Submitted by Lindsay Holder
The following articles were submitted to the local press for publication. To date, three of these articles have been published. There are status statements at the end of those articles that have been published.
Pursuing The Immigration Matter
Discover more from Barbados Underground
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
-
I am not questioning your common sense but you said it yourself, you are not a lawyer.
I am telling you that the constitution protects all persons, not only citizens of Barbados.
Think of it. Do you think that the Government can arrest and detain a tourist without charge and then claim that the constitution doesn’t protect persons who are not citizens.
Look, Jeff Cumberbatch is very bright guy. He has been teaching Law for 30 years. I am just saying that perhaps you should not be seeking to argue that he is incorrect legally. If you genuinely think that the constitution should only protect the rights of bajans then you should argue for its amendment.
-
Anonjam; this is not a sterile debate about the words citizen vs. person. This is not about whether an illegal immigrant is a person and therefore meets the requirement of the constitution as it outlines rights against state deprivation of property. This about the context to which Jeff Cumberbatch sought to place the lawfull actions of the state to remove persons from it’s jurisdiction who have not sought and secure some legitimate form of immigrant and or citizen status. It is in this context that Jeff Cumberbatch seeks to hold the state to ransom by suggesting that by lawfully removing a person who has no lawfull status, it is willfully, and deliberately depriving that person of their property. He then leaves it at that, as if to suggest his job is finish.
-
I spoke to a Q.C tonight on the matter and he told me Mr. Cumberbatch is misleading the public. Funny thing is he knows that he is misleading the public but the law is so designed that an attorney can always find an argument for almost every case.
-
Adrian,
You seem to be absoultely certain that there is no truth to some of the accusations made. That is fine.
But I dont think Jeff is making any assertion of fact. He is stating the law. That is, if raids have taken place in the way that have been described, then they are not lawful.
-
My take on the situation for what it is worth.
Everyone has rights.However, if a man has committed an illegal act and is being arrested by the police; could he then say my citizen’s rights are being violated? No he could not. His rights would only be violated if in the execution of his duties the policeman exceeds what he is legally permitted to do cognizant with the context and circumstances of the arrest… or the arrest was wrongful or unlawful.
The overiding principle here is if the Authorities – Police and Immigration – have exceeded their legally permitted duties or used “unreasonable force” or coercion in the execution of those duties…nothing else stands.
It would be for those illegal immigrants to prove by “evidence” that the Authorities acted unlawfully.
-
The Above Comment Is Yardbroom’s.
-
Jagdeo had me cracking up with laughter with his response to PM Thompson. It took me back to boy days when we carried out night raids on fruit trees in the district. If we were caught, we suffered the consequences
(a stick lash from the landowner) without complaining. Can you imagine we complaining to our parents who in turn should have argued that we only stole one mango and were undeserving of such cruel treatment? lol. Jagdeo, Cumberbatch et al should throw away their law books and to quote the youngsters ‘get fuh real ‘ -
@Anonjam
Look, Jeff Cumberbatch is very bright guy. He has been teaching Law for 30 years.
************************************
It’s good that you admire Cumberbatch for his intellect, but “bright” people screw up too. I haven’t seen any article in the Nation that challenges the Professor’s view, perhaps we are so in awe of “bright” people that no one is willing to state “The emperor has no clothes” -
Why does The Scout not get his QC to enter into the debate and say how Cumberbatch is misleading the public?
-
I have no reason to believe Mr. Cumberbatch does not know the Law or is not bright…I dare say perhaps he is very bright.
However, on many issues a different interpretation of the Law can be had from many attorneys…in some cases very eminent ones.
Until such time as the actions of the Authorities are challenged in a court of Law and a judgement given by a judge; Mr Cumberbatch’s interpretation of the Law is just that…”his” interpretation of the Law.
-
Yard broom you are correct when you say that if the police do not exceed what they are legally permitted to do then it can not be said that constitutional rights have been violated. That goes without saying because any act by the police can only be lawful if it is consistent with the constitution.
What a police is legally permitted do is dictated by statute (which must be consistent with the constitution). I don’t want to get into too much law on the blog but suffice it to say a police can not arbitrarily force their way into anyone’s home without a warrant and arrest someone (I am not saying that is what happened but the accusations are being made).
If you have a chance, take a look at Section 13 of the Immigration Act. It is the relevant section that addresses non-nationals who stay longer than the period permitted by an immigration officer. It covers a variety of things but one of the important things that it states is that the minister may make a deportation order against a person who overstays his/her permitted time in the country. A person against whom a deportation order is made may be detained and arrested without warrant.
What is interesting is that it does not make it a criminal offence to overstay the time permitted by an immigration officer. Before you jump out of your seat and shout at the screen, let me explain what I mean by this. Other than offences which are common law offences (like murder) an act is only a criminal offence when a statute stipulates it to be. So the statute would say something like “Any person who does “A” shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine or “X” years in prison”. Section 13 does not make it a criminal offence to overstay one’s permitted time (which I admit is odd considering that it is an offence to knowingly harbour such a person).
That being said, a raid of a person’s premises could not be lawfully executed unless
(a) a deportation order was issued;
(b) an arrest warrant was issued
(c) The police had reasonable cause to believe that a person was in the act of committing an arrestable offence;Now the Prime Minister indicated that only a handful of Guyanese were actually deported. The others were asked to leave. If those Guyanese who were merely “asked to leave” were not the subjects of deportation orders or being charged criminal offences the police did not have the power to raid their homes and detain them.
Even the immigration official mentioned in the article stated:
“I am not sure about all these raids I’m hearing about because the order given by Government when the amnesty was announced, was that no raids are to be carried out while the amnesty is still in motion; so if any raids have taken place, it has nothing to do with the immigrant situation,”
The immigration official also stated:
“In order for anyone to be deported, a deportation document must be signed by the minister in charge of immigration, so it is a case where people can’t be just put on a plane and sent home; there are procedures that must be followed.”
It may be that the raids only related to non-nationals against whom deportation orders were issued. Or maybe the persons who were raided were actually being arrested for other criminal offences. I really don’t know all the circumstance behind the alleged raids, I am just saying that Mr. Cumberbatch is just trying to outline the law. No need to question his legal knowledge because the law isn’t what you want it to be.
-
I do not want to seem to be overly defensive of Cumberbatch, but how come no one has publicly stated that his opinion is wrong? And what will the Prime Minister discipline immigration and police officers for, as he says he would?
-
sorry, Sargeant and yardbroom. I posted without seeing your last comments where you indicated that you werent questioning his knowledge of the law. Disregard the last sentence of my last post.
-
Themis, Judging from your sign in name I would have thought you were a lawyer yourself.
-
Maybe I am, and the fact that you recognise it says that you know about what you speak too!
-
Anonjam
Are you a jamaican (ie anonjam – anonymous jamaican)
Are you also a lawyer practicing here in barbados?
If yes,can you tell me if the legal situation re immigration raids and ‘constitutional rights’ are similar in Jamaica?
-
@Mash Up
I am a Bajan. Whilst I havent reviewed the Jamaican Laws. I would think that they are similar.@ Themis
I was actually wondering for a while if you would chip in with a legal point or two. But if you are a lawyer, I apologise if I revealed something that you didn’t want revealed. -
@Adrian Hinds
In order to protect the illegal immigrant’s property, Gov’t could tag it and store it at Glendairy Prison until the offender could make arrangements to have it shipped to Guyana. My grandson at 6 years old would laugh to hear that Jagdeo and Cumberbatch making the property a big issue.
-
What you you tell your grandson if, after he had finished laughing, he were to discover that his favourite toy had been stolen? Would he start laughing again?
-
Hi Anonjam, I accept and will disregard your last sentence, I would never do such a thing.
—————————
I take on board the salient points you have made. There are certainly a few issues which need further clarification; but this can only come from “hard evidence” which is subjected to challenge in court.I could go into what the Law Lord, Lord Denning said about what is “reasonable” as this issue cries out for it, but I will let it rest.
On what I have read the defence would have his/her work cut out to prove the Authorities acted unlawfully.
-
@Themis
He would cry till he gets a Busta. lol -
Now that we have some legal speak going on,I was wondering could Guyana actually challenge Barbados’ immigration policy in CCJ through the matter highlighted by Professor Cumberbatch ?
It is also of interest that P.M. Thompson has re-dedicated Barbados to free-movement,but I wonder if the situation has changed much.Clearly the Prime Minister of Jamaica & the P.M responsible for Free movement has sided with our P.M.
http://www.guyanaobservernews.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1104&Itemid=94
“Golding is of the view that these issues must be brought to the table and discussed, as Heads of State must be responsive to the particular difficulties that a country may have.
He explained that Jamaica is close to Haiti and now his country has a large problem with many Haitians who have migrated to Jamaica.
“And it has posed many problems for us in different ways, but these are issues that we must come to the table with. I do not think it is the proper approach for any head to take a unilateral position and to forsake our sovereignty to do what we think is in our best national interest.
“We are part of a community and if we have difficulty in honouring our commitment, let us talk about it because I don’t think that any of us is so unreasonable that we are not prepared to empathise and work with a country that may have difficulty in fulfilling an obligation,” Prime Minister Golding said.
He is hoping that the 30th meeting of the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community reaches a consensus on free movement.
Prime Minister Golding reiterated the decision that was made at the Intercessional meeting which was held in St. Vincent and the Grenadines where it was agreed that by the end of 2009, all CARICOM nationals, whether they are journalists or entertainers, would be free to move within the CARICOM community.
He added that his country is not waiting until the end of this year to honour that agreement, but have already started to do so.
“Let’s not each go out on our own trolley and take unilateral and independent position, a community cannot be run that way.”
Also commenting on the immigration issue was Prime Minister of Dominica, Roosevelt Skerrit, who urged for the region to understand that free movement does not mean that persons can reside illegally in any other country.
He too shared the view that this issue should be extensively discussed.” -
Hello Folks,
Jeff Cumberbatch is right when he says that the Constitution prohibits the deprivation of people’s property. Note, however, that overstaying in a country is unlawful, and that is a specific provision of the Immigration Act. Thus, although the Constitution forbids depriving people of their property, it does not forbid the detention and repatriation of illegal immigrants.Thus, what is needed is for the Government to make the appropriate arrangements regarding the property of illegal immigrants. Note that such arrangements do not include bearing the costs of shipping the consumer durables of such individuals to their home countries.
One way of dealing with the problem is to detain the illegal immigrants in Her Majesty’s Prisons at Dodds, and give them or their representatives a fixed amount of time to dispose of the property. When that time has elapsed, the immigrants would be repatriated. Note that once the amount of time is reasonable, e.g., four weeks, the Government would not be in breach of the Constitution even if the items are not sold.
By far the most important point to grasp is that even if illegal immigrants accumulate property, it does not mean that they are exempt from detention prior to repatriation.
-
Well explained Mr. Holder.
Let me just add that before the illegal immigrant is detained, a deportation order must be made (unless he is being charged with a criminal offence).
-
It makes one wonder what purpose is jeff cumberbatch serving by delaying the deportation of these illegals even more by promoting this stuff.
-
Anonjam,
You do not need a deportation order to detain an illegal immigrant. If the authorities have sufficient cause to believe that an individual is in the country illegally and you check that individual’s passport and he is actually illegal, then that constitutes sufficient cause for detention and repatriation.The authorities have two choices. The first is to ask the individual to leave voluntarily, i.e., pay for his own airline ticket or make arrangements to pay for his ticket in the event that he has been detained. If the individual is unable to pay for his own ticket and the State has to pay for it, then the State can (it does not have to) assign ‘deportation’ status to that individual even though he has not committed a crime.
It is important to recognise that ‘deportation’ has a specific meaning in immigration law, and that meaning is that the individual is prohibited from entering the country again unless that restriction is lifted by the authorities. I am not familiar with all of the reasons why an individual may be deported, but I am sure that the reasons are not restricted to criminal activities on the part of the deported individuals.
-
I am not familiar with all of the reasons why an individual may be deported, but I am sure that the reasons are not restricted to criminal activities on the part of the deported individuals.
—————————–You are correct when you say that it is not restricted to criminal activity. I agree with you. However I would suggest that you are not exactly correct when you say:
“You do not need a deportation order to detain an illegal immigrant. If the authorities have sufficient cause to believe that an individual is in the country illegally and you check that individual’s passport and he is actually illegal, then that constitutes sufficient cause for detention and repatriation.”
Let me start by saying this: Not every breach of the law is a criminal offence.
For example the Companies Act states that every company shall file an annual return with the corporate affairs office by the 1st of every month. If the company does not file an annual return the company is liable to pay a fine. A company that doesn’t file an annual return is in breach of the law but it isn’t guilty of a criminal offence.
A criminal offence is either a common law offence or a statutory offence. An act or an ommission is only a statutory offence if the statute stipulates that it is. So the statute may say something like “Any person who does “A” shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction to a fine or “X” years in prison”.
Section 13 does not stipulate that overstaying one’s permitted time is a criminal offence. It is certainly a breach of the law but it is not a criminal offence. In other words, you won’t see an illegal immigrant before a magistrate charged with overstaying his/her permitted time in Barbados pursuant to section 13 of the Immigration Act (he/she may be charged with something else).
The section clearly stipulates that a deportation order may be made against a person who has overstayed his/her time in Barbados. The illegal immigrant may be detained pending the deportation order being prepared and executed. However, a police officer or immigration officer would be acting outside of his/her power if they sought to detain someone without obtaining a deportation order sometime after within a reasonable time after that person’s detention (once again they may be detained for committing or suspicion of committing another offence). In any event, a deportation order is needed at some point if an illegal immigrant is being detained in accordance with section 13 of the immigration act.
If someone is merely being “asked to leave” (rather than being deported), they should not be detained.
-
Lindsay Holder wrote at 4:50 on July 5th “One way of dealing with the problem [of the property of illegal immigrants] is to detain the illegal immigrants in Her Majesty’s Prisons at Dodds, and give them or their representatives a fixed amount of time to dispose of the property.”
Dear Lindsay:
I can’t believe that you are advising that illegal immigrants be IMPRISONED at Dodds because the government did not THINK before hand about what to do the with property (or even more important what oto do with Bajan born children) of people it planned to deport.
And what is the government doing with the Bajan born children of illegal immigrants. I trust that the government is not withholding these children from their parents, or deporting these Bajan born children.
Regarding the property of immigrants would it not be simpler, kinder and less expensive for the the immigrant to have a friend or relative take charge of disposing of the property, failing that the government should dispose of the property at FAIR MARKET VALUE, and then send the money to the immigrant.
But this foolishness is exactly what we get when government policy seems to be based on racism, emotion, and the desire to satisfy the ignorant majority.
-
Anonjam,
As stated tonight by Minister, Senator Maxine McClean, overstaying is unlawful. It is not a criminal offence, but the individual can be detained pending his or her ‘voluntary’ repatriation. The State can detain the individual on the grounds that if released, the individual would not leave the country as agreed. For those types of circumstances, no deportation orders are required.J,
Do not jump on me. I gave two possible alternatives, but of course thare are others. Your suggestions are quite appropriate. However, what is the connection between your coherent statements in the first three paragraphs and the emotional outbursts in the last paragraph? -
If Senator Mccclean said that, she is mistaken.
There must be a deportation order.
She may be refering to section 21(11) of the companies act which says:
Unless otherwise directed by the Minister, a person
against whom a deportation order is made may be requested or
allowed to leave Barbados voluntarily provided that he complies
with the conditions governing his voluntary departure.Even under this section there must be an order.
-
Sorry that is section 21 of the Immigration Act….Not the companies Act
-
Dear Lindsay:
It is not an emotional outburst.
It pains me greatly when I see my government (any party) acting without thinking things through carefully. I expect my government (any party) to act intelligently at ALL times.
-
@J
• But this foolishness is exactly what we get when government policy seems to be based on racism, emotion, and the desire to satisfy the ignorant majority.
**************************************
As a bona fide member of the “ignorant majority”, I would appreciate knowing the race of the people that the Gov’t has deported. -
It also seems like Barbados is not the only country being condemned.Antigua & Barbuda looks like it will be the next target of the ‘regionalists’ soon enough.
In Antigua,they are also not allowing any prior LEGAL to finish up any unfinished business & instead either detain them for sometime or deport them.I wonder why the alleged “abused” didn’t apply for Antiguan Citizenship through the Antiguan Millenium Naturalization act in 2000 ?
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/07/05/guyanese-sent-home-from-antigua-alleges-mistreatment/
———————————————-
“Guyanese sent home from Antigua alleges mistreatment“If I could find a good job in Guyana, there is no way I will return to Antigua.”
These were the words of Adrian Forde, a Guyanese who was recently sent back from the island after spending 15 years of his life.
Forde returned to Guyana three months ago after Antiguan authorities refused to renew his work permit, although he had a stable job with one employer for almost the entire time he spent on the island.
He described the recent statements by Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer, at the opening of the ongoing CARICOM Heads of Government Conference in Georgetown as not entirely the real situation.
Prime Minister Spencer told the Heads of Government of the region that his country’s liberal immigration policy cannot be sustained and his government was forced to rethink its immigration policy.
“The Immigration Department in Antigua and Barbuda has approved over 14,000 applications from persons seeking the extension of time to remain in the country.”
He noted that some of these applicants have received multiple extensions over the years.
In respect of work permits, the Prime Minister said that between 1998 and 2008, an average of 5000 work permits were granted on an annual basis.
He added that between 1999 and 2008, a total of 5,988 persons became citizens of Antigua and Barbuda.
But Forde has painted a different picture, accusing the Antiguan Immigration authorities of violating the rights of many Caribbean nationals and even disregarding the order of a judge.
Forde told this newspaper that after 15 years on the island with two four-year extensions of his work permit, he went to regularise his status, but was promptly detained.
He said that after three days in custody he and other illegal immigrants were taken before a judge, who ordered that they be released.
However, no sooner had they walked out of the courtroom than the immigrants were promptly re-arrested and placed in a bus and taken back to the immigration office where they were again detained.
According to Forde, they spent another four days in custody despite the judge’s order.
Fortunately, his employer managed to secure the services of an attorney on the island who made representation for him to be released and subsequently sent home.
“Those who can’t afford a lawyer had to remain in custody. If you don’t have money you suffer,” Forde told this newspaper.
Forde said that during his detention, he observed that there were about 15 of his countrymen along with Jamaicans and other Caribbean nationals who have now been left behind.
“There were people in there who were detained for almost a month,” he explained.
The Antiguan Prime Minister had said that his country will continue to welcome persons from across the Caribbean to its shores but the current immigration practices must be revised.
A closer examination is warranted in respect of the capacity of the country’s various socio-economic institutions and infrastructure to adequately manage the continued request of persons desirous of taking up residence there.
But according to Forde, the burden on the socio-economic institutions from foreign nationals is minimal.
He said that for instance, most immigrants whose children are with them have enrolled them into private schools on the island.
Forde said that while he is inclined to remain in Guyana, he would like to return to Antigua to “tie up some loose ends.”
“I have left a bank account and my home with all my things inside,” he told this newspaper.
With island nations in the Caribbean feeling the brunt of a global economic crisis, both Barbados and Antigua and Barbuda have been clamping down on illegal immigrants.
Guyana’s President Bharat Jagdeo had called for an end to what he called the maltreatment of CARICOM nationals.
However, both countries have denied accusations that illegal immigrants are being mistreated.” -
There is a ground swell of concerns in St. Lucia about the amount of illegals in that country, especially guyanese. It seems P.M Thompson has opening a can of worms that had it not been open now would have expolded very soon. I keep saying we’re picnicking under a dangerous volcano which is about to erupt. A small eruption has been caused by P.M Thompson but the full blast is still going to occur. The citizens of these countries will cause the full blast unless the administration heed their demands
-
So true Scout.
Please make your voice heard scout.
-
While in some way, I can understand thw P.M and Foreign Min ‘s of Barbados and indeed other regional governments for staying clear of Guyana’s domestic problems, it must also be pointed out that these problems are effcting the rest of the region. Therfore I think it is time the hrads of the region sit down with Jagdeo and read the riot act to him. Demand that he put his house in order or else the country will be expelled from Caricom?csme. The region just cannot continue to allow not only the burden of guyanese illegals but the advancement of the region to a more untified body, that respects the sovereignty of each other.
-
@The Scout
“Therfore I think it is time the hrads of the region sit down with Jagdeo and read the riot act to him. Demand that he put his house in order or else the country will be expelled from Caricom”Even if one agreed with this, how do you think it can happen? PM Thompson has been critical of other HOGs ‘interfering’ in Barbados’ domestic policies, and he re-iterated the point in his Georgetown press conference.
But assuming that you have thought, or are thinking it through, what grounds would you put forward for trying to expel a country from Caricom, and to whom else would such conditions apply?
-
I am concern that our Prime Minister is not getting it right with this new immigration policy.
Prime Minister David Thompson is asking undocumented illegal immigrants to leave with no deportation order in their passports and those who do not comply or are in serious breaches of our immigration law are deported with the deportation stamp in their passports.Those illegals who are ask to leave as indicated by our Prime Minister have the opportunity to return to Barbados after a very short period of time and with the possibility of staying up to six months with this new Caribbean Visa Card.When those illegals return to Barbados it more than likely that those illegals will return to their old ways.That is working illegally,living in substandard housing and generally operating in the same manner as before.
Prime Minister David Thompson it is an effort in futility that illegals will be able to return to Barbados after being ask to leave for breaching our immigration laws.I really do not see any serious improvement in the number of illegals in Barbados if this is the policy that you & your government is pursuing.
I think in England and I hope Jay could clarify this for me that if an individual is ask to leave or is deported from England that individual has to wait for at least ten (10) years before that individual is allow back into England.I believe something like that should be part of our new immigration policy.
Arni Walters our Minister of Immigration must be given some work to do.He should be signing all the deportation orders for all illegals.I believe if you are illegal and are caught there should not be any distinction between being ask to leave and being deported.All should be deported with the assurance that they will not be allow to return to Barbados maybe within a ten (10) year period.If that is done I think this inept,confuse government will be doing something significantly to address this illegal immigration issue.
-
Negroman
What is your say on this nanny migration policy. To me it is a way of the P.M backing down from his original stance. To be honest, it bothers me greatly, I’m disappointed. The problem is, there is no-one to turn to Mia would immigration floodgates and we might have to share our houses with these stinking guyanese. Everyday I hating them more and more and really I shouldn’t be hating people but I’m only human. -
Thid is a political invasion
-
Scout
This nanny thing is downright stupid on the part of the fool,the incompetent ass we have as a Prime Minister David Thompson.That is a loophole that is going to be exploited to the fullest by the Guyanese and I cannot blame them.We have many desperate Barbadian women willing to do nanny work and work in that area and now these Barbadian women will have to compete with non-nationals for such mundane jobs.
I can foresee many foolish Barbadian men applying for work permits for their Guyanese girlfriends under the pretext of looking for nannies to look after them or their relatives.I can see a greater number of non-nationals benefiting from that initiative.
This is a hopeless lot we have as a government,saying one thing and doing something else different.I think this nonsensical,inept,foolish,backward as ass government led by the foolish man David Thompson should give up the ghost.It has capitulated under the pressures from Bharat Jagdeo.Ralph Gonsalves,musty Norman Faria and the rich Indian financiers such as Peter Harris,Chatrani,Abdul Pandor and the rest of rat catcher/mango seller Indians & Pakistani
Scout we have lost the warThe political Judah has sold us out again.This new immigration policy is nothing but a piece of unworthy shit.
David Thompson you are a let down & a disgrace as a Prime Minister.We are going to get rid of you.You are a 1 term Prime Minister.
Barbados has been sold out to the Guyanese thanks to the half of Guyanese and the non-national Prime Minister David Thompson.
-
After being insulted to your face and called a LIAR!
We are really seeing that our PM is a LIAR!
Baldwin Spencer has more balls than youuuu!
You believe that I voted for YOU!
And up to Saturday morning I was blocking for you!
FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD!
-
You are backpeddling Mr. PM!!!!
-
Jagdeo has WON bajans give up!
-
He is smiling allll the way to the Bank!
Thompson nil/Jagdeo 5
-
Negroman
Get rid of Thompson and do what? put in Mia? Oh my God, the very though of that sickens my stomach. You know something, we’re in trouble, maybe it is time for a patriotic 3rd party to be borned in Barbados. Both the two established parties seem to be singing the same song (lyrics) but to a different tone. I feel depressed right now for being a bajans. Mr Thompson, all is not lose PLEASE do a survey, see how bajans are thinking, we’re who put you their, you are our only hope right now, PLEASE don’t blow it. -
Scout
I feel just like you.I will never vote for Mia Mottley to be Prime Minister of Barbados.I never want to see that disgraceful bunch of human waste to be government of Barbados again.However,David Thompson has disappointed me tremendously and by the same token I will never cast another ballot in Barbados either for the DLP or the BLP.Both political parties are a waste of time.Scout I believe we must seek a referendum on Barbados continuation in CARICOM & CSME.I believe the same way those jokers for politicians seek our approval to give them the mandate to run our affairs,I believe issues that are of critical importance to us our vote should be require before any implementation of any policies is undertaken.We the people must demand that our voices be heard..
Scout David Thompson is a very weak leader and it was shown at the CARICOM Summit.He allowed Bharat Jagdeo to walk all over him.David Thompson is a disappointment as a Prime Minister.
-
A vote for PDC, perhaps.
-
Negroman
You think Jagan would have been so bold as to call Errol Barrow a liar? Now my P.M went to that conference, called a press conference before the Heads met and stated his position. Even then, I detected a softening of his position.Now at the end of the conference he made an agreement with the same Jagdeo to open a backdoor for these same people to come through. Mr. P.M I’m losing confidence in you and quite honestly, you are the last hope I see for a true Barbados to continue, PLEASE don’t disappoint me, you know the way I feel about you.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.