration and the scandalous mismanagement of public funds – the question I would like answered, is anyone going to be held accountable for this fiasco? Is anyone going to JAIL* over this? Or will this be another Shakespearean display of “Much Ado About Nothing”?

    From the vantage point where many like myself who live outside of Barbados are looking on and seeing our so-called system of Parliamentary democracy relegated to nothing more than an a post-colonial type African autocracy or dictatorship where the power elite pilfer, steal, embezzle and rob the coffers of public funds to exegete their salacious lifestyle while bearing no accountability for their diabolical actions.

    Now the so-called “MONEY has supposedly run out – what will happen to the unfinished public works projects?

    Will the government be raising taxes on the middle class while the rich refuse to pay their fair share?

    Will we go cap in hand to international lending institutions for bailout funds as we continue to grow our exponential debt burden while saddling our kids with foreign balance of payments which will be impossible to repay?

    Meantime, where will the government be cutting its public services and who is going to feel the pinch first? Will ministers, permanent secretaries and high-flying consultants take a pay-cut for the public good, or will the “fat-cats” continue in their vein of wanton excess, greed and not giving a fart about anyone else?

    Two years in and it ain’t looking good guys!!! Somebody need to start telling the truth…

    Remember last year as the Stock market went into free-fall, Iceland almost sank into the cold waters of the Atlantic Ocean where the EU governments had to step in to save the day while banks got nationalized and the currency was virtually worth nothing.

    The Governor of the Central Bank along with the minister of finance can only cook the books for so long – sooner or later the inevitable socioeconomic fragmentation will occur…

    The Next Move –

    The IMF…. and I don’t mean Impossible Mission Force!!!

  60. seriously, they all lie. Political campaigns are built on creating the cleanest house of lies. Why should we expect anything different once ppl are in office?

  61. cat eyes

    Can BFP please tell us the truth about Allard????? BFP the self-appointed washed in the blood truth purveyors.

  62. Yeah! Another Sandiford involved in politics !!


    I wonder how many people of Irene’s last campaigning team she will have with her next time around.They saw through her and steared CLEAR ever since. Let her bus-in people to do her house to house for her.
    Must stop looking down that nose speaking at people.
    But leh she keep doing wha’ she doin’ in ‘ Health; she will soon catch a “Fitt”