Why does Barbados remain in CARICOM, the CCJ or the CSME? These institutions appear to be a net drain on our resources. Time for PM Thompson to throw down the gauntlet and forge a new regional arrangement which returns to the original ideas of functional cooperation and mutual assistance. Forget this quicksand of political and economic integration. Barbados for 400 years provided wealth to England, now independent we must not let others take what we have built up. Beware the Trinidad/Guyana mafia, it brings only misery and death!!

In the final analysis,I will deem the following enemies of the state of Barbados
1. Stabroeknews
2. The Nation news
3.Stabroeknews overseas based bloggers.
4 Ricky Sing
5 A small percentage of Guyanese living in Barbados.

The majority of Guyanese here in Barbados , whether legal or illegal are not the ones kicking up a fuss. So too are the majority of Guyanese in Guyana. The agitators and mischievous ones who are calling on God to strike Barbados with a hurricane and all that, and demonstrations against Prime Minister Thompson in Georgetown are those refugees who had absconded from Guyana never to return, living in the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom and right here in Barbados.Then there are those who live a privilege life outside of Guyana,but see it fit to drag down Barbados ,its people and its policy , just to be on the band wagon. In this sad state of affair , we must remember that there are many law abiding Guyanese living among us .

For all those who asked Leviticus Chapter 19, verses 33 to 34 says “and if a stranger sojurn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him, but the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt”

We need the church(es) to guide us to the Christian response.

And this one for the church going Scout, from Leviticus chapter 19, verses 9 and 10 “and when ye reap the harvest of your land, thy shall not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest, and thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thos shalt leave them for the poor and stranger, thus says the Lord thy God”

@J

Do you think that our Fourth Estate should be bring this information you are asking us about? It’s time your profession steps up to the plate.

Lindsay Holder

Have you seen your article re peter wickham’s analysis in today’s nation on line.

Is this the first article they have posted and did they delete any part of it?

Just checking.

MUBB,
Correction. The article appearing in today’s Nation Newspaper is a redacted version of the article, ‘Peter Wickham – Nonsense and More Nonsense’, posted on this Blog.

I have just submitted the article, ‘Due Process and Other Immigration Issues – Open Letter to Professor Compton Bourne’, for posting on the Blog. That article appears in today’s edition of the Barbados Advocate Newspaper.

@Peter Wickham

Your silence is deafening! We know that you follow BU why not respond to Lindsay Holder’s challenge?

Professor Compton Bourne may be well advised in his position to avoid making comments of a political nature while in office and in a foreign land.

@LHolder
No where that I know does a newspaper not exercise its right to edit, if it feels the need, and the reasons can be many. Hence my request to you to stress if the editing materially affected your argument.

A word limit is a reasonable control device and you know that for many professional journals/publications you would be subjected to that. You may be able to negotiate with a professional journal about what is taken or left. But, we also know that it is an accepted part of the discipline of writing. It is rare that such a process of negotation over length occurs with a newspaper (especially if they are trying to touch on matters of immediate import).

To the extent that any of your publications in the papers, if they have been edited before publication in a manner that you feel distorts or ignores the context or distorts your argue, would elicit a nasty rebuke to The Editor (which of course, he/she may or may not publish).

What The Nation has done in publishing material drawn from elsewhere is what it often does, reproduce existing news copy, but usually that is not very long.

I would like to think (but it totally hypothetical) that had your original pieces been shorter they would be have been published in full, in a series as has been the case with the Wickham and Jeff Cumberbatch pieces. I don’t know if you explored that option.

What you offered several weekends ago was a treatise, as far as most newspapers are concerned, and that you went at length into the exposition is to your credit. The Advocate split the presentation over 2 publications (not sure if that was with agreement by you). I read them in full and did not count the number of words, but many/several commented on this blog about their excessive length. They were certainly the longest pieces I have seen by an outside author in any of the local papers, but will defer to others with longer histories if that is not the case.

But, you have the blogs, such as BU, where, I presume, the moderator has not to impose any length restrictions. You could also have your own website and be master of your own publication destiny. You can also use it to indicate the rebukes you send to The Editors.

@LIB

We see that you have become the defender of the status quo. It is ironic Peter Wickham was heard defending the editorial policy of the Nation newspaper the very same paper which blocked his column during the last election. All must be well in paradise now.

Here is the hard truth LIB. Given the current debate any submission by Lindsay Holder given the ensuing discussion post-Barbados Advocate publication of his exposition would probably have done wonders for its circulation which has been flat for sometime despite its marketshare. The additional incentive is the importance to the Nation’ s credibility given its readiness to give full page prominence to news regurgitated from the Guyana newspapers, Rickey Singh et al by exposing the views of a prominent Barbadian.

There is a lot more we can say about the tainted editorial policy of the Nation newspaper on the immigration/Guyanese matter specifically but it might compromise individuals undeserving of censure.

Great work Lindsay, whether one agrees with you or not you have certainly raised the level of debate on this issue. We need you back doing some teaching in our department.

My question is, given the sensitivity of the movement of people across borders, should nations make major changes in immigration policy as part of a single market for example, without reference to the public, in say the form of a referendum?

@livinginbarbados

but many/several commented on this blog about their excessive length.

************************************
Must have been another blog, there was only one complaint on the length on this blog. Perhaps David can confirm.
Anyway what’s the problem in exploring an important issue at length? It seemed to have grabbed everyone’s attention.

@David
On re-reading, I will take the ‘status quo’ label as a criticism (though mild). I have always been referred to as an iconoclast for NOT towing the line. By I was raised to speak my mind. Have I mellowed with age? Is something in the water in Barbados must be responsible? Do I have a reason to love BWA after all?

If you ever listen to Living in Barbados aka Dennis Jones on Down to Brasstacks – he uses a lot of words and ends up making no sense or saying anything of depth.

If you can,please ignore him.

@MUBB/Sargeant
One tendency, and it’s interesting, is for some (not many) to feel that they need to speak for others. I wrote ‘many/several’ (and honestly did not count or care, but merely noted that length came up as an issue; yes some/several commented that length was not an issue for them–but it’s not set text so hopefully no marks will be deducted from those who did not read it all). I could say that I know many who did not read the articles in the newspapers because they were turned off by its length. I accept that was a casual observation made over the first two days of publication.

Length can be an issue for some and it is often cited as a negative feature. Several of my former bosses often swore that they would not read any thing I sent them if it was over one page in length.

I think Lindsay understands the point.

Anyway, as Justin says, thanks to Lindsay for being amongst those (not the only one) to have raised the level of the debate.

I will let sargeant speak for himself,but I will say this for my self to you living in barbados.

Your explanation above is at best dishonest.

Your direct quote to lindsay holder was that:”I did not count your exact words,but many/several on THIS BLOG commented on its excessive length”.

This is the second time within a few days that I have noticed that living in barbados makes a negative comment or insuination about a fellow blogger,but when challenged and found to be guilty of false accusation – he never apologises but seeks to engage in fudging and spin.

In today’s example he now moves from ‘many on this blog commented on the length of lindsay’s article’,to ‘many of my friends who read the article in the newspaper felt it was too long’

If you can’t trust a man too be truthful in what he writes or say,I would think it is difficult to trust him in other things.

@MUBB
I have no problem with being proved wrong on ‘many/several’ on this blog and will gladly withdraw the reference, even resubmit it and ask David to delete the original. It still does not detract from the point I wished to make and I think Lindsay understands (though I dare not take silence as being consent) the length of the piece detracted readers. That I know for a fact as far as my circle goes, hence my drawing on the well-worn path of ‘casual observation’. I can quantify them.

With due respect (and Lindsay please feel free to answer directly) I did not make an insinuation against him if “negative comment or insuination about a fellow blogger” was pointed in his direction. If he were not the blogger in question, please specify so that due apologies can be given.

With regard to my commentaries on the radio, they are often very short and not a lot of words (rarely as long as 5 minutes). I have no problems with the transcripts and recordings being used to prove that point.

Again, I am in your debt for being the arbiter of truth. If asked, would you identify yourself?

@Justin Robinson/LHolder
“My question is, given the sensitivity of the movement of people across borders, should nations make major changes in immigration policy as part of a single market for example, without reference to the public, in say the form of a referendum?”
Referendums may be the way to go for the immigration policy issue, but you have to then accept that if you go that route the expectation may be for other ‘sensitive’ issues to be dealt with similarly. Of course, there is no reason to have the referendum once, and EU countries and the state of California (as an US example) have used the method several times to see public approval/disapproval on a single issue.

I do not know the Barbados Constitution well, so am unsure of what its provisions are for a referendum, and how any results would/could be binding on a government.

@David
“While you contain your argument within the editorial policy of the respective media houses we prefer to believe though with great difficulty, the dynamic role a Fourth Estate MUST play as it interacts with the other realms of the estate. As a developing society about the navigate a path strewn with challenges the role of the Fourth Estate MUST align with the job at had.”

It’s hard to argue without putting a limit of some parameters. When we don’t others say we have strayed off topic. But, I do not see ‘editorial policy’ as narrow, but governing all that is done by a media house.

But, I really do not understand the point you are making in the final sentence.

@LHolder
What we don’t know about the papers is what they do in totality: we see published letters, but not those in the trash bin.

As I have tried to say also, we no longer need be hostage to the editorial policy of a given paper, because things like the Internet mean that self-publishing at least, or publication elsewhere is a real and often more effective option.

@Adrian Hinds
Why on earth do you feel you need to advise Lindsay? Give the man the respect to be able to think for himself.

@Adrian Hinds
VOB is carrying the broadcast…

Can someone explain “The spirit of Caricom”? Or should I ask David Ellis?

My boy is basically telling them “calm yourselves”, “cease and settle”, “get your facts straight”. Guyanese journalists rightfully humbling themselves after all the frothing! Haha!