Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

The Barbados Light & Power Rate Hearing Commences

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

ftcBack in May 2009 we underscored the The Important Role Of The Intervenor At FTC Hearings as advocates for the PEOPLE. The fact they are not paid and are expected to engage corporate entities with significantly more resources makes the Intervenors heroes in our eyes.

The long awaited BL&P Hearings under the aegis of the Fair Trading Commission commences tomorrow (2009.10.07), from 9.30AM at the Lloyd Erskine Sandiford Centre.  The Hearing is expected to continue week-days until 2009.10.23.

The Intervenors are:

– Barbados Association of Retired Persons Inc.

– Barbados Small Business Association

– Barbados Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (BANGO)

– Barbados Consumers Research Organisation Inc.

– Dr. Roland R. Clarke.

– Mr. Errol Niles.

– Mr. Douglas Trotman.

– Canbar Technical Services Ltd.

– Sentinel Group Caribbean Inc.

BANGO has promised to record the hearings as is practicable and make available for the PEOPLE for following. We wish all of the Intervenors the very best. Many of us talk but few are forced to act.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

199 responses to “The Barbados Light & Power Rate Hearing Commences”

  1. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    It is in my mind, very unfortunate that CBC were not even in attendance during the Hearing today.

    They did appear at the end of the day, and interviewed (at least) BANGO’s Douglas Skeete.

    They missed some worthwhile “telly”….

  2. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @Dennis Jones: “Can you say more about this, in terms of whether it was an unwarranted manipulation of the process and calls into question the neutrality of the Chairman?

    To expand and to answer your question directly…

    No, I do not believe that this was an “unwarranted manipulation of the process”.

    The Chairman observed that:

    1. The “Feed-in Tariff” (net metering) was not directly related to rate setting.

    2. That the Company was about to begin the process of running trials to collect empirical data on interconnection experience.

    3. That this topic could and would be covered at a later date.

    This does not take away from the observation, however, that if there had been stronger Political Will, that RE would have been much further along in our tiny country which receives strong sunshine on average 12 hours a day just about every day of the year.

  3. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @All…

    After watching the CBC evening “News” tonight…

    …I only have one question:

    Our tax dollars pay for this?

  4. David Avatar
    David

    After listening to Mascoll we have to say bloody brilliant.

    Can someone tell Malcom Gibbs-Taitt to remain seated which improves his chances of not continuing to make an ass of himself?

  5. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @David… I personally agree with your immediate above.

    With regards to Mr. Gibbs-Taitt…

    We *have* told him this. More than once. But he just doesn’t listen. (He doesn’t listen to anyone — even the witnesses he’s supposedly cross examining.)

    All he does is talk, and talk, and talk, and talk… I think he thinks he’s clever. I think he’s wrong…

    Frankly, he’s hurting the Intervenors’ position.

  6. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    But as good as Mascoll comes across he is still the guy that admits that after a Cabinet decision was made that was in favour of the BL&P, he thought it necessary to race up base street to tell Worme about the decision. Who the f#ck side is he on?

    Now he is admitting before the chairman that the company deserves something, it is just a matter of degree. Good God, if you are opening holes in the manner in which determinations are made (risk, cost of equity, interest rates and on and on), and the inappropriateness of benchmarks, why then open the door for the FTC who have failed consumers miserably in the past, to make a non-tuff decision?

    Clyde Mascoll… in light of the fact that he opposed the management of the economy for twelve of the fourteen years of the last administration, then sought to praise it in this hearing, it again appears that he is quite capable of speaking from both sides of your mouth…at the same time!

  7. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    “hurting the Intervenors’ position.”

    Which is…..?

  8. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) Avatar
    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados)

    @Christopher Halsall // October 14, 2009 at 8:31 PM
    Thanks for the expanded reply. One has to wonder about the cohesion in energy policy, which seems to be more talk than action.

  9. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @MUBB

    The Abbie School to my knowledge started in Whitepark Road and went to My Lords Hill opposite Belmont School, but I am not sure if Mrs. King took the school somewhere else before it ended up in Culloden Road. That would have been after Mrs. Ronalds gave it up.

  10. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    I must agree with BAFBFP post above at 12:53 a.m. re mascoll’s position.

    I can’t understand why these intervenors who say they are representing us the consumers,yet we the consumers are saying – WE DON’T WANT ANY INCREASE FOR BL&P – yet all of them – who representing us – still saying it is o.k. to give the company an increase,just not what they are asking.

    You really think BL&P went into that hearing expecting to get what they were asking?

    They went in high expecting to get knocked off a bit.

    I wonder who the hell these intervenors really representing?

    Is this about us or really about them?

    I am real vex.

  11. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @MUBB: “WE DON’T WANT ANY INCREASE FOR BL&P…

    And I want world peace; you don’t always get what you want.

    Our job is to try to minimize any increase by arguing logical points which make sense, supported with *facts*.

    Stamping our little feet and whining before the Commission would accomplish nothing.

  12. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) Avatar
    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados)

    @Chris Halsall, again thanks for the recording. If I heard correctly, the fundamental question asked by Clyde Mascoll at the end is really a question for BL&P and Government to answer. The benefit of a public airing of the hearing, as opposed to its merely being open to the public, is the wide dissemination of a probing question such as he posed. It’s of course another matter for Government to address the point he made, which is what makes the process highly political rather than a matter or just a company’s financial needs.

  13. Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) Avatar
    Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados)

    @Chris Halsall
    On the matter of acceptable outcomes, of course there is no right or wrong answer. Most consumers would want 0% increase and a continued guarantee of good service. The supplier would like to get its requested increase met, arguing that this will ensure the guaranteed service (which may not be true, but a bargaining point). Clyde Mascoll has put up front the idea of ‘easing the pain’ but spreading the period of application of any increase.

  14. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    NO!

    If from your arguments, BL&P is not utilising all that is available to it to earn income, that the approach being pursued by the company is not justified and riddled with flaws or is questionable at the very least, then it deserves NOTHING…!

    You people are there offering advice to a company that chose to go outside of Barbados to get professional assistance at GREAT EXPENSE TO THE CONSUMERS AND THE CURRENT ACCOUNT to argue a case for shareholders. Are you being paid for these alternative approaches that you are offering up? I did not think so. Why did they not come to you, Mascoll, Douglas Skeete et al for the advice in the first place and save the current account much needed US dollars?

    PUT THE FTC ON THE SPOT. They have failed us in the past. Nothing less should be expected.

    BL&P is playing hard ball and you decide to put on gloves. If you guys are just showing off well you have all wasted my time!

  15. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    Chris halsall what utter rubbish.

    Do you see BL&P saying we will ask for a moderate increase?

    No,because they are going for the whole hog!

    Your role in my humble opinion is not to argue for an increase for the Light and Power,but to show the flaws in their argument which it seems have already been pointed out.

    They have made profits,they have not consider increasing revenue by cost cutting measures etc.etc.

    Then let the FTC decide if they deserve an increase or not,but right now you are not putting forward our views,you are out there bending over and spreading wide,and I am very concerned about that.

    All the intervenors have agreed that BL&P should get an increase contrary to the consumers wishes,now why is this so,I wonder?

    Why not one of you will argue for zero increase and let the chips fall where they may.

  16. David Avatar
    David

    But is it possible despite the positions of both sides the FTC could rule no increase?

    Could an Intervenor explain the possible impact of the BL&P earning 8% return dating back to the 70s even when bank rates would have dipped
    through the years?

  17. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    The first of three recordings from day seven:

    http://www.ideas4lease.com/reports/ftc/blp_rate_hearing_day_7_20091015_1_of_3.wma

  18. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @David

    I must say that we have at least two inexperienced advocates in Clyde Mascoll and John Campbell (BARP) who both said that we must give the BL&P something.

    While I would say that Mascoll got the message, I am not sure that Campbell got it. By no stretch of the imagination are all the intervenors agreeing that the BL&P should get an increase. You will not hear that from any BANGO representative.

    Today, when Campbell made the same mistake as Mascoll, out came a bellow from Malcolm Taitt and a hush among the rest of the intervenors.

    This evening, Dr. Roland Clarke gave a good account of himself. I would say that he discredited the consultant witness for BL&P to a great extent. While Clyde was very long winded Roland was very direct and very effective. Incidentally, Roland is the brother of the Chief Agricultural Officer Barton Clarke.

    Now, the evidence we are putting forward will certainly show that the BL&P does not deserve the increase they are asking for. They are actually asking for a 72% increase which is unreasonable. Here are the facts from a different perspective to my above maths:

    The present rate of return is 6.07%. BL&P is asking for this to be raised to 10.48%. Now if you do the mathematics you will see that the difference is 4.41%.

    Hence, 4.41/6.07 x 100 = 72.27% increase. This is actually a cross verification of the maths I did in a previous post above. Now there is no way that the Commission can give the BL&P a 72% increase.

    To answer your question directly, yes, in the face of the two intervenors who said the BL&P should get a raise and the Commission finds that a raise is not required, they can hand down a “no increase” decision.

    There is however another matter. It appears that the Commission hired some consultants in 2005 to analyse the BL&P. I do not have the facts but was led to understand that their report recommended a 30% increase for the BL&P.

    If this is so, it would take the BL&P back to its 1983 position in my estimation. This is how I calculate that:

    They tell me that we can’t compare the rates of return for 1983 (7.72%) and for present (6.07%) because of changes in the rate base. However, I do not believe that I am wrong in my comparison because when I do the maths, this is what I get:

    7.72 – 6.07 = 1.65 difference;
    1.65/6.07 x 100 = 27.18%

    Now this is very close to the recommendation from the FTC commissioned probe into BL&P which recommended a 30% increase. In other words, it seems that the consultants sought to return the BL&P to its former position in 1983.

    Now this is my problem with that. It took the BL&P 25 years to erode its rate of return by 1.65 points down. To give them an increase of 4.41 points up (all things being equal) will mean that it may very well take:

    4.41 / 1.65 (25 yrs) = 2.67 and then multiplied by 25 yrs = 66.82 years to come back to the FTC for a rate increase.

    I must say that BL&P’s application was very well put together to mask the real increase, because a movement from 6.07% to 10.48% does not look like much to the average person.

    This is as far as I will go with this right now, but today I passed the question to Doug Skeete to ask and to my glee, the consultant admitted that the proposed increase was 72%.

    Let me explain that because I am caught up with streaming (and having a difficult time at it with the numerous connectivity issues) it has become difficult for me to pay the attention I should to intervention. With Doug and Chris there, I will simply get them to handle my questions until we get to the second consultant and Steve Worme, where I have more issues of a social nature to deal with.

    MUBB, the above is also addressing your comments. No, the intervenors are not agreeing to an increase and more will say no than those who would say give something. Certainly, CANBAR Technologies, Errol Niles, Douglas Trotman and Roland will say no. Even BARP is saying no, never mind Campbell who is appearing for BARP, I know that their position is no. Their guiding light is Jai Jebbodsingh in this hearing, so to my mind, Campbell was way out of line today.

    As for BANGO, we know that to simply say no will not cut it, so we are on a quest to prove that it should be no. The admission by the consultant today that the real increase is 72% is the first step in a “no increase” direction from us.

  19. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    The second of three recording:

    http://www.ideas4lease.com/reports/ftc/blp_rate_hearing_day_7_20091015_2_of_3.wma

    Douglas Skeete and then Christopher Halsall of BANGO cross examination of BL&P’s Expert Witness Mr. Camfield.

    Not at all taking away from Doug, who did a much better job than myself…

    But I found it rather interesting that in response to my statement to Mr. Camfield: “OK, but you’re assuming fuel based generation.”, his response was “What other generation .. YES!”

    Perhaps… Just *perhaps*, the BL&P Consultant telegraphed his presuppositions….

    (Please remember that BL&P representatives read this Blog several times a day…)

  20. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    Sorry… That should have read:

    And the third of three recordings from day seven.

    http://www.ideas4lease.com/reports/ftc/blp_rate_hearing_day_7_20091015_3_of_3.wma

    Dr. Clarke was particularly impressive.

    @BU.David — please feel free to delete my immediate Comment with the erroneous URL.

  21. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @All…

    I received today a commitment from the FTC staff to provide me personally with electronic version of the transcripts as they become available, starting from tomorrow (Friday) EOD. (Said transcripts are not available from the FTC Web Site for some reason.)

    I commit to you to make these available to the public via this Blog within twelve (12) hours of receipt.

    (For the record, we did *not* receive the transcripts from Day 3 today, but rather a revised version of Day 1 (with no indication on the document that it was a revised version).)

  22. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    The problem is that the Starcom has been engaging in PR for the BL&P agenda for days…!

    Mascoll’s stupid slip was carried by the station in its magazine segment and a moderator later took it onto himself to emphasize (though admitting that he was not following the proceedings) that the interveners believe that the BL&P deserve something..!

    BL&P has influence over this media house and Mascoll has played onto their hand. The BL&P may also have placed money behind the current administration as well!

  23. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    BAFBFP

    I am glad someone else is seeing through Starcom’s behaviour.

    ROK
    Thank you kindly for the information above.

  24. David Avatar
    David

    @MUBB

    Did you hear Tony Marshall yesterday also arguing the point that BL&P is a well managed company? Again and again we ask what is the relevance of pushing such a position. Often times the matter is discussed in a vacuum. In other words how can we compare the performance of a natural monopoly to other businesses who have to compete in Barbados.

    These commentators should be pushing an RE agenda on the airwaves. The sustainability and quality of out standard of living depends on it, not so?

  25. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    David

    No I did not hear that.

    However I think something funny is going on with the strong push back for the BL&P you get from persons working at the radio station.

  26. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    The first of there recordings from day 8 of the Hearing:

    http://www.ideas4lease.com/reports/ftc/blp_rate_hearing_day_8_20091016_1_of_3.wma

    Mr. Camfield’s cross examination by Mr. Error Niles, and then Commissioners Andrew Brathwaite and Greg Hazzard.

  27. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    The second of three recordings from day 8:

    http://www.ideas4lease.com/reports/ftc/blp_rate_hearing_day_8_20091016_2_of_3.wma

    The lead questioning of Mr. Mark King, COO of BL&P by the applicant’s legal representative, and then cross examination by Mr. Mogens Toft of Canbar, and then Mr. Christopher Halsall of BANGO.

    With regards to my cross examination, I really don’t know if I was wasting the Commissions time, or instead asking questions which were too revealing….

  28. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    The third of three recordings from day 8:

    http://www.ideas4lease.com/reports/ftc/blp_rate_hearing_day_8_20091016_3_of_3.wma

    The very brief continuation of cross examination of Mr. King by myself (after having being chided by the Chairman), then Mr. Trotman, Mr Niles, and then Commissioners Hazzard and Brathwaite.

  29. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @All… For the record…

    The Staff of the FTC promised me yesterday electronic copies of the transcripts from this Hearing (we received the transcripts from Day 3 today on dead trees) by end-of-day today by way of e-mail.

    This promise was repeated to me (upon my reminding them) this morning.

    As of right now, I have not yet received the transcripts in electronic format, and thus I cannot provide them to you.

    Again I commit that within twelve (12) hours of my receiving them, I will make them available to the public for download. (The twelve hour window is only because, as you might imagine, I’m not at my workstation much at the moment.)

  30. kiki Avatar
    kiki

    THE BUDDHA
    and
    HIS TEACHINGS

    “As this is religious text
    we request that it is treated with respect.
    If you are finished with it,
    please pass it on to others or return it to its source.
    Thanks for your co-operation.”

  31. David Avatar
    David

    Not pointing fingers but we do recall Mathew Farley’s daughter is the recipient of a scholarship from BL&P to support studies overseas if our recall is accurate.

  32. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @David… I have to ask…

    Why the need for innuendo?

    If you have something to say (or to ask), then say (or ask) it….

  33. David Avatar
    David

    @David… I have to ask…

    Why the need for innuendo?

    If you have something to say (or to ask), then say (or ask) it….

    No innuendo Chris, we stated a position which is clear.

    In most other situations a talk show producer sometimes talk showmoderator whose daughter has been rewarded with a scholarship from BL&P would be deemed a conflict of interest when dealing with BL&P matters on air. No disrespect to Farley just an observation. If the VOB employees did not live in fear of Vic he would probably come to defend a position given his reputation to be fearless. He maybe right to pick his battles though.

    BTW Chris, why do you keep causing the Chair to chide you. Are you unfamiliar with the terms of reference for the Intervenors by FTC or you pride yourself in being a maverick?

  34. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    I greatful for and impressed by Halsalls/Mascolls/Skeete’s skill and efforts but I gotta tell yeh, wid dese t’ree, hmm…. I smell a rat…!

  35. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @BAFBFP: “…but I gotta tell yeh, wid dese t’ree, hmm…. I smell a rat…!

    Based on what empirical evidence?

    Or is just more entertaining to assume that *everyone* is corrupt?

  36. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Wanna lookin’ to give BL&P something. I’ve been asking you for some time why as a service provider for whom BL&P could be a valued client, are you publicly challenging them? The same is true for the others two. Clyde Mascoll admits that he and Worm are chummy. Wanna lookin’ tah give BL&P something when it is still not clear that they deserve anything at all…! RAT! Real rats on the other hand are not corrupt, they adapt!

  37. Hopi Avatar
    Hopi

    @BAFBFP……..excuse me my bro but I didn’t realise that you were onto clyde mascoll agenda until after I posted.

  38. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    Sorry Hopi

    I am very much in the same camp as you but I am not sure what it is that I missed?

  39. David Avatar
    David

    ROK,

    I T’OUGHT YOU WERE DEALING WID BL&P. What shite this is ’bout Becles now…? You can’ be in two places at de same time….!

    Errol Niles just get a’ international big boy to admit that his expert submission to de FTC on behalf of the BL&P people is based on a Null Hypothesis and should be taken with a pinch of salt and you talking ‘bout Beckles? DIS IS NEWS THAT STARCOM AIN” GUN CARRY…!

    Good point BAFBFP on the null hypothesis business, the admission by Camfield that his terms of reference did not permit him to factor consumer considerations directly should be of interest to the media. The question from BU to our Intervenors friends and the FTC would be if any analysis will be done to counter Camfield which is obviously pro-BL&P.

  40. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @BAFBFP: “Wanna lookin’ to give BL&P something.

    I, and I think, all the other Intervenors, don’t “wanna” give them anything.

    But based on heuristics, it is the FTC’s tendency to give the Companies whatever they ask for. (Please note that LIME are allowed something like a 15.4% rate of return on their *regulated* services.)

    We’re fighting tooth and nail, penny by penny (actually, percentage by percentage) to try to limit the possible rate increase as much as we can.

    But at the end of the day, it is the FTC who is the adjudicator.

    @BAFBFP: “I’ve been asking you for some time why as a service provider for whom BL&P could be a valued client, are you publicly challenging them?

    I believe strongly that “those who can, must”.

    And yes, BL&P *could* be a very profitable client. In fact, BL&P advertised two senior ICT positions which I was highly qualified for.

    I chose to not apply for said positions, because it would have meant that I could not have been an Intervenor. I made a personal sacrifice, because I felt that there were some technical issues which were important to bring forward during this hearing.

    @BAFBFP: “Wanna lookin’ tah give BL&P something when it is still not clear that they deserve anything at all…

    You are basing this on what? The “news” reports? Your gut feel?

    Have you read the (now) 1500 pages of evidence?

    Have you listened to all eight (8) days of the hearings? Or, perhaps even more importantly, have you attended all eight days?

    You talk a lot BAFBFP, but what do you *do*? If this issue was so important to you, you could have been sitting amongst the Intervenors.

    Why aren’t you?

  41. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @David: “The question from BU to our Intervenors friends and the FTC would be if any analysis will be done to counter Camfield which is obviously pro-BL&P.

    Of *course* Camfield is pro-BL&P. He’s their bloody consultant!

    With regards to your question if any analysis will be done to counter Camfield, what the hell do you think we’ve been doing?

  42. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @David, BAFBFP

    It looks like you all got caught by a label. Every single hearing since 1983 and probably before, objectors and now intervenors have been saying the same thing. Even Mascoll spoke of imposing north american values on the Caribbean. Mascoll further described it as fishing in cold waters for tropical fish.

    Of course the media did not focus in on that either.

    @BAFBFP
    Ms. Beckles is a vivid part of my memory. I did not have to research her. I was one of those who took her fight to many quarters and hit brick wall after brick wall for about 2 years.

    Furthermore, they are more poor Bajans in the same plight as Ms. Beckles. Some can be saved and others will lose. You want to know how I could be dey and hey too? Poor people suffering in both arenas and once poor people suffering, you can be sure that I hey and dey too.

    Furthermore, I could do with your help. I need some research done. I trying to bring empirical evidence to turn around this argument that business subsidising domestic. The thinking is warped and totally against the grain of business culture, but I must gather the evidence.

    I am also looking for somebody who could give me at least one bill for each year starting from 2003. It would have to be somebody who have not drastically added electric gadgets and appliances over the years and somebody who tries to conserve electricity.

  43. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    @ Chris

    I am always at town hall meetings blowing my top when the issue affects me. This hearing is one of those times when I am forced to leave my fate in the hands of others who have spent years in pursuit of academic accreditation in areas where I have only a working understanding of. SO it is bloody important that you be on the level. IF in your mind and by the arguments presented (I have heard most of them thanks to your tapes) the company deserves nothing well do not do the FTC any favours. Which part of this sentiment is unclear to you?

    @ROK

    I am slow. Please explain what it is that you want me to do? You want me to mail you copies of my bills one for each year over the past six years?

    I have no choice.

  44. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    I have no choice…? Who stuck that in there? hmmmm…!

  45. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @David

    This case requires thought. I have been trying to stay calm and collective as I assimilate some of the information and see some of the flaws. The challenge is countering the flaws. It really requires a lot of thought and examination.

    I am confident that we will get to the bottom of this and that we will get the appropriate evidence and lay the appropriate arguments.

    @BAFBFP
    You not helping the situation with your arguments and knee-jerk reactions. Do something to help the cause don’t just stand on the outside pelting rocks. You is a real Lodge boy though. LOL!

  46. David Avatar
    David

    @Chris

    Stop being so defensive. Our question is about whether the FTC will have an expert witness (Camfield equivalent) acting on terms of reference which considers the impact on the consumer.

  47. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @David…

    I’m not being defensive… I’m instead being offensive.

    @David: “Our question is about whether the FTC will have an expert witness (Camfield equivalent) acting on terms of reference which considers the impact on the consumer.

    Please tell us where, *exactly*, you asked this before just now….

  48. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @David

    I doubt very much they need it. Camfield’s contribution was sufficiently dissected in terms of its role in the whole scenario.

  49. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @David (over on the “Muslim Mafia In America: What Does The Future Bode?”): “Reread our comment at 6.46PM and apply context if you will.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong here David, but did I not respond to your 1846 post with my 1959?

    Also, I’m a little confused…

    Why are you now posting responses to one Blog Entry on others?

    Are you intentionally trying to confuse? Or are you simply confused?

    Please explain….

  50. BAFBFP Avatar
    BAFBFP

    ROK

    Suppose I tell you that I in a wheel chair you would lef me?

    I am no expert in Cost Accounting, Economics, or Information and Communication Technologies. But I can follow what is being put forward and I disagree that the notion for arguments sake that CH is pushing (fully exploit your assets before turning to the consumer) should be side lined. I like how you experts are pursuing the process, I am not clear on your expected outcome/agenda…!

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading