USA Today Picks Up On Barbados Free Press Corruption Article – Hit Meter Goes Wild!

USA Today Corruption Barbados

“Barbados: Corruption Legislation Needed”

“It doesn’t matter how many tens of millions of dollars are missing at the end of a major project, no one ever goes to jail”: Barbados Free Press suggests that part of the problem is that “Barbados lacks the laws and the codified standards necessary to prosecute public officials for common acts of corruption.”

… from the USA Today web story Barbados: Corruption Legislation Needed and BFP’s article Tens of Millions Missing In Audit Of Barbados ABC Highway – But No Person Will Be Held Accountable

Welcome to our USA Today Visitors!

Barbados Free Press is receiving thousands of extra visitors today thanks in large measure to coverage from USA Today – the widest circulation of any newspaper in the United States and second worldwide only to the #1 English language paper in the world – The Times of India.

For the last two days our article about the tens of millions of dollars that vanished during the building of the ABC Highway has been resonating with readers in Barbados and around the world. Harvard University’s Global Voices featured the article in various international forums including Governance, Law, Media and Politics – but the visitor rocket really took off when none other than USA Today posted a paragraph and a link to the story on the newspaper’s website.

So a big welcome to our thousands of extra visitors from USA Today and Harvard’s Global Voices.

Barbados is a wonderful country full of good people – but we have this one huge problem with a long-established culture of corruption and entitlement in politics and government service. BFP and other reform-minded folks believe that the only way the culture will change is if the international community starts examining the Barbados government’s actions, inaction and policies with a critical eye in decisions regarding Barbados investments, property ownership and business deals.

Barbados: A Country That Does Not Believe In Laws – Or The Rule Of Law

The reality of doing business in Barbados is often a shock to foreigners whose only impression of our country comes through positive press coverage by their own country’s news and entertainment media.

What foreign investors don’t know is that scores of professional journalists from some of the world’s most respected news organisations visit Barbados every year as guests of Barbados government agencies for tourism and investment.

Of course they write nice things about our country! And of course they stay away from contentious issues that threaten the carefully crafted image of Barbados as “Little Britain”.

International visitors to Barbados Free Press are usually shocked when they learn that Barbados government officials are not prohibited from accepting gifts of any value from land developers or companies that receive government contracts. Foreigners who purchase houses or lands are often flabbergasted when they realize that our Chaotic & Corrupt Land Titles System Makes For Risky Real Estate Transactions In Barbados. (Some folks have had to wait 20 or 30 YEARS to get a deed – if then!)

Buyers of Barbados condominiums are sometimes unpleasantly surprised (horrified!) to discover that Barbados lacks any laws that realistically prevent a developer from spending your money as he pleases and leaving you high and dry without your condo. Relying on our Barbados courts to solve your condo problem? Ha! Talk to Canadian John DeSanti who has been waiting 19 years for his condo!

In Barbados, Rule of Law means whatever those in power want it to mean. God help you if your land deal or business agreement collapses and you have to go to the courts! You are just as likely to discover that the judges, lawyers and government officials you deal with are land-speculators themselves and are in positions of great power in a country with a population of fewer than three hundred thousand people. Consider our article Corporate Records Involving Chief Justice Simmons Missing From Barbados Government Files!

A word to wise international investors – if you have any kind of a legal dispute in Barbados, don’t count on being able to access any government records as evidence. You see, if some big-up is involved in the court case, those government records will go missing until you leave the island with your tail between your legs.

When the highest judge in the land is a former Attorney General and Cabinet Minister, your chances of a fair trial are about the same as winning big money in the lottery.

Not to mention corrupt land expropriation! Here’s one for you: Government expropriates privately-owned land for “public housing’, then Government Minister Gline Clarke built a house for his mistress upon the same land!

No Integrity Legislation exists in Barbados. As a result, powerful Government Ministers like Mr. Clarke do not have to declare their assets or explain how it is that, as a Member of the Cabinet that approves the expropriation of privately-owned lands, a Minister of Government comes to live upon a choice building lot that was forceably taken from an owner – using the full power of the Government.

Integrity, transparency and accountability are just words to Barbados politicians, but to fellow taxpayers the failure of successive Barbados governments to implement and enforce ITAL (Integrity, Transparency and Accountability Legislation) says “corruption”.

To international investors, the refusal of Barbados governments to define and regulate obvious conflicts of interest by elected and appointed officials says “higher risk”. After all, nothing says “banana republic” like the fact that Barbados citizens have an expectation and an acceptance that government officials can become millionaires while in office.

49 Comments

Filed under Barbados

49 responses to “USA Today Picks Up On Barbados Free Press Corruption Article – Hit Meter Goes Wild!

  1. Kleptomaniac

    Why shouldn’t I become rich while in political officer in Barbados? Owen Arthur did!

  2. Hants

    “USA Today Picks Up On Barbados Free Press Corruption Article – Hit Meter Goes Wild”

    How many hits so far BFP….1 million today?

    Imagine if CNN picks up the story.

  3. RN

    This is great, BFP.

    The world is watching…

  4. PiedPiper

    Wow, absolutely amazing BFP. Keep up the good work!

  5. cq8

    I don’t know how you do it BFP. Why should anyone in the USA care about little ‘ol Bim? They shouldn’t care but the #2 newspaper in the world did one of your stories. Not bad!

    How many visitors? Please tell us.

  6. J

    Barbados Free Press wrote “Barbados is a wonderful country full of good people – but we have this one huge problem with a long-established culture of corruption and entitlement in politics and government service. “And in business and the private sector”

    And since I like to be helpful to BFP I’ll add “and in business and the private sector”

    I would not want the world to believe that it is only bl*ck politicians and civil servants that are corrupt. I must let the world know that the wh*te Barbadians in business and the private sector also have their own long-established culture of corruption and entitlement.

    Maybe USA Today will ask some hard questions of the Barbados business and private sector and will pick this up and run with it too.

  7. Red Lake Lassie

    Attention USA Today readers: Can you imagine what the USA would be without conflict of interest rules and freedom of information legislation? With no rules (like Barbados) anything goes.

  8. Red Lake Lassie

    J is right about the business owners except that the politicians won’t put up any rules against corruption.

  9. Jason

    Private citizens and businesses cannot be successful at corruption unless and until government workers take the bribes. Those bribes keep coming because they are not illegal except under the most narrow of circumstances. If I receive a million dollar contract from the government, there is no law to prevent me from giving a Christmas present of a car to the official’s wife.

  10. Hants

    Which states in the USA have conflict of interest rules and freedom of information legislation?

    Just asking?

  11. Facts

    This issue is “a dead horse” at the moment.

  12. Facts

    What can integrity legislation do when people register assets in their families’/friends’ names?

    The issue: A dead horse!

  13. Johnny Postle

    Gosh I cannot wait for a set of these thiefing, lying politicians to get their just recompense. Rather it it be D or B justice must be served. It is time that the big boys club feel the full weight of the law. And I hope that it is not Bajan laws because 25 years ain’t saying a pang. I want some of the American laws, which can result a sentence of 125 years. This would be good for the crooks and all of their cronies.

  14. victor

    See what happened in the UK over the past few months, when MPs’ expenses became open to everyone to see what they were spending their expenses on, thanks to the press. Stupid things and much robbing going on, thanks to the freedom of info act for discovering this. Some are going to court being investigated by ScotIand yard, incIuding some in the House of Iords. Now they set themseIves up with a deaI new and better, imagine; each MP can have up to £9,000/annum without any receipts. they have about 400 MPs do the math.

  15. Anonlegal

    BFP states:

    “International visitors to Barbados Free Press are usually shocked when they learn that Barbados government officials are not prohibited from accepting gifts of any value from land developers or companies that receive government contracts.”

    BFP keeps saying that Barbados government officials are not prohibited from accepting gifts from land developers or companies that receive government contracts.

    This statement is misleading because Barbados does have legislation in place that prohibits government officials from corruptly receiving gifts from persons bidding for government contracts. The Act is called the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was passed in 1929 and is very similar to the Prevention of Corruption Act of the UK (1906).

    Now I think that we can all agree that the point that you are trying to make is as follows:

    The Barbadian law that prohibits government officials from corruptly accepting gifts from persons bidding for government contracts is not effective.

    From what I gather, BFP wants to see the Act amended so that it can more effectively prevent corruption. This sounds like a noble cause. Considering that the UK act is similarly worded maybe legislators there should amend their act as well.

    However, I am curious. What amendments are BFP recommending?

    The relevant sections of the Act are below:

    Section 3(1) of the prevention of corruption Act states:

    Any person who, by himself or by or in conjunction with any person, corruptly solicits or receives or agrees to 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 6 of the Act states:

    A person convicted on indictment of a misdemeanour under this Act, where the matter or transaction in relation to which the offence was committed was a contract, or a proposal for a contract, with the Crown or any Government Department or any public body, or a sub-contract to execute any work comprised in such a contract, shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding seven nor less than three years.

    Section 7 of the Act 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.

  16. kiki

    – Hit Meter Goes Wild!

    that’s a blatant commercialism FAIL

    http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/fancy-make-up/

  17. crossroads

    Who implements laws on the book.. uh …politrickians…..and if they are all black..so what? get on with the issue J. I’m sure people world wide would use their common sense and not assume its only the goverment of the day thats being corrupt.

  18. Duppy Lizard

    @J

    I don’t see anywhere BFP talking about bl*ck politicians but right on cue you have to introduce wh*ite business people into the equation. It never f*cking stops.

    A word of caution for all the new visitors to this site, Barbadians are OBSESSED with the colour of everyone’s skin, more so I think than anywhere else on the planet.

  19. Well things are heating up on the BFP BLOG*…

    “Duppy Lizard” cussing over “race”… “Victor” all over British MP’s allowances…. “Johnny Postle” wants some Bernie Maddoff style punishments handed down…. “Facts” think we are kicking a “dead horse”… “Kleptomaniac” feeding in a dose of serious sarcasm and all the rest with their individual compliments, gripes and grouses…

    GUYS let’s keep this thing REAL* – Barbados is about BAJANS* (Red and Yellow, Black & Light)…

    The “imported” millionaires and billionaires does NOT serve the public good ( only the interests of the glitterati like themselves or the politicians and elites who can stroke and smother their pompous inflated half-baked egos)…

    For the GODDARD’s, SEALE’s et al, they and their DNA* (Damn Nasty Ancestors) to quote the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan (whom Britain refuses to still give him a visa) owes us a “serious apology” for past inhuman transgressions, and (for African Americans -REPARATIONS in the form of 40 acres & a MULE – which today equates to somewhere in the vicinity of 25 million for each man, woman and child).

    In a country where pale-skin Bajans – being a minority of less 1% of a nation as against 98.9% BLACK yet they control 80% of the country’s wealth and resources – for me that smells of economic apartheid!!!

    When COW WILLIAMS* and his ilk are no longer able to wield and deal and other so-called “pale” skin Bajans are allowed to squeeze men like Neville Rowe out of business, adding insult to injury where Black business men could not compete with the BRYDENS et al who monopolized the pharmaceutical trade for decades and where R.L SEALE and others will squeeze BLACK importers who want to fairly compete in regards to certain goods and services – that smell of socioeconomic apartheid….

    When politicians continue to lick the backsides of the rich and infamous while laying a truncheon to the back of its own people – I must ask if there is any difference between Barbados and Apartheid South Africa of the 28 years of Mandela’s imprisonment….

    I don’t give two monkeys what goes on Wall Street (though the ripple effects Broad Street ultimately)… I don’t give a flying fish what happens in the House of Commons with a bunch of dishonorable bastards who call themselves “honorable” gentlemen and ladies…

    My arguments are simple…. As someone who grew up with a grandmother and understand the age-old maxim that says, “GOD HELPS THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES” – then why are we as a people, a nation of wise, educated and inspired folks still waiting at the trough of public consensus for others who are clearly “children of a lesser God” to do something for us that we must do for ourselves…

    Do we think that if USA TODAY runs a few B.S lines which hardly anyone will read and want to do anything about – will really change anything?

    We have to take responsibility for our own plight!!! We must be the captains of our own destiny… We are either “strict guardians of our heritage” or this is just another colossal exercise “Bovine Fecal Matter”…
    *************************

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Two paragraphs here were removed as they called for acts that could be seen by some as illegal. You will not attempt to use this forum like that again Mr. Blackett. Last warning.

  20. Marcus not signed in

    Hello Anonlegal,

    BFP wrote about this many times.

    Firstly, no one has ever been charged in Barbados under the current law. No one.

    The reason for that is that the law is so narrowly restricted (deliberately by the politicians who wrote it, of course) so that charges are impossible. Therefore, there is no law. Not just no “effective” law. There is no law. There is a sham pretense but no real law. It was set up this way.

    Under the current sham, if someone says “Approve the land use change and I’ll give you money for your children’s schooling and a car for your wife” it is an offense.

    To charge people, everyone would have to confess “I did it and it was my intent when I took (or offered) the money that I would corruptly do that in exchange for approving the land use change.”

    Stupes. No one going to do that!

    That is why government officials and land developers become “friends” over the years. A land developer is then able to “loan” the money for the government official to send his children over and away to university. The government official’s wife is hired as a “consultant” to the land developer – never works yet drives a car leased by the land development company.

    Then a Prime Minister can have each one of the elected Members of Parliament flown over and away for new wardrobes all charged as “gifts” from well-wishing friends who just happen to do business with the government.

    And that is how Prime Minister Thompson can accept a “gift” of free use of business jets from Leroy Parris, then turn around and give public money to Clico while hiding the details from the public and protecting Parris from scrutiny.

    But it is not just about criminal charges of corruption. Even without that tool, the government could sue people in civil court for corrupt practices and recover the monies – or be awarded damages for gross neglect.

    They never do that though because the DLP and the BLP have a gentleman’s agreement that only words will be spoken – no one will actually be held to account.

    That is the agreement that has been in place all this time and we citizens want our country back.

    Government officials and government contractors should be restricted to a maximum of two gifts a year of a value under $50 each. Government officials should by law be required to report all gifts. You want to work for the government in a position of authority with purchasing power? Your immediate family members should also be restricted from receiving gifts from government suppliers. Don’t like it? Tough. The current free-for-all has only empowered the piggies at the trough.

  21. BFP

    Self promotion is designed to reinforce success. It is the same thing that you do when you use the name “kiki” and use BFP as your forum to direct readers to your ideas and your website.

    And yes, BFP does it rather well and sometimes – as in the case of USA Today & in the past with CNN – the world notices in a big way and many folks from all over come to visit and read our articles.

    We make no apology for promoting BFP and we make no apology for making the political elites uncomfortable with the worldwide attention to their corrupt little world. We want our country back!

  22. If I were Dale Marshall

    It is my sincere hope that Lindsay Holders fact and statistical base opposition to illegal immigration, and to freedom of movement at this time, being an economist, can influence another economist by the name of Owen Arthur as he seeks to regain leadership of the BLP.

    Adrian this gigantic idiot George Brathwaite is yet to come to terms with the election result of Jan 15, while he sits and writes his nonsense little does he know the extent of the in fighting within his party camp, with Owing openly stating that he will retake the leadership of the BLP sooner than most would think or expect, more importantly is that there are reports flying around that it will not be a difficult process because EVERYONE within the BLP dislike Mottley’s style and method of Opposition..

    Reports also are that his move to emerge as the leader again will be a relatively easy one given the fact that just about every person knocking around the BLP have already blistered Mottley with curse from new comers like Dalton Lovell to more aged ones like Lynette Eastmond to ones who are known to love being nasty mouthed like Liz Thompson, they have all crossed swords with her recently as has been recently well documented in the media as per the blow out with herself and Eastmond.

    To add insult to injury when Rawle Eastmond could find no other person to pick and found no one worthy of the job of Constituency Council Chairman in St James North from his BLP people but he choose instead to appoint a sitting DLP Senator to nominate to this position it speaks volumes about the direction or lack thereof direction that Mottley has been able to show to the BLP as an Opposition Party.

    Reports reaching me state that any challenge that is made for the leadership of the BLP will be met with a joyous yes by all and sundry from within the BLP.

    Also of concern, it appears as if Dale Marshall is positioning for the role of Deputy Opposition leader and second to Owing but really my belief is that Kerrie Symmonds would fill this post much better but he has to sort out his maritial affairs and his office help affairs as well as settle his differences with the money he colllected for citizenship for Dr Boolani, only after he has cleaned up his mess will he be taken seriously.

    Just to show you the difference in focus and mind set of these two political parties both held fund raising events last evening in the case of the BLP and Mottley hers was a $ 250.00 ticket price that the proceeds go straight to her campaign funding program and attracts the elite of Barbados party scene, her major difference this year is that she was not able to divert public tax payers funding towards her fancy party for she and her ilk, in the past tax payers monies were used in no small way from projects like The VECO PRISON PROJECT, THE VECO OIL STORAGE PROJECT, THE DANOS 3S ROAD WORKS PROJECT, where in the case of VECO and the Prison it is a known fact that she collected $ 250,000.00 in supposely ticket sales and was paid this money out taxpayers hard earned money.

    On the other hand the DLP hosted their cruise last evening that saw a massive gathering of souls on board the Harbour Master paying the sum of $ 45.00 for their four hour’s of cruise, notice the difference right away in the prices and who the two parties really catered for with these two events, each cent for this DLP cruise came for the citizens of Barbados no foreign company money involved and the make up of the DLP cruise was rank and file members of the party who came out to support the fundraising effort to give school books and uniforms to those who need the help the most in our society . this yet again another knock against the BLP as the DLP will use their funds to help the community whereas Mottley will use hers to help bring her dream of her political MOTTLEY NAME AND ENTITLEMENT nearer home and into her coffers.

    So yes Adrian you are right he may well have another master to serve very shortly, also bear in mind that the articles being written by Mr Holder also are co authored or should I say assisted with the help of no lesser a person I am told as Mr Jerome Walcott so the plot thickens

  23. I was not aware that I was given a “1st”, “2nd” or “3” warning about the tone of posts…

    But with all due respect, in the words of Peter Lemesurier, author of The Armageddon Script:

    “Their script is now written, subject only to last-minute editing and stage-directions. The stage itself, albeit in darkness, is almost ready. Down in the pit, the subterranean orchestra is already tuning up. The last-minute, walk-on parts are even now being filled. Most of the main actors, one suspects, have already taken up their roles. Soon it will be time for them to come on stage, ready for the curtain to rise. The time for action will have come.”

  24. kiki

    Yes Mr BFP you are too true
    have you heard the Victory Dance
    http://555dubstreet.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/victory-dance/
    it’s very good

  25. John

    Facts
    August 2, 2009 at 5:32 am
    What can integrity legislation do when people register assets in their families’/friends’ names?

    The issue: A dead horse!
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/20051130-9999-1n30duke.html

    Here is a situation where the wives of the bribed officials held the condos in Florida ….. yet the law was able to bring the officials to account …. it really isn’t hard ….. if there is a will …. no rocket science involved.

    ……. Google judge, bribe wives for more info!!!!

    …. and then there is the more recent one where law enforcement held all sorts of people in New Jersey as this extract from an article will show.

    “Once again, my home state has been thrust into the limelight in a massive corruption case that involves a failed philanthropist named Solomon Dwek who lived, appropriately enough in a town called Deal (which is, as any Jerseyite knows, “down the shore”), a guy from Brooklyn named Levy-Izhak Rosenbaum who could get you a slightly used pancreas for a good price, a bunch of rabbis who laundered money through charities they controlled, cash from Israel, bankers in Switzerland, the mayors of Hoboken and Jersey City (where it is fair to say this case is not the first to offer a whiff of scandal), a member of Governor Jon Corzine’s cabinet and a host of other bit players who you might find milling around catching a smoke outside the Vince Lombardi Service Area on the New Jersey Turnpike.”

    … and if you are wondering about the reference to Dwek here is what the article had to say:

    “Dwek, (pronounced in much the same way Barbara Walters would pronounce “dreck” which is the Yiddish word for shit), is now somewhere in the witness protection system (hopefully for his sake in the custody of Marshall Mary Shannon as played in “In Plain Sight” by the irresistible Mary McCormack.) Seeking to save his own skin after getting caught floating a bad check for $25 million, our guy Solomon-the-wise…er…guy, started helping the Feds round up corrupt pols.”

    ….. Google Rabbi, Mayor, corruption for more.

    Nowhere is immune from corruption,

    …. but some places actually do something about it

    … and I suspect the ability to act is related to some form of integrity legislation.

    …. no dead horse ….. if the intent is to make it live.

  26. John

    … oops, my last comment used the s word and is being moderated,

    … but it is part of a quote from an article.

    Apologies Auntie Moses.

  27. West Side Davie

    Good for you free press for getting attention from USA Today and drawing attention to the sorry state of affairs in Barbados. Prime Minister Thompson promised to make integrity legislation law by 100 days after January 2008.

    As BFP is so fond of saying: THOMPSON LIED

  28. Anonjam

    “The reason for that is that the law is so narrowly restricted (deliberately by the politicians who wrote it, of course) so that charges are impossible”

    You keep saying this. What I am asking you to do is to look at the words of the act (specifically section 3) and tell me what makes it so narrow? What specific words make the Act narrowly restricted? I know that it may seem unreasonable to ask you to interpret a piece of legislation because you are not a lawyer. It is patently evident that no one who moderates BFP has any legal training whatsoever. But you are claiming to understand the weaknesses of this law, presumably after some extensive analysis.

    I am asking you to look at the words and explain to me how you have come to the conclusion that this act is narrowly restricted.

    You state as follows:
    “Under the current sham, if someone says “Approve the land use change and I’ll give you money for your children’s schooling and a car for your wife” it is an offense.
    To charge people, everyone would have to confess “I did it and it was my intent when I took (or offered) the money that I would corruptly do that in exchange for approving the land use change.”

    Let’s take your scenario and apply the relevant sections (after actually looking at the words). We agree that section 3 makes it an offence for “Joe Bajan”, a government employee, to corruptly receive money for his son’s education from a person bidding for a government contract if this money was an inducement to award the contract.

    We should also be in agreement that section 7 states that if Joe is charged with this offence and the prosecution shows that Joe has actually received the money from the contractor, it is up to Joe to prove that it was not received as an inducement to award the contract. That is to say, Joe has to show evidence that the money was paid and received for some other legitimate reason. This “reverse burden” makes it easier to prosecute Joe and therefore a confession is not necessary to find him guilty of the offence.

    If Joe’s wife receives a car and this car was an inducement for Joe to award the contract. She is guilty of an offence. There is no reverse burden specifically imposed on her because she is not a government employee. However, a jury may be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty if the prosecution can show:

    (1) that the contractor or one of his agents paid for the vehicle;

    (2) that she accepted it; and

    (3) that a contract was, at some point, awarded to the said contractor by Joe.

    Once again, no confession is necessary (although such a confession would be helpful).

    I know BFP is not satisfied with this. You want more. And your interest in transparency is noble. However, this problem may be solved with a simple amendment to any of the sections that create offences under this act (and by the way, there are several offences created by this act).

    So I am merely asking BFP, who seems to have a complete understanding of the weaknesses of this act, to make suggestions as to what words should be taken out or added to the above-mentioned sections less “restrictive”.

    Oh, and by the way, you said that the politicians who wrote the act deliberately wrote it in a non-enforceable way. Do you know who those politicians are? If you know their motivations, I assume you know their identities.

  29. BFP

    You are thick today, aren’t you?

    There is never any way to prove in a court of law that the gift was in exchange for the giving of the contract. It was designed that way for a purpose.

    That is why Thompson promised to implement real integrity legislation that included conflicts of interest standards (like prohibiting gift giving over a certain amount etc), asset declarations and FOI to allow the public to monitor their elected and appointed officials.

    It is still legal for a government official to issue a contract to their own company!

    Thompson promised to change all that – including declaring a Ministerial Code Of Conduct IMMEDIATELY upon his election.

    Thompson lied.

    Stop trying to support a damned liar like Thompson and the rest of his gang who are now thoroughly enjoying all the entitlements of power without standards of conduct or methods of public oversight.

  30. Anonlegal

    BFP states:
    “There is never any way to prove in a court of law that the gift was in exchange for the giving of the contract.”

    I assume that the comment above was for me. It seems that you are essentially ignoring what I have written. That’s fine. I was only suggesting that you make some suggestions as to what specifically can be done to the act that we have right now to cure its ineffectiveness.

    You also state:

    “Stop trying to support a damned liar like Thompson and the rest of his gang who are now thoroughly enjoying all the entitlements of power without standards of conduct or methods of public oversight.”

    I am not a supporter of either party. I am just a person seeking to clarify the Law.

  31. BFP

    Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree then.

    Meanwhile, the DLP piggies continue their feast with the knowledge that no law stands in their way, and that their leader David Thompson isn’t about to keep his promise to implement any laws to stop the feeding at the public trough.

  32. BFP

    Reverse burden,? Ha! Bullcarp!

    Prime Minister Thompson received free jet rides and campaign donations from Clico. Now he’s giving them our money. There is your case. Thompson gave the public money in exchange for the jet rides and campaign donations. Put him on trial. Go ahead.

    Hell… no one has ever been charged with the law you speak of. Never will be either.

  33. passin thru

    BFP don’t waste your breath on the DLP-BLP apologist. If the idiot wants to argue that there is nothing wrong with things as they are then he is an enemy of the Bajan people.

  34. Anonlegal

    “Those bribes keep coming because they are not illegal except under the most narrow of circumstances. If I receive a million dollar contract from the government, there is no law to prevent me from giving a Christmas present of a car to the official’s wife.”

    Jason what are these narrow circumstances of which you speak?

    Section 3(2) states:

    Any person who, by himself or by or in conjunction with any other person, corruptly gives, promises or offers any gift, loan, fee, reward or advantage whatsoever to any person, whether for the benefit of that person or of another person, as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise on account of any member, officer or servant of the Crown or of any 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.

    This section makes it an offence for you, the recipient or potential recipient of a million dollar contract from the government, to do any of the following things:

    (a) Offer a car to an official’s wife as an inducement for the award of the contract

    (b) Give a car to an official’s wife as an inducement for the award of the contract

    (c) Promise to give a car to an official’s wife as an inducement for the award of the contract

    Those are three circumstances in which a contractor would be guilty of an offence. This list isn’t exhaustive. There are more circumstances where a person can be charged under this section.

    The common response from some posters will most likely be: That is impossible to prove in a court of Law.

    However, I ask you to put yourself in the seat of a juror. What if the prosecution presented evidence showing:

    (a) that the contractor did not know the official’s wife well (or at all);
    (b) that the contractor or his agent wrote a cheque (or paid cash) for the car in question; and
    (c) that the contract was awarded to the contractor even though other contractors offered better contractual terms.

    If this type of evidence was presented to you without any believable explanation, what would your verdict be? Would you render a not guilty verdict because the contractor did not confess?

    I am not defending the Act, but I just don’t think people really understand what it says.

  35. BFP

    So I guess David Thompson promised Integrity legislation and a Ministerial code for no good reason, huh?

    Well, that settles that, then! We can now return to our regularly scheduled programming… and BFP will never mention Integrity Legislation again because we are already well served!

    Thank you,

  36. Hants

    No way BFP. You have a duty to the Barbadian people to continue your demands for Integrity legislation and a Ministerial code.

    That is your self imposed mandate.

    Some things in life you have to wait for.

    Enjoy Kadooment.

  37. Anon

    Wow, BFP gone wild.

  38. Themis

    Anonlegal and Anonjam, why are you wasting your time with numbskulls who have set in stone a misguided perception of the law in their tiny minds?

  39. Anonlegal

    David Thompson did promise integrity legislation.
    Barbados still does not have an act similar to Trinidad’s Integrity in Public life Act. There is nothing wrong with BFP taking the Prime Minister to task on that.

    Such an act would require Government officials to declare personal assets etc.

    Now let me explain something. And I am not defending anyone. The Inegrity in Public Life Act of Trinidad and Tobago is inconsistent with section 4 of its constitution which gives a person the right to respect in his private life. However, the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago allows for an act to be inconsistent if that act is passed by 3/5ths of the members of the house and senate.

    Section 11(b) of the constitution of Barbados is very similar to section 4 of the Trinidadian constitution. However our constitution does not make any allowance for an act to be inconsistent with section 11(b). Therefore, to enact Integrity Legislation in Barbados (similar to that in Trinidad) one would need to amend the constitution. Amending section 11(b) of the constitution will require votes from two-thirds of parliament in support.

    In short, enacting integrity legislation that is similar to that in Trinidad is more complicated than enacting a normal piece of legislation. The BLP and the DLP will have to be on same page in order to implement such an act.

    So David Thompson probably promised something that he could not guarantee.

  40. art

    I have another question
    See that big crane in Warrens, is that the starting of the new government building(s)?

    Where were the tenders, how many offers were considered, who were they?
    Was this another negotiated contract like the road?
    Who did the plans?
    What is the scope of the work?
    Who is building it?
    Who granted/who signed the contract?

    Road?

    Wuh really happening? Wey de swing really is? Dat is where the ital is gone. I fax it to yuh.

  41. BFP

    Oh… Thompson couldn’t declare tomorrow that no government contracts are to be issued to corporations or businesses owned by government employees? You know… the “Ministerial Code” ?

    Of course he could.

    He promised it would be implemented “IMMEDIATELY”.

    He lied. He wasn’t mistaken. He out and out lied. Same with FOI.

  42. passin thru

    So that is the DLP’s new strategy for integrity legislation and FOI and the Minister’s Code and conflict of interest rules…. “we already got that covered”????

    !!!!!!

    So help me God, I will vote for any independent candidate next time. No BLP no DLP. I will punish the two big parties and vote for anything or any one next time. Put a dead cat on the ballot and I will vote for it. Anyone but DLP or BLP.

  43. J

    Marcus wrote “And that is how Prime Minister Thompson can accept a “gift” of free use of business jets from Leroy Parris, then turn around and give public money to Clico while hiding the details from the public and protecting Parris from scrutiny.”

    I respond: The people will give the PM his just desserts at the next election.

    The people ain’t foolish you know.

    And the people are not friends with the PM nor with Mr. Parris.

    And the people will treat them the way we all treat people who are not our friends.

  44. J

    passing thru wrote “then he is an enemy of the Bajan people.”

    Explain ya self.

    If somebody does not agree with Barbados Free Press how does that make that person an enemy?

    Explain yaself

  45. Half Right

    Narrow focus on legal phraseology in regard to the Corruption Act will do little or nothing to cure its ineffectiveness because it would do nothing to render a fix to the umbrella ethic supported by our leaders.

    The ethic in our country does not support edits to the Corruption Act because DLP or BLP political will does not and cannot support it. If they did, it would strike at the very heart of their livelihoods.

    The desire here to “clarify the Law” promises to be a clerical exercise unless there is moral leadership that stands up and says enough is enough.

  46. “The desire here to “clarify the Law” promises to be a clerical exercise unless there is moral leadership that stands up and says enough is enough.”

    This is a powerful statement!!!

    Would you be kind enough to define “moral leadership”?

    God bless!!!

  47. Pingback: Seventeen Magazine picks up Barbados Free Press Rihanna articles « Barbados Free Press

  48. Pingback: Hello USA Today readers! « Barbados Free Press

  49. British citizen contemplating investing in a barbados condo…thankfully After reading this I am well informed that doing so would not be a wise decision.