Uh wonda if a certain chubby, Barbadian Reporter’s going to lose weight now he’s recently got married!! Should prove more natural for him now!!

Laaaaadddddddddd!!

Anyhow, doan tell e nuhbody!! Yuh know how touchy he is!!

Lord!!

Again the perverse nature of free speech as a notion eludes me.
Bush Tea // August 27, 2009 at 6:38 AM

Good move to remove that link David!

….now if only we could block comments from Anonymous posters who brag about which countries they have lived in and which languages they can speak and how well they can spell…

A good idea would be to ban Anonymous posting (I think LIB has this as a policy). This is the first NECESSARY condition.

Next, you need to spell out how the comments would be moderated. If named, would they stand if they omitted the offending items or would new ‘offences’ be created? People need to know in case they are next for the slicer.

As for spelling, if the meaning is clear then most readers let words slide. If people are trying to write in patois or lingo or mush mouth then it is usually clear an no one really bothers.

So I ain gine fuss too much bout no sellin an gramma, but iffn yu happening to try writing is stannard english yu betta stan reddy to be carrected. Capiche?

If most commentators just played cricket the game would proceed smoothly. Straight bat reduces the chances for being caught out. If googlies (or is that Google-es in Internet speak?), Chinamen (no immigration issues) are bowled there are ways to block them. If the seam is being tampered with then we know that the game is rigged. If there is sledging remember that the ball will go to the opposition eventually and make sure that you are wearing good helmet, pads, and box.

If the umpire makes clear decisions and stands firm and consistent, then again, no real issues will arise. His word should be final. Let’s stay away from the era of ‘3rd umpires’ (especially self-appointed ones).

Otherwise, we can all play tip and run and live with street rules that we make up as we go along.

You want order? Then have rules and stay with them.

None of this should stump the thinking person. Want to bail out? Feeling creased? Want to redraw the boundary?

@BU family and friends

We have been challenged before and we have always found away to overcome. It is a characteristic to Barbadians to demonstrate resilience in the face of challenges. BU has always encouraged difference in opinions; it is why we publish submissions from BLP and DLP, and we publish pro-homosexual and anti-etc. Some would have forgotten we recently posted a submission from a BLP surrogate which took a very aggressive line. The point, let us try to discuss the issues in the way we have always done on BU; remember Inkwell’s caution last week. We take Chris’ point this is an important topic that blogging is a new activity in the world and even newer to Barbadians. Those who would dare to blaze a trail must expect challenges along the way. If the BU family is game to accept those challenges the BU household will stand tall by their side.

We have a job to do. Do not be afraid of conflict because it often gives rise to something positive. The BU household will continue to read and enjoy your comments, and from time to time we will make changes to protect the feel we want to cultivate in BU.

Stay focused!

PS. As stated previous BU has disable the email notification. The fact emails continue to be delivered on some blogs points to a problem at WordPress which has been reported.

David, thank you for the explanation on email notification, and I see no need therefore to add an email address while notification remains suspended.

On BU’s trail blazing etc. All of the pioneering should go ahead, and your principles if upheld are really good ones to see take shape. Many views are needed to make ideas whole. Often, good ideas come from unexpected and unwell come quarters, but that is why listening or its blog equivalent is important. Would you drown out a doctor because you did not like his diagnosis?

Frankness and honesty on the part of an administrator are to be applauded, as is even handedness. That honesty should not be shaded deliberately and if it is question should be confirmed and/or explained for all to see.

He or she is THE true arbiter and setter of tone. Of that I am convinced.

Not all need point in the same direction in a boat. Yet the boat’s course can still be clear.

To think that people are still commenting on BFP.

Re Would you drown out a doctor because you did not like his diagnosis?

Frequently attempted on BU! LOL

anyone body who visits with a Doctor name Georgie Porgie really needs to be admitted. lol!

Happy Birthday sweetie pooh!

May the Creator bless you daily! As you would say …….

luvs ya baddd!!!!!

Living in Barbados,Oh dear man,you have now resorted to posting under the handle David?

What is your obsession with this Barbados Underground blog?

IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO PROVE GENUINE INJURY TO REPUTATION, WHEN THERE IS DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE THAT THE POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS IN ANY SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST BU and or BFP BLOGGERS CAN BE FOUGHT AGAINST WITH EVIDENCE TO PROVE INTIMIDATION, MALICE, AND INTENT TO SILENCE.

Deputy PM has her Say
July 19, 2006 · 14 Comments
The Deputy Prime Minister’s call for a “framework of accountability” on our talk show programmes and internet blogs is most timely. The call was made during her address to the conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s
Caribbean,
Americas and Atlantic Region currently in progress at the Hilton hotel.

Based on comments made to us by persons who care little for the political mud-slinging on these call-in programmes and in Letters to the Editor, Ms. Mottley’s comments are echoing their sentiments and deep concerns for the lack of accountability on these unregulated forms of public discourses that can have a direct impact on the kind of society we can become. We agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the work of the conference should lead to a policy to reform the
Westminster system so as to protect the credibility of our Parliaments.

This column (BLP NATION Column) has been relentless in calling for accountability on these call-in programmes for some time now. We feel strongly that in an era driven by technology of the kinds we see today, the information we put across our air waves will permanently form the basis of how the rest of the world sees us. Gone are the days when our call-in programmes were aired primarily at home and when our newspapers hardly made it out of the Country and region.

Today globe trotters like investors, social planners, economic advisors and even the criminal elements are using whatever medium at their disposal to help them understand the kind of society with whom they will be interacting. It is therefore critical that the criticisms we have of ourselves are constructive and reflective of the pride and patriotism that we should all have, first and foremost in our country and then in ourselves as a people.

To bear out the accuracy of Ms. Mottley’s call, the Advocate Newspaper of Wednesday, May 24, 2006 under the headlines “What are some of the radio call-in programmes coming to”, writer Eric Griffith expressed some concern about the quality of information that is allowed to go on to our air-waves. He, like this column and Ms. Mottley, believes that outlets must be created for citizens to air their views. In fact he puts it this way, “I am in favour of giving people opportunities to let off steam and to share their opinions with fellow citizens, but one should consider the message that is going out on the air-waves and what effect it might have on this county’s reputation in the eyes of others”.

Mr. Griffith was at time referring to comments made by a caller to one of the call-in programmes which he described as offensive. The caller is reported to have said that the government was “slow poisoning” the people and Mr. Griffith felt that no self respecting radio station should have allowed such a comment to go abroad unchallenged. Recently, a number of persons have been expressing their disgust at the level to which the call-in programmes have been sinking and to be fair to David Ellis he has been making a valiant effort clean up the programme. He must be complimented.

Political parties will come and political parties will go but the institutions and pillars of our democracy which are the bedrock of our socio-economic and political stability must always be protected and held in the highest esteem for the rest of the world to see. These are the things for which Barbadians derive their respect and honour when they travel.

Libel chill

Libel chill is a classic tactic undertaken by an organization that wishes to silence its enemies. It consists of threatening to file libel actions that would be expensive to defend, not in order to win damages, but to prevent some truth from being revealed. A classic example from the Wikipedia mailing list is James Wales explaining how he intimidates others from filing claims against the Wikimedia Foundation:

“in order to file a legal action, he or she would have to reveal his or her true identity, which would then enable us to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him.” – Wales [1]
In other words, any person who so much as contests the Wikimedia policies or donation strategies as being legal under the laws, even of their own country, is to be instantly intimidated and forbidden from responding even to comments about themselves. This would seem to restrict the right to libel to those who are part of the insider culture/sysop power structure who perform these “bans”.

In some countries, like Indonesia, libel chill is a powerful tool of oppression. There, as of August 2004, “three journalists face charges that could land them in jail for allegedly libeling a well-known Indonesian businessman.” – source IFEX [2].

Because of the nature of its work revealing corporate abuses, the Consumerium Governance Organization can expect to very often be the target of such chill. Hopefully it will not pre-emptively employ libel chill as Wikimedia does, but will have a proper legal strategy to avoid publishing libellous statements by contributors (but especially not by officers and directors, as often happens at Wikimedia), and another proper strategy to avoid using any self-escalating tactics like the above.

Yes. Initial plans are to use RCI to avoid libel suits.
Retrieved from “http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/Libel_chill”

As much as I want to see the DLP legislate ITAL, I also want changes to the Defamation act to deal with libel chill.

A chilling effect is a term in law and communication which describes a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization at the interests of an individual or group. It may prompt self-censorship and therefore hamper free speech. Since many attacks rely on libel law, the term libel chill is also often used.[citation needed] This is the same concept as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or “SLAPP” suit.

In United States and Canadian law, the term chilling effects refers to the stifling attribute that vague or overbroad laws may have on legitimate speech activity. Recognition of a law that may permit a loophole for such chilling effect as a vehicle for political libel or vexatious litigation provides a prompt to allow changes to such defamation laws, and therefore prevent the suppression of free speech and censorship.[citation needed]

Truly if the Jamaican LIB would simply refrain from frequenting where he is not welcomed his name would not be mention for any reason or purpose.

Indeed, Thompson said that ITAL is coming and also changes to the defamation act. He had also said that he fears no one and what they have to say about him, and as such you would never hear of him putting people in court over foolishness as he has been subjected to primarily during election seasons. I believe him for I have tested this by attempting to research whether Tom Adams could be his Father. Let me add that although I was able to place Tom in close proximity to where Thompson was born in England, I could not prove anything conclusively. I do not know if Thompson was responding to me or if he thought it prudent as a result of my actions to publicaly deal with it but so he did. Thompson during the election and after, had public appearances with the man he Indentifies as his father. Since then there has not been any serious question about who is his father. He showed us all who that person is.

I think those changes to the defamation act will force those seeking public office to come clean as Sylvan says. Also remember that Thompson himself made mention of former Prime Minister Owen Arthurs marital and family situation, constrating Owens with his own. Image of our public officials will always matter to members of the public no matter how much said officials wish otherwise.

Adrian, you keep referring to a contributor who does not appear in this thread. Should any of this become subject to a legal action, which of the comments would you try to attribute to that non-present contributor? What if you were wrong and other persons argued that you were misrepresenting their views without good cause or evidence. Or do you have some evidence to share?

@AH
Good example of trying to muzzle free speech: The amount of threats and innuendo about libel and defamation suits is enough to stop some commenters from saying anything.

ROK:

Interesting. We have the ongoing debate about threats of violence vs. threats of exposure, the former clearly against the law the latter reliant on the intent to blackmail. To many, a threat is a threat whether it is of violence, exposure or to sue. One can argue that in all three harm to the recipient of the threat is the core intention. Some people do not respond to threats as intended by the issuer. Carol Martindale did not.

To whom it may concern, A Jamaican LIB, commentators, anons all.

I say again that it is folly to enter a place where you are no longer welcome by it’s regulars, pick a fight with its frequenters, and then run for the protection of the law. Don’t expect youself or your complaint to be taken seriously.

Adrian, you seem to be misled and misleading. David was already informed and so was the blog that a series of reviewers were looking at the threads; without notification things work a little more slowly.

Writing and thinking a particular way is not hard for a small group. The basic issues are clear to us and we try to tackle those, nothing else. Faulty logic is tackled along the way.

If you doubt the ease of style writing read the posts by Bimbro. Bonny Peppa. Gear Box and some others. It does not take much. What we have not yet worked out is how the switch from Bajan to standard is working: this is a tough task for people who are not well educated.

However, so that we can review what we have seen during the week, we will make this the last post for the day. Unless there are other questions.

Rushing to judgement is always hazardous. It’s done a lot here.

Finally, for clarity and correctness (so please review the thread before you rush ahead again), David introduced the fear. He took actions to seize up the blog. He decided to open another black box with the Hartley Henry post, which may make other things pale into insignificance (sorry Mr ROK, but somethings are not black and white).

Mr Tall_Boy Hinds, Mr David’s opening words were ‘In [it?] has become apparent in recent months diabolical forces are working not in the interest of Barbados Underground.’ Dont you think that the idea of diabolical forces was meant to fill you with fear? Read again well the original posting.

Who’s this bozo, Adrian? He write “To whom it may concern, A Jamaican LIB, commentators, anons all.

I say again that it is folly to enter a place where you are no longer welcome by it’s regulars, pick a fight with its frequenters, and then run for the protection of the law. Don’t expect youself or your complaint to be taken seriously.”

Some of us following without commenting for too long. LIB came to BU and offered good comments. Then people like you and Bimbro start to hurl abuse just because you hear he’s Jamaican or he have degrees and you whining you have none of that. You are such a hypocrite and twister of events. A fraud! And a snooper. People not safe with you around. Read your own posts, nuh. Wonder if you dont fall over your feet. Stop leaving yourself sitting pretty like some saint when you just a big pot stirer.

Thank you David. Set him straight nuh.

Man Adrian, let we done with this matter and move on, do….

Point made!
Character exposed!
David realizes what he is dealing with…
Smart bloggers get it…

…if only the pathetic joker would just go away quietly…

BT Bush Tea // August 29, 2009 at 7:37 AM

I have been echoing similar words a few days ago.

Too much water has crossed over the bridge and all needs to get over it; be it by jumping, side stepping, or what ever it takes.

There have been more important posts added that readers can focus on.

It is good to be back. What have I missed? lol!

I will return to my old ways of not responding to anonymous and anons, and comments with new handles.

Bush Tea and Sap I am on board with your calls.

U still a boy, Adrian?!!

LIB made some good points… not popular with some of the more… colorful members of the blog and as usual when that happens the argument goes to the gutter.

You know how it goes… if you can’t attack the argument attack the man making it.