Filed under Politics
Tagged as Barbados, Barbados Election, Barbados Politics
Both are crooks,There is but one God and two Devils,To Hell with the BLP and the DLP
When I first started reading these messages they were very positive and I really enjoyed them. Now because of their junk status I end up deleting more that I save!
Please see my blog on the Grenville Phillips post on the ‘third force’.
One other thing – I learned the other day what has probably been obvious to you for a long time. It is clear that there are BU people who make it their business to come on the BFP posts in order to ridicule. That is very sad. Some of them are lawyers, and really not very nice people, who seem now to enjoy ‘preferred’ status on BU. On the other hand, there are others who come and are as constructive as any other and who DO use their BU names. The sabotteurs do not – but their style is unmistakeable..
Real .World and real people , Even all in the Bible is not happy. Many died and killed and murdered .Many WARs. We dealing with Man,
If you want a happy or positive , write one .we will read yours.
189@ agree crooks
Quoting John Legend, ‘Everybody knows…’ that BU is the son of Anthony Bryan, owner of the Advocate, it is why he gets those unusual legal scoops even the Nation doesn’t list, um, ATB has 3 sons & this is one of the twin – David? Which is the same name as in BU, h’mmm!
Really? says RR with a look of amazement on his face. Funny, I know one of the sons and have spoken about the Free Presses to him…he has always expressed either ignorance or incredulity. So who is ‘David’ – the ‘many headed’ in his hydra-headed form? On legal scoops – some are total fabrications – but I do realise there’s a link with HH in Roebuck St – which explains the unmitigated vitriol against the former CJ and the obsequious fawning of the present one.
I love all the formality of the occasion including the colonial military outfits.
The dialogue is perfect and a little too painfully accurate
Hi Robert Ross
Don’t worry about those from BU and elsewhere who seek to divert the conversation here at BFP. They lost us all when they published that a murdered tourist was ‘white trash’.
No problem Robert… focus on the message that you want to communicate…
Two million visitors a year at BFP are happy to hear what you want to say.
No-one aint stopped me yet…LOL…and good luck to you!
People at BFP
Keep your focus on keeping this a free forum for free thinkers. Do not opine one way or the other for either of the major political parties and so avoid accusations of bias. If a party in or out of power does something wrong expose it. Keep the pols accountable for their decisions, actions and questionable deeds and deals! Don’t get into the raison d’etre or the philosophy of the BU or other publications.It benefits you little or none at all!
Don’t give away free publicity to your competition nor read in intrigue, malice or sinister agendas into what they publish. Intelligent, fair-minded readers will see thru these immediately and unerringly! Credit your readers, especially the loyal ones, with more intelligence than what you think and you will slowly earn respect and admiration for a publication that holds always to the high ground. From this constancy builds a foundation of credibility, dependability and reliability, the apogee of joiurnalism.
Teefs voted out, teefs voted in….mussee why i doe care.
David Bryan, organiser of Barbados Film Festival which had some character who did not pay bills and was almost extradited while here after presenting awards – Festival has not reared its head since, his twin brother is Richard and the eldest is ATB Jr also called Tony
The one I spoke to was Anthony who works at Faith FM. Do you have any knowledge of Faith btw? It does not seem to run on maximum power and there are blind spots all over the place. It is run by a Miss Padmore.
Faith FM -a radio station dedicated to the furtherance of mythology among simple minded island people
dear oh dear..
Yes I realise that. Mind, there are worse.
How does one going about keeping the forum free for free-thinkers? I understand what you’re endeavoring to convey quite well, and I applause your conscientious effort for emphasizing this point. However, in your efforts to remain a free-thinker, what standard of jugdment are you utilizing to determine what is bias or well grounded. You have said that, “If a party in or out of power does something wrong expose it.” But don’t you think that that is somewhat bias in itself? Because if you only accentuate the wrong-doing, and stay unmoved when a party is doing the right thing as far as the electorate in concern, does that send a hipocritical message?
My feeling is this, we should voice our approval when a party in power, meets its obligations to the electorate, and decry such actions that undermine the collective conscience ot the electorate. Now, it is important that we are cognizant of the fact that we are guided by our Customs, Institutions, and ways of Thinking. And even in our psychological probing it is difficult to transcend these prescribe convictions. Furthermore, we are unconsciously taught to think the way the majority do. And whether rightfully concieved, or or wrongfully interperted, we all are influence to some extent by the social dynamics of modern- culture. And finally, there is no such thing as “(intelligent fair- minded readers)”, we all view our world through the lens of bias, and narrow- ways of thinking.
The mere concept of free- thinking involves the unrestraint latitude of conflicting views I think . And for anyone to censor this in anyway, shape, or form, undermines the authenticity of intellectual freedom. In an open forum such as this, the multiplicity of diverse opinions in itself should conveys the true notion mental- freedom. But, I’m not simple minded to the fact, that in our modern times, we have to be mindful of those sensitive areas of concern; especially, in the atmosphere of political- correctness, ethnic, cultural, and racial cognoscibility. In other words, even though we are somewhat free to voice what our hearts dictates, or so we think. We have to be circumspect, with respect, to Defamation, Slander, and Libel when speak from emotions rather than reason. In our effort to given voice to our convictions and concerns, we sometime push beyond the periphery of what the laws allows. And as I said to Ross several weeks ago, intricately interfused within the civil-law are Rewards, and Punishments, or concrete consequences when one moves beyond the frontier of this notion.
You will be interested to know that one ‘Amused’, a lawyer and sabboteur, whom I suspected of being the latter, has pasted the conversation on this post on BU. It is to be found in the first ‘Tales from the Courts’ post which until last evening could not be accessed. It is now to be found as a link tin the second ‘Tales from the Courts’ post.
I am being upbraided on BU for not taking you to task on your attitude to the former Chief Justice. Though I have a fair idea what your attitude is, will you please publish something so that I can do this……if you see what I mean….err
Hello Robert Ross,
Our former PM David Thompson said that it was unethical for Simmons to accept the position of Chief Justice. We agree.
For other perspectives on former Chief Justice SIR David Simmons, try this…
Not interested in ‘stale’ posts. Nothing to discuss with others. But thanks anyway.
From what I have read elsewhere, the appointment of the CJ requires the approval of the Leader of the Opposition. As I say, I am simply repeating what I’ve read.
My understanding is that that approval was given and then, since there was obviously political mileage in it, the Opposition leader began to grumble. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
I can well understand that the appointment might be seen to involve a conflct of interest. And, of course, it had never been done in Barbados. BUT there are ample precedents in the UK for Law Officers being appointed to the Bench. It’s not desirable I agree. However, the ‘proof’ of the argument (which amounts to a charge of ‘bias’) is whether it can be shown that DS, as Chief Justice, was ever guilty of it – that is to say whether he subverted the law to appease the BLP government. I am yet to read that there is any such evidence.
Arguments elswhere (apart from the appointment itself) amount to (1) DS is solely responsible for the breakdwon of the justice system; (2) the present CJ is going to save it; and (3) his efforts to do so are being frustrated by DS appointees. I say arguments. That is being kind. Rather they are assertions everyone is expected to accept without proof. And THAT is where my quarrel lies with the other place.
May I respectfully disagree with some of your comments and observations regarding the appointment of David Simmons as CJ.
First of all, your notion that the ultimate test is about ‘proving’ that the CJ subverted the law to please his old buddies in the BLP government completely misses the point that by controlling the government, the courts and in fact, the media (see Ruedon Eversley’s piece for that) the BLP was damn sure that no such proof would ever surface.
In a large society like the UK, USA etc such appointments are bad enough. In a small society like ours they are death to democracy and tantamount to dictatorship.
There was no need for David Simmons to be Chief Justice. It was engineered for purposes and whatever those purposes were (and we don’t even have to list the many obvious ones) it was not about what was best for the country and all its citizens.
David Simmons whored himself by accepting the appointment. It was all planned when he ‘retired’ from being a politician several months prior to his appointment. His appointment was unethical, and caused many Bajans to say “Yes, we knew that’s how things worked ’bout hey. In a way it’s good to see it so open because they can no longer deny it.”
That’s my opinion. You might differ, but know this: some of those bastards want to put us in jail or fire us just for raising and discussing the issue.
That’s not the Barbados I want for my children.
Thanks for responding. As I said, I DO understand your view and particularly the point about the small society. Sadly that riddles every aspect of public (and private) life. And so though I don’t agree with you on this – and you didn’t answer the point about Thompson’s volte face, I DO accept it’s something over which men of integrity may differ.
Where I part company vehemently with the other side is contained in my last paragraph. I have never said there is nothing wrong with the justice system. Nor have I ever said that public figures should not be scrutinised. What I object to is sweeping generalisations being made about this and that which are not supported by facts, arguments, as if they are self-evident truths. And it worries me because knowing some of the background to the vitriol and the fawning, and witnessing, as I have, some of the ‘dirty tricks’ which have been played over there it seems to me that there is no hope of any kind of rational discussion and, therefore, progress.. To give just one example. If it is said “The judiciary are trying to frustrate Marston Gibson’ then it behoves a responsible person to show evidence of how this is happening. To say “you’re a pedant’, or ‘read our earlier posts’ or ‘you’re trying to impress’ or ‘don’t adopt the techniques of the court room here’ is simply not good enough.
This is why I’ve said that unless I see a contemporary post from you to which everyone has an equal chance of commenting I see no point in argiung about it.
Do you want to say more about the bastards wanting to put you in jail? I know absoluely nothing of that.
I want to add something to what I wrote above. We have agreed that in a small socety there are special problems. However, those problems typically manifest themselves in secret deals, handshakes, nods and winks. The ‘virtue’ of the Simmons appointment was that it was open, transparent; and that’s why, I suppose, for me the failure of anyone to suggest an example of subsequent bias in the judicial process counts for a lot. There was no need for any special legislation and I would think that it is very unlikely that any similar appointment will be made in the foreseeable future. In purely historical terms, therefore, the continued criticism of the appointment – how many years on? – seems to me much ado about nothing.
@fatloss factor program.: What the sh..e is this posting?
Enter your email address, be the 1st to know about BFP's latest.
Join 1,665 other followers