← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

The Beauty Of Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary
The Beauty Of Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary

In the recent months we have read Barbados Free Press, Keltruth and the submissions to BU by BWWR concerning the Nelson Barbados (Kingsland Estate) versus Barbados government, prominent Barbadians and organizations. We have followed the exchanges between the two sides of the issue with a keen interest. While it is not a sexy topic for many in the BU family it does not make it any less interesting. For better or worse we have decided to offer our perspective on the long standing dispute between the Knox family, allegedly funded by Peter Allard and the government et al.

It has become obvious to the BU household that high powered politics is being played on both sides of this issue. This is to be expected given what is at stake. What we have come to realize is that the current path on which this matter is heading will be detrimental to both sides. There will be no winners! We are aware that the court will eventually rule in this matter but inevitably the reputations of many of the parties involved would have become sullied. It is a pity that the process of alternative dispute resolution has not been seriously attempted.

In recent weeks, and to the horror of the BU household we have witnessed the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary (GHNS) being used as a bargaining chip in the unfortunate affair. As the end of the year approaches we urge both sides to take a deep breathe and take stock. Alot of money has been spent, many relationships have been ruined or become strained while the parties grow old. How long has this matter been in dispute? Too long!

Our sources indicate that although Minister Richard Sealy has been quoted in the media a willingness to meet Peter Allard, the owner of GHNS, up to last week this meeting had not occurred. If Minister Sealy has made a genuine offer then the honourable thing to do is to instruct his staff to open the line of communication with Mr. Allard.

Secondly if as we suspect the sale of GHNS is being used as a bargaining chip in light of the bigger issue i.e. the court case of Nelson versus Government of Barbados et al, we suggest the following: both sides should demonstrate good faith by delaying/suspending all pending litigation activities. This would create a climate more amenable for both sides of the longstanding dispute to hopefully reach an amicable agreement in the national interest.

Whatever the court verdict there will be no winners.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

35 responses to “The Saga Of The Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary Needs To Stop”


  1. […] Vote The Saga Of The Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary Needs To Stop … […]


  2. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

    Matthew 22:21


  3. […] Barbados Underground says that the issue of the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary needs to be sorted out “to hopefully reach an amicable agreement in the national interest.” Posted by Janine Mendes-Franco  Print Version Share This […]


  4. Barbados Free Press published court documents that say the Chief Justice was the first to connect the nature sanctuary with the Nelson Barbados law suit. He threatened to kill Graeme Hall National Park unless the Nelson Barbados lawsuit against him was dropped. Shame on him!


  5. We have received a very detailed response to this blog by BWWR. We will update for the BU family this evening when we prefer to update.

    We will also if time allows respond to the immigration issue.


  6. @David

    “Secondly if as we suspect the sale of GHNS is being used as a bargaining chip in light of the bigger issue i.e. the court case of Nelson versus Government of Barbados et al”

    Does the “we” in “we suspect” mean BU suspects that GHNS is being used as a bargaining chip in the issue of the court case? If so can you elaborate?

    What exactly is the bargain that the owner of GHNS is trying to strike in relation to the court case?

    Or is sit that the high and mighty in Barbados are the ones trying to use the GHNS as a bargaining chip against the owner?

    As Truth Seeker said above there is evidence to suggest that it was from the Barbados side that GHNS was being connected to the Nelson Barbados law suit.

    The fact that the sluice gate has not functioned for over 3 years would seem to suggest that there were people in Barbados who thought that they could punish the owner of GHNS through actions or inactions like this. Rather misguided since the GHNS is designated a Barbados Natural Heritage Conservation Area, so they were in effect damaging their own country.

    Meanwhile the same people were busy receiving environmental awards and pontificating in the media etc on their environmental and green policies. Pure unadulterated rhetoric divorced from the reality of the out of control development being carried out on the South and West Coast.


  7. Has there ever been any fair attempt made to resolve this mess by those who have the power to resolve it?

    Seems not from what we have read so far.


  8. At this point does it matter who started what first?

    It needs to stop. Additionally naming prominent people in a law suit who are involved in the highest decision making positions does not exactly create a climate for reconciliation. It makes sense for both sides to swallow pride and stop the slide.

    There will be no winners!


  9. David is right. The climate has been poisoned. I totally agree that the Sanctuary must not be held hostage, and that it must be transferred to the people and government of Barbados in one way or another without any influence from unrelated matters. Can this happen? I hope so.


  10. What is this “both sides” crap? Allard offered to GIVE the land to Barbados if we would only declare a national park to protect it. He offered a million dollar AIDs and Cancer hospice and the government told him to piss off. So he did! Where do you get this “both sides” crap?


  11. @ nevermind Kurt

    There is only one side in Barbados and that is the side of power & greed. Nobody & nothing else matters. You either belong to that side or you are toast.


  12. @Anonymous

    Funny! You right and you wrong at the same time (in this case at least)
    Side 1:- Greed
    Side 2:- Power

    I am sure that you can figure out the players on either side.


  13. Jeppa, correct me if am wrong

    Side 1 = Greed as you have stated which leaves me to believe its the government of Barbados that’s made up of the greedy politicians of Barbados.

    &

    Side 2 = Power that are made up of the money players of Barbados which are the Allard’s, Nelson Barbados, Kingsland Estate, and many more…

    When it’s all over and done with they are all family, have you not notice that the only people following this crap are we poor all alone Bajan’s as the minority side sit back and have no say.


  14. Perhaps it is why we have this distasteful situation in the first place. Barbadians need to participate in our democracy outside of placing the X. Until they do the intelligencia will run amock.


  15. Actually I meant Greed being the Knox,Allard,Nelson Group. But I am glad that you have put them in the Power group as well. But You are right.. the real loser is Barbados “that poor little broke country that cannot afford to pay it’s civil servants” The jokers dragging this saga from Barbados to England and now to Canada (I hope they got Freguent Flyer Miles out of this) should be held for treason, trying to destroy our image on the web. Just look at the racial hatred being pored out elsewhere on this site because of it. Man it sure plays well for the BTA when people read posts like those. Amazing how a handful of greedy people can mess up millions of $$$$ in advertising nuh?


  16. The greedy people have aleady made lots of money by taking property from old ladies.

    It is silly to say that poor old Mrs. Knox is greedy. She lives in a run down old house, while the insiders live in the lap of luxury.

    Who is greedy? I see it as those who are gorging themselves on the assets of Kingsland.

  17. Adrian Loveridge Avatar

    FREE entrance to Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary on Monday 1st December 2008.


  18. “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.”
    Matthew 6:19-20


  19. “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”


  20. David, nice try. You did your best to open some sort of meaningful dialogue and effect some sort of reconciliation and compromise. I know I explained that I believe it is now too late for that – however, that was on the basis of the advice I would give if I were counsel, so what do I know? Valliant effort on your part – and deserving of much better than it got. Regrettably, with these players, I don’t think it will work. This will give you an inkling of how Mr Cox must feel to have his efforts of even a civilized discussion thrown back in his face by Lilli Marlene and his clients (plural, because Petulant Pete pays the bills).

    As for the ‘Power Group’ well, that is a part of life. As the late Muriel Deane always used to tell me, “Even in Heaven there are angels and archangels.” And yes, ‘no name’ I know that Satan was once an archangel. It is a lesson that you, purporting as you do to have the ear and favour of the Almighty (and I mean God, not Peter Allard – although that too and it may not stand you in such good stead as you think with the main Almighty, and I mean God, not Allard) would do well to remember.

    David, it must be clear that I get information from people close to insiders (and I use the plural in its strictest sense). Today, I asked these ‘sources’ of mine to ask those they are close to if there was not any way some form of negotations and settlement could be achieved and to urge their loved ones to consider it. They are not hopeful due to the attitude of Madge and Allard, but have agreed to put it forward.

    Truth Seeker // November 19, 2008 at 12:16 pm. We have only hearsay evidence from a very unsatisfactory fish named Stuart Healsett that Sir David made any such a comment. The Ontario Superior Court of justice has condemned Fishy Heaslett and impugned his evidence. Therefore, the statement as to what Sir David said is tainted and of no value. In any case, it is hearsay and not admissible without solid supporting evidence (and then it would not be hearsay) which is not provided. So, it must be held that your premise does not exist.

    We ought to be focussing on Sir David’s performance as Chief Justice, not seeing to tar him with a failed business venture that he undertook lawfully almost 20 years ago when he was in private practice. My ONLY grave reservation on Sir David’s performance as Chief Justice is his nepotism, which is to be regretted. That aside, he has done everything that needed to be done for so long to return the power of the Court to the judges and take it out of the hands of counsel – that means that the justice system works better than it ever has and for that the Country has a right to be grateful and give praise to one of its more remarkable and gifted sons – by the way, not that with a man of the stature of Sir David it matters at all, but did anyone notice that Sir David is black?

    Peace.


  21. @BWWR

    We are pleased that at least one side is amenable to ADR.

    It renews our faith in mankind at a time when Christian’s biggest holiday is on the horizon.


  22. @ David

    “We are pleased that at least one side is amenable to ADR.”

    From all we have read, seems that one side was always amenable to a FAIR resolution. Let’s hope it is another side which now wants to see a resolution.

    So how many sides now left to be “amenable” to a resolution?


  23. @ David

    “Secondly if as we suspect the sale of GHNS is being used as a bargaining chip in light of the bigger issue i.e. the court case of Nelson versus Government of Barbados et al……..”

    How is the closing of the Sanctuary being used as a bargaining chip? By who? The owner against Government or the Government against the owner?

    Not one scintilla of evidence has been produced by BWWR in the course of her prolific writing to support the contention that the Sanctuary is being used by the owner as a bargaining chip in the Nelson case.

    “What has ADR got to do with the closing of the Sanctuary?


  24. The BU household is not in a court of law and therefore we can form any opinion which in this case is based on commonsense, but we readily admit we maybe wrong.


  25. “FREE entrance to Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary on Monday 1st December 2008.”

    BWWR,
    This would be a wondeful opportunity for you to take the grandchildren to the Sanctuary!


  26. another anonymous here

    @ David

    Commonsense is all it takes. Never needed a court of law.


  27. another anonymous here

    @David

    Commonsense is usually all it takes. This case is no different. Clearly it should never have gone to court in the first place.


  28. Anonymous // November 21, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    another anonymous here

    @David

    Commonsense is usually all it takes. This case is no different. Clearly it should never have gone to court in the first place.

    The last line says it all! Please remind me though; Who took it to court in the first place?

    BWWR Thank you so much for bringing some truth to light of day on this matter.


  29. another anonymous here

    @ Jeppa

    “Please remind me though; Who took it to court in the first place?”

    From what we have read Iain Deane took it to court in the first place. We read that he has sold his uncle’s share of Kingsland and long gone his merry way.

    So what does it matter now that he took it to court?


  30. Having read the pleadings in the action Iain filed against Kingsland and its directors, I must say there is no similarity at all to that of Mental Madge. Iain complained of oppression from 1982 (the date Colin died) to the time of filing, 1997. Iain was never a director of Kingsland. However, for 10 of those 15 years (1985 to 1995) Mental Madge was a director and Iain certainly could have sued her along with all the other directors during that time. That he chose to sue only the directors of Kingsland at the time of filing is instructive, but he may have felt that this course of action allowed him not to sue his father and one of his brothers who had been directors. Nonetheless, I was surprised upon reading Iain’s pleadings at the total lack of malice and at the extraordinary care and massive research that was taken in preparing the case. It is magnificent piece of work and such work does not need to rely on blogs set up simply to garner public opinion and non-existent “evidence”. The contrast to the “dirty tricks” and shoddy tactics, attempted media manipulation, overriding malice and illiterate and unfounded pleadings provided by the Knox/Allard camp is dismaying and disgusting.

    My guess would be that Iain, in response to an out-of-court offer that might well have been as the result of ADR, agreed to sell the estate’s shares and discharge the action. No doubt he and Mr Cox and Kingsland came to an amicable agreement, one with which both sides could live. It is a similar type of resolution that David is now urging be considered. It shows that Iain is a far better man than I had thought he was.

    Iain, now that I have finally said something nice about you, you can jump in here if you like. Anything you want to say? We are waiting impatiently!!!!! I even spelled your name right.

    David, it must be clear that the people who are responding in a negative and un-accepting way to your urgings for ADR are part of or closely connected with the Knox/Allard lot. They seem not to have accepted the reality that Knox/Allard have lost every single action they have brought and are, in my view, set to lose the Ontario action and probably a lot more as a result. They may not see it, but their opposition does not need ADR and ADR is a benefit now to only one side. Knox/Allard. I sincerely believe that if they came to the Country of Barbados and the other 67 defendants asking for negotiations leading to ADR, then the Country of Barbados and others would likely agree to meet.

    This is the way Bajans generally are. For instance, the minister has no need to meet Allard over Graeme Hall – all he has to do is wait and then acquire Graeme Hall for the Nation. Yet, because we are a nation of sportspeople and like to bend over backwards to be fair and good sports, the minister is prepared to meet with Allard and to see if there is anything he can reasonably do to assist. If such a meeting does not take place, I am sure it will be because Allard wishes it not to. If resolution is not reached, I am convinced it will be because Allard’s demands are untenable.

    Similarly, I suspect that the defendants in this action would be prepared to meet with Nelson, IF THEY ARE PROPERLY APPROACHED! However, from what I have read here from people who are clearly part of the Knox/Allard set-up, if they came to me with that attitude, I would simply ignore them and let justice take its course.

    Very sad. Very sad indeed. I hope that there will be resolution, but common sense and the historic attitude of Knox/Allard tells me that there will not be.


  31. @BWWR

    Thanks for the update on Iain Deane’s pleadings in the action he filed against Kingsland and its directors and “his magnificent piece of work”. Glad to hear that he and Mr. Cox (fondly referred to by BWWR as the Great White Shark in an earlier post) and Kingsland came to an amicable agreement, one with which both sides could live through some sort of ADR.

    I agree with you and David 100% that it would be preferable for the parties in the Nelson/Kingsland action to get involved in ADR ASAP.

    But what the heck has Iain Deane, Nelson, Kingsland, and Knox to do with the closure of Graeme Hall Sanctuary?

    You say that “the Minister has no need to meet Allard over Graeme Hall – all he has to do is wait and then acquire Graeme Hall for the Nation”. You make it sound so simple – inaction = action. Do nothing and the Sanctuary will fall right into Government’s lap and we will all live happily ever after. Maybe you would not be so cavalier in your attitude if you were one of the employees of the Sanctuary that will be on the proverbial breadline come December 15, 2008.

    Well let’s hope that Government and the Minister do not take your advice but have better judgment and meet with the Sanctuary representatives and explore all the options before expending taxpayer funds.


  32. Nostradamus // November 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm.

    I think you can take it that my delay in responding to your comments is caused by the fact that they are of no merit and really do not deserve a response. However, for the record and to give you something else to try to twist, let us look at what you have said.

    I admire neatness and good execution, particularly if it is without malice. The execution of Iain Deane (or rather his counsel) was superb – factual and clear and reliant on admissible documentation, as was that of Mr Cox. While I personally would have no interest in doing business with a great white shark, there is nothing to prevent me from admiring it. It is a beautiful creature, or do you, who purports to want to protect other creatures have an embargo (or prejudice) against Great Whites?

    On the other hand, I abhor sloppy and muddled objectives and execution riddled with unfair, unlawful and untenable objectives with a clear and evident underlying malice and lack of truth – in other words, I have no time for your lot, Nostradamus. By the way, I would change that moniker if I were you – you flatter yourself and you do not do it justice.

    In my view, while it is desirable to go to ADR with Nelson and the almost 70 defendants, including Kingsland, as Nelson is, frankly, gutted, it is up to Nelson to propose ADR to the Country of Barbados and others with compelling reasons to bring them to the table. But there is a problem there and that problem is the estate of Colin Deane – in other words, Iain Deane.

    Iain has sued Madge Knox for fraud. I have already posted to BU a copy of the Writ of Summons that attaches the Statement of Claim. I see that the remedies asked by the estate of Colin Deane are:

    1. A declaration that the Declaration of Trust made on the 28th day of November 2002 between the Defendant as Trustee of the one part and Eugene Estwick John Knox and Maria Jane Goddard of the other part is void as it was made with the intent to defraud the Plaintiff as Judgment Creditor;

    2. An order that the Defendant do deliver up to the Court the said Declaration of Trust for cancellation;

    3. Costs;

    4. Such further or other relief as the Court deems fit.

    This action for fraud, No 2279 of 2003, is set down for hearing commencing January 21st 2009 – in a few weeks time. Given the obiter dictum of Greenidge J., it is unlikely that the defendant (Mental Madge) can defend the action. Therefore, her shares will be handed to Iain by action of the charging order granted him against them and they will be sold either in whole or in part in satisfaction of the money Mental Madge owes to the estate of Coin Deane in court-ordered legal costs. THAT ASIDE, HOWEVER, THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE TRANSFER OR CHARGING OF THOSE SHARES TO PETER ALLARD AND FROM ALLARD TO NELSON WILL BE VOID. Once that happens, Nelson will have lost its standing and right to bring its action in the first place.

    My point, therefore, is that for any ADR to be considered by the defendants in the Ontario action, they would have to be first assured that Nelson has the right to bring its action in the first place (quite apart from the jurisdiction and other ludicrous claims by Nelson that you could drive a million judicial articulated lorries through and still have room for more). If Nelson is confronting the hearing of the jurisdictional motion commencing December 8th and then Mental Madge is facing the fraud action commencing hearing January 21st, it appears to me that there is no need of ADR from the point of view of the opponents of Mental Madge and Nelson as Nelson lacks the standing in the first place. As a human being, I recommend ADR solely to save on further legal fees and costs, not to let Nelson off from paying a single of its obligations in law. As counsel, I would strongly urge against any negotiations at this stage.

    The stgarting point for Nelson, therefore, is to work out something to protect its standing to bring the action. No standing, no action.

    Common sense dictates to me that the only way to deal with Mental Madge and the Allard lot is to see them off entirely. Do not give way to them at all. If Mr Cox is a great white shark, I have to say that the conduct of Mental Madge and Almighty Puny Pete is that of slime – the lowest and the nastiest and the vilest – and the stupidest.

    You, Nostradamus, who singularly fail to live up to your moniker, are a clear indication of why there has been no ADR. You do not seem to realize that you and those you so evidently back are up the gum tree. Your approach is as if your opposition (and there can now be no doubt that they are YOUR opposition) are in complete control and I doubt they will be prepared to put up with your ridiculous posturing and arrogance. It is because of that posturing and arrogance that there will likely be no ADR. Now you go, like a good boy-girl and prove me wrong. Try being an adult for once. Behave responsibly and not like some petulant, spoiled brat who needs a smack (I said “a smack” not “smack”, but in your case, I can rulke out neither as being beneficial).

    As for expending taxpayers funds that you urge be avoided, just what in Hades do you think has been expended for over a year now on this ridiculous, frivolous, vexatious and already-tried case in Ontario? Just so you know, those were taxpayers funds. If the government is having to face the same arrogant ignorance from you and your lot that it is facing as a Nelson defendant, then the matter will come to final resolution without negotiations with Allard and the expenditure of some more taxpayers money. And do you seriously think that a settlement with Allard will not involve the outlay of considerable taxpayers money? Hello!!!! Anyone in there????!!!!

    You talk like an extremely stupid lawyer of the type that ought not to be allowed to practice law at all. You are the supplicant in the matter of ADR. You have no bargaining position at all. ADR is too LATE!!! If it is undertaken now, it will be through the goodwill of your opposition, not because they have the SLIGHTEST reason at this stage to go to ADR. There is NO BENEFIT for them in ADR. I also think there is no benefit for the government and people of Barbados in negotiating with Peter Allard. It is our country governed by our laws and institutions and a government elected by a majority of our citizens. In the long run, given the slimy and disgusting conduct of Mental Madge and Almighty Puny Pete, I say it is cheaper to just get them the hell out of the picture and be done with it.

    For over a year now, we have all been able to read the attacks on Barbados launched almost daily by Keltruth and BFP, the Knox/Allard mouthpieces. Well, if they feel that way about us, why in hell should we talk to them? Let them go to hell and leave us to get on with what they claim to despise.

    But the truth is they do not despise it – they desire it for themselves. Well, IT IS NOT FOR SALE.


  33. @BWWR

    Would you be insulted if I said that your last post was wearisomely verbose and of tiresome length? You are right up there with People’s Democratic Party and Negroman posts.

    However with regard to name calling and personal insults you are the undisputed champion. This is what Wikipedia had to say about your technique.
    “Name calling is both a logical fallacy and cognitive bias, and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear based on fearmongering tactics will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits”

    Remind me again what the connection is between Iain Deane, Nelson, Kingsland, Knox, Cox (great white shark),ADR and the closure of the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary?

    By the way I have no “embargo or prejudice” against great white sharks. I just wouldn’t recommend swimming with one! Admire from afar.


  34. Nostradamus, we have a lot in common. Verbosity. In my case, my excuse is age. What is yours? By the way, best not to use the Adrian Loveridge patented “remind me” statement too much or people will think you are he and he does seem to have an interest in Kingsland as I see his name all over the John Knox affidavits and even in some decisions from the Ontario courts. Of course, we know you are not Loveridge.

    The connection you ask? Simple. Almighty Puny Pete. Did you miss that? Poor you. As I advised you before, read, my dear, read – even if you don’t get it at first, maybe it will filter through to you later like it has all the rest of the country.

    As for your Wikipedia, seems to me that if somone sues a country in order to go behind the courts of the country and then ‘arranges’ for two blogs – and a Loveridge – to degrade and run down that country and its people and institutions using manufactured and one-sided slime tactics, then there can be no strictures on name-calling etc. (no matter how these are defined by Wikipedia ot anyone else) as one merely mirrors and uses the tactics used on one’s country – but admittedly to far better effect. But of course Barbados is not your country, is it – or Mr Allard’s and IT NEVER WILL BE. So why don’t you leave a discussion of patriotism to those of us who are Bajan?


  35. BWWR

    Touche! It is amazing how some people think because Barbados is a small island, the people are pea brained, or, as we say up here, dickheads. You tell um girl!

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading