Peter Wickham's Articles Banned By The Nation Newspaper

My fear of a DICTATORSHIP is a very serious aspect of my reason for change. This admistration has clearly shown its willingness to take us down the road of a DICTATORSHIP. Let us address the withdrawal of PETER WICKHAM from writing articles for the Nation and the risk of the halting of CALL IN SHOWS, and from what I have been reading and what I have heard that this gov’t has undertaken illegal means to tap into private citizens telephone calls, text messages and Internet activity such as the interception of emails etc, this was facility was first introduced with the CWC and has since been put into active use to control and monitor the actions of those not favourable to the DICTATOR.

Commenter~Wishing in Vain

peter-wickham-small-potrait.jpgFrequent contributor to the blogs under the moniker Wishing in Vain hinted yesterday that certain actions behind the scenes were unfolding which can be interpreted as restricting freedom of expression among Barbadians. Today, Peter Wickham confirmed on national radio that the Nation newspaper has withdrawn his articles because he has been deemed to be a biased contributor.

We should try to have some more discussion on this matter.


According to frequent commenter Adrian Hinds, he believes that the genesis of Peter Wickham’s censure by the Nation newspaper maybe traced in the following video:



75 thoughts on “Peter Wickham's Articles Banned By The Nation Newspaper

  1. Folks this is a most disturbing development in terms of DEMOCRACY our freedom is clearly being affected and why is this the case?

    POWER, MONEY, GREED could be the real reason for this latest development.

  2. Have you ever read the weekly articles by Joey Harper? Or the weekly columnists like Mavis Beckles? What is going on in Barbados?

  3. HEADLINE: “Peter Wickham Articles Banned By The Nation Newspaper”

    DETAILS: “Let us address the withdrawal of PETER WICKHAM from writing articles for the Nation”

    Which one is it, BU? Was he banned or did he withdraw?

    Or did neither happen? Are you LYING again as usual?

    Learn to bring facts and stop spreading lies on the internet.

  4. Anonymous we will not engage in semantics with you. We heard what we heard on the radio this morning delivered by Peter Wickham himself. Why don’t you give him or the Nation a call and then call us a liar when you get the facts.

  5. …anyone ever noticed how few posters seem prepared to defend government policies except anonymous ones who have mastered the art of childish insults…?
    There must be some good sound logic behind some government positions and policies…

    Personally I would have banned Peter Wickham years ago – for being shallow, self-serving and uninspiring…a typical UWI product… but then again I would not even know what to do with Ezra Alleyne…

    Truth is, I am really surprised that actions like these could be taken in 2007. I am beginning to believe that the BLP strategists are taking advice from a spiritualist or from someone who is still living in the 1980’s…
    ..then again it could be someone who is tired, retiring, and not even aware of things like ‘blogging…’

    The failure of the DLP to demonstrate that they are different is also worrying. While it may be a good tactic to sit back and allow the Government to self destruct, Bajans would feel more at ease to know that the alternative government intended to address the major areas of concern.

    From Bush tea’s perspective – it really makes no difference to the overall situation.. The reality is that BBE’s earth project is nearing completion. The REAL purpose of existence here on earth (and in Barbados) will become very clear to everyone and the shallow distractions of petty politics will seem trivial in the overall scheme of things…

  6. Bush tea
    You note correctly that few posters seem prepared to defend government policies, and that there must be some good sound logic behind some government positions and policies.

    Is it that there are few defenses made for government policies, because one would be defending the indefensible? If there are some good sound logic behind some government. positions and policies, our fellow bloggers are eager to hear them.. We would like to be educated and enlightened and enthralled why don’t the BLP supporters on the blogs enunciate such and elucidate thereupon.

    Could you expand on what a typical UWI product is? Have you yourself been to university? If so where?

    I can assure you that in recent years I have taught students from US and Canadian universities who cant match the UWI product, at least in their preparation for medical school

    I, however, agree with you that as a party desiring to be the alternative government, that the DLP is extremely slow in seizing the moment, and embracing the sense of the need for change by articulating their proposals for carrying Barbados forward in all the important parameters.

    Silencing an opposing voice by banning his contributions in the press seems to be most despicable and diabolical.

    If your final paragraph refers to the imminent rapture and parousia of the Master, I am in total agreement with you Sir!

  7. This is a comment which appeared on Barbados Free Press today. We asked posters to give credit when they copy and past from other sites.

    December 30, 2007…2:12 pm
    BFP Reader Guy Hewitt Says “Many Thanks, Mr. Arthur”
    Jump to Comments
    “Many Thanks, Mr Arthur”

    Like so many Barbadians considering their options for the upcoming General Election, I found myself in a quandary in trying to decide what to do with my vote on 15 January 2008. But knowing the history of the struggle for adult suffrage I feel compelled to place my ‘X’.

    When I look at the main opposition, the Democratic Labour Party (DLP), it seems a shadow of its former self. The DLP is still to convey a real sense of urgency to be the next Government of Barbados. As leader, Mr Thompson gives the impression that he adheres to the notion that governments lose election, oppositions don’t win them.

    While there is some truth to this, political change in Barbados has always featured an opposition able to capture the popular imagination of the people. Campaigning around a slogan “time for a change” will be insufficient to win popular support.

    Barbados is accustomed to strong political leadership and in his twenty years in Parliament and nearly ten as leader of the opposition, Mr Thompson is still to demonstrate his true political strength. His may be a case of too easy, too soon but whatever the cause, Mr Thompson needs to canvass a national constituency if he desires to become the next prime minister of Barbados.

    Along the way, Mr Thompson also needs to let us know who his minister of finance will be. We Bajans are too cautious with our money to adopt a wait and see attitude on this issue. However, I give him full marks for displacing Mr Mascoll. The ‘Hardwood’ saga confirmed Mr Mascoll’s poor lack of judgement and possibly much more. Mr Thompson convinced me that Mr Mascoll should never get control of the Barbados treasury and definitely not the leadership of this country.

    But what is the alternative?

    There is no question that Mr Arthur is the most remarkable political operator in the history of Barbados. The emergence of ‘Owen Dems’ demonstrated his political skill and the success of his ‘politics of inclusion’. But to what end?

    The Monday, 17 December 2007 edition of the Daily Nation revealed a side of Mr Arthur that drove fear in me. The report that he had a “determination never to see the DLP hold the reins of power in this country”, revealed the dark side to his ‘politics of inclusion’.

    Having read political science and having lived in and worked on two general elections in Guyana, I was struck by what sounded to be the words of a megalomaniac. I heard in Mr Arthur’s assertion echoes of Linden Forbes Burnham, who similarly drunk on power, created a constitutional presidency and then an executive presidency to allow him to remain as President of Guyana until his death.

    It was the first time I became suspicious over the political agenda to create a constitutional presidency in Barbados. I always assumed it was part of the ‘politics of inclusion’; to satisfy one woman’s personal ambition. But when I considered the Government’s recent attempt to amend the Constitution of Barbados to usurp powers from the Governor General to appoint civil servants, another component of the ‘politics of inclusion’, I realised this Government has become intoxicated politically to dangerous levels. Where will it end?

    Over the years, we have absorbed the crossing of the floor of Parliament and the transferring of political allegiances by opposition members mesmerised by the ‘politics of inclusion’. We have swallowed the use of National Honours to bestow an obscene number of Knighthoods on his party faithful, including the unprecedented knighting of a serving minister of government. How much must we bear?

    Our economic indicators and physical infrastructure – new airport, new highway and new Kensington Oval – are used to suggest prosperity. But in reality there is an underside to this fairytale of poverty increasing to such proportions that even Dame ‘Auntie’ Olga Lopes-Seale, one of our most outstanding humanitarians, was forced to admit to “poverty all over this island” in her recent message for Christmas (Daily Nation, 20 December). Growing poverty coupled with moral decay and the erosion of traditional values is being manifested in corruption, crime and violence. What is to come of us?

    And when we complained about the cost of living, the Government blamed it on us for buying too much lunch, then on imported inflation, then on merchants for price-gouging and finally, us for our high standard of living. It was never their fault. Only with elections looming have we seen some compassion. And when we asked for help with the price of vegetables we were told to plant our own. But the majority ask, on what land and with what time? Show me the love.

    Notwithstanding worsening social infrastructure – social welfare, medical care, education and housing, the Government continues to give income tax and duty-free concessions to the ‘aristocrats’ living in gated communities. These are Mr Arthur’s so-called “saviours of this country”, who he argues, “the future of Barbados is tied up with” (Barbados Business Authority, 20 March). What about the rest of Barbados? Political hand outs, weedwackers and promises that better will come, are not enough. Enough is enough.

    I agree with Mr Arthur that Barbados needs a new beginning but I do not think he can provide it. You cannot put new wine into old wineskins. Mr Arthur has fought the good fight and has run his course and I think it is fitting for us to say to him many thanks for his stewardship. He is good to go home.

    I feel that in the interest of democracy and our country, I think we need to look to the East and to the Team Thompson, equal in my estimation to those who formed the Government in 1994, to secure our future.

    But a warning to Mr Thompson if he does get the support of Barbados next month; Be minded that we expect Ms Mottley to keep a very watchful eye from the opposition.

    May democracy continue to flourish in Barbados! God bless this land.

    Guy Hewitt
    28 December 2007

    Editors Note: Guy Hewitt is a minister of religion and social development specialist. He can be contacted on
    © Guy Hewitt, 2007

    This piece was printed unedited with not one word changed. The red and bold highlighting were added by the BFP editor.

  8. whether his articles were biased or not he has a right to his opinion like every other barbadian so i think i this is in fact true then the nation owes a public opology to Mr. Wickham,,,,,,………………has the nation stopped to think that by withdrawing his articles that is being biased towards anothers views ………..stupid nation newspaper

  9. Only me

    The Nation owes an apology to Barbados – not to Mr Wickham. Technically they have the right to select and de-select contributors at their editorial discretion. Doing it at this time and in this manner is a direct insult to BARBADIANS.

    But the Nation is not a Barbadian entity.. I have already articulated that the Nation is part of a regional conspiracy to bring Barbados in line with Caribbean mediocrity… and they have been working really hard at it….
    …note their approach to covering violent crime in Barbados of late – like business as usual (Ever lived in Trinidad, Jamaica or Guyana?)
    When the newspapers were Bajan there would have been full page outrage and calls for some drastic measures…. now we are being groomed to accept this as business as usual… this is how you destroy a proud people.

    My views on UWI are well documented and covered by a number of articles in BU (a quick search will refresh your memory).
    I am a graduate of UWI – but I have always been a foolish freak…but I know that any ‘educated’ commentator who seriously dismisses the existence of God and God’s laws can be ignored as a fool without fear of being wrong…

  10. Folks this is a most disturbing development in terms of DEMOCRACY our freedom is clearly being affected and why is this the case?
    …………………………………………………………………….I I am not happy with any newspaper contributor being removed, but we must also be cognisant to the face that Mr. Wickham is displaying anger because he was not contracted to do the polls for the papers. I am an admirer of pollsters, especially Peter’s contribution which were based on neutral grounds. We are able to get fair analysis on swings, although we might get shocks after the count.

    Lately, we are seeing another face of Peter, this is not based on ‘an election for change’, but his clear swipe at the polls by the UWI group. Peter must understand that polls are mainly a scientifically gauge based on input by from an unselected grouping. This poll might turn out correct or 100% wrong. That is the nature of the game, so Peter should not be displaying arrogance regarding if it is a UWI poll or an idiot like me.

    Making changes are a sign of Democracy.

  11. I am under no illusion as to why the political class continues to ride rough shot over the people and institutions of Barbados. It is becuase big men who in one breadth profess to be intelligent, and to be protectors of our democracy will attempt to redicule a man who argues, and does so with reference to the relevant laws, that the PM erred in law by the action of calling the nomination and subsquent election day one day short. I sat in amazement while Douglas Trotman argued is opinion from a point of law, to David Ellis, Tony Best, and Peter Wickham and hear them seek to personalize a legal issue by,…one, asking Mr. Trotman what is his motivation for taking this course of action, two, suggesting that one day is neither here or there. There should have been no reason asked or none giving for pointing out the legal error beyond the obvious facts of what the law says. Am i not to believe that while we are said to be a nation of laws, that in reality it matters who the transgressor is?

    Is the PM above the law? and that he can remind others of it, but cannot be called to account for his unlawful acts?

    Clearly Mia made no exceptions when she reminded us of what can befall us if people do not have the confidence that our systems are fair, transparent, and requires accountability inspite of who you are.

    Clearly Owen Arthur wanted us to believe him when he said that Barbados is a nation of laws and that Keith Simmons must be made aware of this.

    …..Why is the PM not being held to the same standard? We have the unresolved case of his (PM) being accuse of perpetrating an assumed illegal act and to which he plead guilty (receipt of a checque in exccess of campaign contributions and not properly reported) and now we have a possible error in law with regards to the calling of elections and but one man is insisting on the maintanance of our laws and institutions and he is being pilloried for it. What do we have here??? Is Mia Mottley right? or should we dismiss Douglas Trotman for being petty? Can the PM do no wrong?

  12. Adrian, I have no quarrel with anyone who is trying to sensitise a nation of a fundamental err in law. What I am looking at is the way Mr. Trotman is trying to project himself on the electorate. Barbados is blessed with endless reputable legal brains who refuse to debate the one-day problem. If it was that blatant, Mr. Thompson would have drawn it to the Elections and Boundaries Commission from the announcement of the date. I hope that Mr. Trotman is not using this approach for elector’s sympathy? Injunctions on Squatters and Injunction on an election date are separate and far apart.

  13. I wouldn’t have expected you to have an opinion on the errors of Owen Arthur according to Douglas Trotman and how these errors relate to Mia opinions on Law and order and Owens own’s admonishment of others for not as he says seemly remembering that BARBADOS IS A NATION OF LAWS.

    Clearly this unwillingness to accept that the PM may not have followed the law, is rooted in a believe that the PM can do no wrong. Yet the only people who are not legally held to account for their actions and is so as an accepted practice are the unsound of mind. Am i now to put the PM is in the category of fools so that he may NOT be held to account for his actions that are inconsistant with the law????

  14. The inevitable…. // December 30, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    I, Owen Seymour Arthur, do solemnly swear


    ha ha ha haha dah aint true Owen would swear at the drop of hat or the sound of a vodka bottle being uncapped. It is said he has a preference for so swearing at 3:00am

  15. Bush Tea
    Re My views on UWI are well documented and covered by a number of articles in BU (a quick search will refresh your memory).
    I am a graduate of UWI – but I have always been a foolish freak…but I know that any ‘educated’ commentator who seriously dismisses the existence of God and God’s laws can be ignored as a fool without fear of being wrong…


    It is also written FOOLS MAKE A MOCK OF SIN

  16. The Inevitable

    ..are you saying that Owen will take the stand during the coming trial when he is asked to account for the $750,000?

    ..or when the sham of his legal advisers is exposed? How can you make such amateurish errors in law as to bring into legal question the validity of coming elections?

    …and how does Mia talk about ‘fair and transparent systems’ when ballots are marked so that voters’ choices can be traced?

    ….you will be surprised at what is ‘the inevitable…’ What is done in secret will be exposed on the rooftops….

  17. David,

    For the DLP’s sake I hope not. Any strategic planning document that does not acknowledge the existence of, and respect for God and his laws -is a waste of paper.

    Wickham should stick to counting and analyzing polls.

  18. If the information is true and the Nation did pull Peter Wickham’s column then certainly it will make on wonder what is the true stance of the editor of this paper and whether it is worth purchasing. Peter Wickham like every one else is entitled to his views whether or not we agree with them. The list of names who show bias in their writings is long on both sides of the political divide. Why single out Mr. Wickham, what has he done that requires special attention. I think by the actions of the editor( if in fact the column was indeed pulled) the real political bias dwells at the Nation

  19. Bajejun we can only suggest that because of Peter’s role as a pollster could have influenced such a decision. After all the jury is out on whether polls can influence public opinion.

  20. WIV about that thing you were to fill us in on about something bad that has been happening….you had my hopes up man, what is this information you have/had.

    I hope Peter Wickham will use every iota of the online blogger world to get his side of things out such as polls etc, in the next 15 days. Please feel free to use BU and BFP.

  21. Barbadians better do the right thing on Jan 15 and vote the BLP out of office otherwise we are going to be a sorry nation. The BLP like the DLP at some stage has done good for Barbados, but like in anything complacency and corruption have stepped in.

  22. LOL Peter Wickham is a degenerate who masks his biases and prejudices behind fudged ‘polls’ and intellectual rhetoric. Why is it that because the Nation (which has never been a credible source for much to begin with) chose to ban his lack luster articles are we now making fuss? Maybe he should close down his orphanage and look at building a respectable reputation. His contract at UWI was not renewed, are they in the pocket of the BLP? He was stopped from hosting “The People’s Business” is CBC in the pocket of the BLP? Now the Nation does it and suddenly it’s a big thing. *I never thought the day would come I would be defending the Nation*

  23. The point you are missing Superlative1 is not that we will miss the content of his articles or lack of according to you, it is the curtailing of freedom of expression especially at election time. Surely a blow to democracy.

  24. Pingback: Peter Wickham Banned from the Nation Newspaper « Rantings of the Superlative1

  25. They have about a dozen BLP columnists who write in the papers, without including the Friday duels of Eversley vs Alleyne. Count them and you will not be able to refute this statement. Yet no one seems to complain about this lack of balance. But in the video the PM says the Nation is trying to go against the BLP. As a reader of the blogs and papers I find this a strange and possibly paranoid thing to say.

    Why the Nation will let BLP columnists but no Cadres? Come Nation, bring Cadres now, the week before elections. We are not afraid of democratic freedom!

  26. With all due respect David, it is a blow to his unjustly inflated ego moreso than anything else. Last time I check, people are entitled to say what they want, I’m exercising my right to do so. Furthermore I am sure half of you people writing in this WISH you could curtail the stuff people say about you, that is, if you’re worth talking about which I doubt.

  27. …I missed you Superlative 1 – I thought that Hilary had identified you and hurt you with some particularly onerous exams or something… fairly acid tonight though, you saying that the BLP /Government is somehow justified in ‘curtailing the stuff people say about them?’…. i think not.

    Wickham’s abilities or lack thereof is a separate and distinct issue from the authorities deciding to pull strings to suppress perceived dissidents.

    If Hilary get his hands on you and you blog you will see what I mean…(LOL)

    Don’t mind Bush tea, I old and I ain’t frighten for a boy….

  28. LOL well since I seem to know Mr. Wickham better than most of you let me say this now- the man thinks EVERYONE has it in for him. Heaven forbid he isn’t a scandalous person and avoid that issue altogether, no no! He MUST worsen situations and then play the victim. I not saying the BLP is right for pulling strings to silence him, I just think as usual people have hitched their evidence of unfairness to the wrong candidate. Just like labour disputes and the BWU stepping in to save people who want more than firing.

  29. I see your position S1.

    As I said, Up to me, his behind would have been in the grass long time….fools just bug me – especially arrogant ones who don’t even know that they don’t know.

    Your point is that if we make a big fuss of this particular issue it will backfire because there is such a strong case for the boot…

    I really feel that you should be teaching down on that hill you know…

    What student what?!?

    You are too independent of thought and instinctively smart to be a student there – you trying to destroy my image of UWI or what?

    Anyhow – I going sleep – knowing that you will keep a handle on thing here and there…

  30. What became of the RumshopLime forum? The You Tube was put up by same, but the forum is not available. Was it censored?

  31. Superlitive1 like BT we understand your point but like he said two issues are at play here. We have no interest in the individual(and we do know the individual) our concern lies with the free press in Barbados to be possibly influenced by the political system and specifically the government. Do you remember the key role the Press plays as one of the Realms of the Estates?

  32. It is with real sadness that I sat in on a political discussion and was told by a highly respected person in society here that he was awoken by a display of gross arrogance and misuse of public offiice when in discussions with mottley about the illegally hired Chinese workers at Paradise that at the end of this meeting that he and two others from his group were pulled aside and mottley proceeded to tell them to shut up and tow the line or else this same group would be visited by the Inland Revenue office and they would undergo a TAX AUDIT, when political power can reach this far and then be willing to be so ruthless and callous it is scary.

    If she or it believes that this display of the use of power is the way forward then we the citizens need to subdue it instanly


    The government has boasted of its record regarding Alleviation of Poverty. Indeed government lauds itself about our achievement as the number one developing country in the world according to the United Nations Human Development Index, claiming reduced poverty statistics.


    From in the early 90’s under Former Prime Minister Sir LLoyd Sandiford, we were rated as the number one developing country in the world, so this is nothing new .

    Reality Check

    On 19th Dec 07 Dame “ Auntie” Olga Lopes-Seale said that ‘More women and children are living in poverty in Barbados’. While saying she maintained no statistics she stated that she was seeing an increase in poverty while doing her work in charity. (See Back page of Daily Nation of 20th Dec 07)

    WOW!!!! Who do you believe????

    Dame Olga is a lady of impeccable integrity and can certainly be trusted. We need not say anymore !!!!!

  34. Pingback: The Politics Of Inclusion Revisited «

  35. David, might I, a lowly non graduate of any institution of higher learning, not even the stand pipe presume to offer a perspective on Peter Wickham’s firing by the Nation? Your last comment expressed a concern about freedom of the press and possible government influence in this case and other commentators have cried shame.

    There is another paradigm here that seems to have been missed. A polling organization’s credibility and therefore effectiveness lies in its objectivity or the perception of its objectivity. Cadres has built up its reputation on the accuracy of its previous polls and a general perception of objectivity.

    Peter Wickham, as a citizen of Barbados, is entitled to his own political bias, but Cadres as a polling organization, if it wants to maintain its credibility and reputation, is not. Therein lies Peter Wickham’s problem. He cannot separate himself from Cadres.

    From my point of view, in recent times he has exposed a clear DLP leaning in his personal pronouncements, while continuing to claim a neutral stance professionally and if he has indeed assisted the DLP in formulating its strategic plan for the upcoming elections, he can no longer claim neutrality.

    The newspaper cannot seriously be accused of suppressing freedom of expression by axing him; they certainly give Ezra Alleyne and Reudon Eversley free rein. They are simply saying we are not going to allow you to use the guise of impartiality and objectivity built up by Cadres to send a message which is not impartial, but may appear to be so to casual observers and therefore have significant influence, especially in an election scenario.

    If he supports a particular party, he should declare his hand and not try to sneak shots under false pretenses.

  36. Inkwell your argument is a reasoned one and one which we cannot dismiss. The grey area here as we see it is whether the population can be influenced by the result of polls. Clearly in the call in program yesterday Dr. Ian Boxill, formerly of the Carl Stone poll and now of the Boxill Polls out of Jamaica dismissed the lack of data which says that polls do influence public opinion. Against this background it would seem that the Nation has based its decision on the fact that polls shape public opinion. In which case it creates the question why should the Nation publish the result of any poll if this is the case. The secondary point is the public perception of Dr. Belle’s anti-Thompson comments and his close affiliation with the Chapo poll which the Nation has published. According to Peter he has been contracted to do a national poll, we assume by the Nation newspaper.

    Remember that up to now Peter CADRES poll has enjoyed credibility and he has argued that his analyzes of the political landscape in Barbados is based on interpretation of data.

    Here is the punch. If both pollsters will be doing polls would this not lend balance? If we accept this then we think it is premature to yank Peter’s article unless the two polls bring back a significantly different result.

  37. To: The Nation

    Front page of the Nation Sunday, November 25 1973

    “This newspaper was born out of a desire of it’s Founders to give this country better Journalism. It’s no exaggeration to say that the standards (of Journalism)have dropped to agonising depths in recent years. If anything, it might be more of an understatement. We’ve come on the scene because we want to do something about this state of affairs.”

    Sadly today the Nation is part of the problem and not part of the solution. The Nation has “dropped to agonising depths in recent years.”

    The Nation is refusing to carry important stories simply because they might embarass the BLP Government.

    How the mighty has fallen.

  38. David, I agree wholeheartedly with Inkwell, I made the same submission of Peter’s previous creditability , but this leading-up to elections, we are seeing another face of him, maybe, it is based on a retaliation with the Nation for overlooking him for the UWI poll. I also agree that Reudon , a stanch Dee is still carrying the mantle for the party. To me, I do not see any problems with the decision. Again it is part of Democracy.

  39. David // December 31, 2007 at 7:19 am

    Inkwell your argument is a reasoned one and one which we cannot dismiss. The grey area here as we see it is whether the population can be influenced by the result of polls. Clearly in the call in program yesterday Dr. Ian Boxill, formerly of the Carl Stone poll and now of the Boxill Polls out of Jamaica dismissed the lack of data which says that polls do influence public opinion.

    A pragmatic response. A better set of question to Mr. Boxhill would have been as follows.

    Political parties and individual politicians will spend conciderable amounts of money to get a poll completed, and if the findings are in there favour would publish it, market it and develop it’s finding to bring about a higher degree of certainty at the polls. If this is true and it is, would you dimiss the potential for swaying public opinion that a poll has?

    ….Professionals who rather than attempt to deal with a question and would on the first instance dismiss the contention on the bases of a lack of evidence are not necessarily being honest.

  40. We are not certain that we will actually see another poll conducted by CADRES on behalf of the Nation newspaper as this will be for me a difficult one to carry out on their behalf especially in light of the fact that they have already pulled his articles, my advice to Mr Wickham would be to make certain that he is paid in full for any work to be carried out on their behalf as if the results were not favourable to them and the blp he may not get paid for his work.

  41. I am with David on this, and therefore disagree with BT and Superlative1. I don’t care for Peter Wickham the person either. Peter is of the same opinions as the Prime Minister regarding Guyanese and has even referred to Barbadians as xenophobic just like the PM did. He also vehemently defended Mia’s musing, and Dr. Mickey Waldron called for condoms in glendairy. Arguments and position that i am totally against. These not withstanding, i am also against denying freedom of speech, and if the PM contention is truly one of Persons with a political bias masquerading as independent commentators, I believe that this concern could have been taken care of by other means without having to censure or banned anyone from freely opining as they see fit.

  42. Can’t help but notice the public officers that are part of Mascoll’s campaign team. One David Bowen an employee from the central bank and Andrew Connell from the Black Rock polyclinic.
    One question: what will happen if other public officers are seen out campaigning or are even part of the opposition teams?
    Just asking. Thats all

  43. On a point of clarification. Was he banned altogether from writing columns at the nationnews paper, or was this particular article not brought?

  44. Mr. Hinds, it has become clear and painfully so, that yet again the blinders you all have placed so as not to see the points of view of other people remain in excellent condition.

    Fine, Peter Wickham is not the most credible of people and personal dislike for him may be present, but the point you seem to be missing is this: Freedom of speech cannot be seen as being curtailed when there are always articles put in for either side. IF the big bad Government were looking to restrict this ‘free speech’ a term you all are using too loosely to begin with, articles covering DLP events and statements and polls would never see the light of day.

    More importantly if you work for a company and your views are too controversial, radical, mis representative, what have you, then it is within the rights of that company to dismiss you. Peter Wickham isn’t a lowly man on the street writing in, he is a weekly columnist for the Nation Newspaper, if he were to say or do anything to defame anyone, the Nation would be held liable for it. Anyway I am sure all of this is falling on blind eyes so I done before I develop carpal tunnel.

  45. Is Mr. Wickhams column supposed to be on behalf of his work for Cadres, or is his column his opinion to write? So it is quite acceptable for Mr. Wickham to write a column penned in his own name while working Cadres as a separate company.

    He is not mandated only to be impartial, when in fact he has a column of opinion to write.

    Surely there will be more talk about cost overruns and excesses allowed in the media, and the use of non-tenderd offshore partners for roads, prisons and lots of thngs as elections draw closer.

    In the mean time will the Nation ban all the non-balanced partisans who write constantly for the BLP? Will the Advocate cease to be counciled by Joey Harper, who happens to be one of the biggest ups of the BLP? Maybe the news will decide to try and balance when all Barbados has been monopolised by the politics of inclusion, maybe not.

    Free Peter Wickham!
    Reinstate the column in which he may express a view at any given moment!

  46. Supelative1: Freedom of speech cannot be seen as being curtailed when there are always articles put in for either side.


    Don’t generalize it. It is not the freedom of speech of the DLP. We are dealing with Peter Wickham’s freedom of speech. He has met the requirements that the naked pragamatist would call for,….which is, that there must proof of facts that what is being contended is likely to be the truth. Not one article but four consecutive articles where not publish…..But I understand why you would want to suggest that the burden of proof is not met by four consistent rejections of articles.

    I am not missing the point and you don’t seem too convince of yours that you would offer another reason for his censure, seemly in an attempt to solidify the first. Is Peter Wickhams contract with the nation any different than the contract let say Ezra Allyene? yet i can still read his bias opinions.

    ….The only difference between the two is that Ezra Alleyene’s political affiliation are well known and Wickhams is not. So when i look at the what is the publish concern of the PM with regards to Peter Wickhams access to the print media, I am still of the opinion that censure did not have to be a choice at all to settle these concerns, but that this over-reaching denial of Peter Wickham’s freedom of speech is the real intent of a PM intent on not having to answer to questions and situations that will expose him.

  47. Adrian H,

    I was leaving Superlative to deal with your comment, but he lost me somewhere…

    First let me correct your premise – that by agreeing with David you disagreed with both Superlative1 and myself.

    In fact our positions are identical. Where we differ is in that I understand Superlative’s position.

    Morally, it is clearly wrong and undemocratic for the Nation -even if influenced by the PM- to remove a columnist at this time for obviously partisan political reasons.

    We are intelligent people, and given the PM’s strong public (and recorded) comments and the subsequent action we can deduce what occurred.


    Legally, administratively and technically the editorial authorities at the Nation have the management right to determine who they will employ.
    Superlative1 is therefore saying that while we have a strong MORAL case, we should use it ONLY as such, and not anything else – least, given Mr Wickham’s checkered past and propensity to get himself ‘not rehired’, we find ourselves defending the indefensible…

    We have no say in whom the Nation hires., but we can make deductions about their credibility, neutrality etc (..and we done know that they are anti-Barbadian – otherwise known as pro CSME).

    Just clearing the air – and representing my favorite UWI blogging friend…

  48. I don’t support any one party, I’ve always tried to objectively ask the question: ‘Is the party in power, notwithstanding the faulty judgements made from time to time, by both DLP and BLP, worthy of another term; are they doing a relatively good job of managing the economy, etc, etc., in other words, has B’dos benefited from ‘their’ running of our country?’ In all honesty, I have to say yes, as far as Owen Arthur and his BLP administration is concerned. Arthur is a very bright man, has ‘earned’ not only the respect of regional leaders, but, also on the International arena, without question. Yes, we still have proverty, crime, and other serious matters to deal with, like any other nation, big or small. I don’t trust Thompson and his judgement on many issues, he cannot begin to fill, or replace Arthur, at this juncture of our affairs, especially in light of all that is required to deal with Globalization, WTO, and so on.
    As far as Arthur’s tongue-in-cheek remark about never letting the DLP ever hold office again, come on now, to read into this off-the-cuff remark, that he is taking us into a dictatorship, utter NONSENSE, get real!

    Therefore, Arthur and his BLP team, are the ONLY, sound choice to make, we cannot afford to take a chance with Thompson, and a ‘green’ bunch of inexperienced candidates at the most serious point we are at in our development.

    Regarding Peter Wickum, a bright man in his specific field, but, his ‘value-neutral’ system of cultural ‘relevatism’ no absolute TRUTH, according to him, is sad that anyone so gifted in reasoning on other matters, can be so intellectually dishonest, on the subject of Almighty God, morality, when there is so much ABSOLUTE truth all around us. Truth by definition is ‘absolute’ regardless of who denies it. It’s like asking the question, ‘Am I alive, do I exist?’ To that question, the response has to be, ‘Who may I say is asking the question.’

  49. Carlos AKA Jevan red advetising you are so wrong.

    When a PM can make wild and wicked statements as this one has and then we have an article that does not find favour with him being pulled, what else are we to assume?
    This blp is corrupt to the core and his method of holding on to office to continue to carry out his corruption is by methods such as this to alter the course of an election by any means possible and a DICTATORSHIP is right up his alley.

  50. Yea WIV, but at least it is better than cussing and carrying on as they did before.
    The language is all grown up and polite.


    Unfortunately, the logic is weak and pathetic.
    If Owen is so bright how come he could not support his families before on a ‘regular’ job?
    ..and if you want to talk ‘bright’ then the truth is that Thompson wins hands down.

    In terms of his replacing Arthur, that is EXACTLY what we do not want. We are going with David with the expectation that he will be as DIFFERENT from Arthur as his family life is.

    Globalisation? … Arthur and his gang have run us into a big trap. Selling all our assets to the highest bidder…. changing all of our Laws to facilitate foreigners

    Jumping into CSME by heself – and now got bout here mash up….
    Taking Bribes from every Tom Dick and Harry – and bribing or threatening everyone that questions his actions…

    What Arthur What?!?

    You better go back to cussing and threats…

  51. Yea Carlos, that was realllllllllll objective!!!!!!!!!!!!.
    So objective that your skirt of disdain is showing right thru!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

  52. Does anyone think that the management of the Nation should come out and make an announcement on the banning of Peter’s article? Would it not be fair to Peter in the interest of transparency and maybe to give its readers a chance to say what they feel?

  53. A lot of persons keep asking questions like can we see the original highway plans for the 60M US, and see the revised. And the prison 270M one, to see how it changed.

    And so when one voter D axes the question, “Am I alive, do I exist?”

    Then B says: ‘Who may I say is asking the question? Uh……………no!’

    Some is of the higher plane, the rest got to go at the register and pay they own groceries.

    Inclusion paying some down now for the vote.

  54. Does anyone think that the management of the Nation should come out and make an announcement on the banning of Peter’s article?
    David, Adrian, Bush Tea and the lot. It is fact that all newspapers temporary cancel political contributors from the time elections are called. This action was part of the fourth estate from the Barrow regime. Even Ricky Singh’s articles were stop during the Adams period, Gladsone Holder’s articles were stop during the Adams/Sandiford period. Even Call-in programmes are canceled during elections run-up. So Peter, it is incorrect to state that your articles are banned. After elections, I hope that you would come and apologise after your articles are re-appear.

  55. How could a man who wrote the constitution of African nations be considered as such a bad person?
    I think you have to be of a very high calibre to do this….but hey I am young and naive to politics.

  56. To WIV, Bush-Tea, and Cherry2EP, your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance. Can’t reason with those who CAN’T reason. Facts are stubborn things, and only the stubborn refuse to accept them!

  57. The banning of Wickham’s articles in the Trinidadian paper, the NATION, certainly gives credence to the scripture at John 3:19 that teaches that, men do not love the truth nor come to the light because their deeds are evil.

  58. The arrogance stems from the fact that B see no need to show how the hundreds and thousands of millions are planned and spent. They do not tender, they call a friend who brings them from UK to form an offshore. We cannot see nor understand, nor account for it. That is the true arogance, because they are taking our taxes but cannot set out the justification.

    The ignorance is because they hide it, and if one does axe you are not allowed to see. So we are ignorant.

  59. Carlos, your argument like all others who advance it is weak.

    The BLP refer frequently to having to “save” Barbados in 1994. Their candidates then (including Owen) were also green and untested, yet were given a chance.

    Despite a “relatively” good job of running the economy the government has done a horrendously poor job of project management, efficient use of taxpayers’ money, transparency, freedom of information, accountability, integrity, management of day to day social services,
    and response to relevant issues raised by the public and more recently by the opposition.

    Do not trust Thompson all you like. It’s the cabinet around him and the civil servants who I’m putting my trust in to ensure that Barbados continues on a positive path, both financially and socially.

    I used to trust Owen, and despise the incompetence of the ministers around him. Now I don’t trust any of them.

    As for the tongue in cheek remark, it speaks to the mindset of a leader of a nation in a democratic state. As a political leader the comment may “slide” past public opinion. As a Prime Minister it’s unforgiveable.

  60. I worte this submission six hours ago on BFP and it is still saying “in moderation” yet I see comments posted up to a few minutes ago.

    I am concerned with people jumping on the band wagon talking about “Death Threats”. I sympathise with Adrian Loveridge who have been threatened on these blogs by some ‘sick person’ who revert to violence. But I have a problem with Dr. Marshall’s statement of ‘he being threatened four times at a BLP meeting’ I thought that the person who might receive such threat would have been Peter Wickham. What type of threats were there, about your person, your dog, your home? Let us know the seriousness of these threats that were used against you to make you reach such a conclusion. Mascoll have been threatened morning, noon, and night and even up to this date and did he hold a press conference? Hammie Lashley has been threatened by people from his own constituency which is a violent place to live and did he hold a press conference? Nassar jump from party to party and did he hold a press conference? Have you committed a sin that someone might be against you? Four times in one night – How many different people threatened you that night? Are you that popular that you must have a press conference. Are we abusing the real reason of a ‘press conference’?

  61. At any rate, guess whose column I saw in its usual location on the pages News for Hire? PW seems to be still a-contributing. Meanwhile, someone sent a warning to the wrong person about my blog going so far as to mention a certain purple dinosaur winning his case against a non-CBC radio company.

  62. In today’s Nation on page 8A, you will see the Peter Wickham’s article. Where are the Forth Estate critics?

  63. Pingback: » Barbados Government’s Treatment of Those who Dare to Complain Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.