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 Future Of Graeme Hall: Setting The Record Straight

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Submitted by GRAEME HALL NATURE SANCTUARY INC

[Christ Church, BARBADOS, February 14, 2010] The Government of Barbados has not responded to requests for constructive meetings with the owner of Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary to discuss the future of Graeme Hall in over a year.

“Except for an introductory meeting in January 2009 with Minister Denis Lowe of the Ministry of Environment, Water Resources and Drainage, nobody from government has called back and agreed to substantive meetings,” said Stuart Heaslet, the owner’s representative for the Sanctuary. “This is despite our outreach efforts and multiple trips to Barbados.”

“We have personal knowledge that Minister Lowe cares deeply about the future of Graeme Hall and the people of Barbados. Minister Lowe knows that we are available at any time, and we agree with him that talking together in good faith about a way forward would be welcome.”

As to government’s claim that the final say in the reopening of the facility would be completely up to the owner of the Sanctuary:

“We believe that conclusion is not accurate,” said Heaslet. “The Sanctuary investment and survival depends unconditionally on a healthy ecosystem. A healthy ecosystem is impossible under the current circumstances that are controlled by Government.”

“Because of the government-run sluice gate being in total disrepair for years, the ecosystem is dying. And because of government policy to dump sewage and allow continuous pollution to run into the wetland, the ecosystem is dying. And now all environmental buffers and adjoining parklands have been rezoned for urban development in the new Physical Development Plan. Both Government and the Sanctuary are stakeholders, it’s not just up to the Sanctuary to preserve the ecosystem and parklands at Graeme Hall.”

Heaslet disagreed with Minister Lowe’s claim that Government offered a million dollars to the Sanctuary to save jobs.

“No offer or proposal detailing terms and conditions of such an offer ever came to the Sanctuary from Government. Long after the Sanctuary closed and employees were laid off we did read a press article about a million dollar budget for Graeme Hall, but nobody from Government ever talked to us about what it was for or how it would work.”

Heaslet confirmed that nearly 6 months have gone by without Government acknowledgement of a Treaty dispute filed by owner Peter Allard under the Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between Canada and Barbados. The dispute alleges that the Government of Barbados has violated its international obligations by refusing to enforce its environmental laws, thereby allowing increased pollution and land development to damage the Sanctuary.

“Our message to Government is that we will meet with them when they are ready,” said Heaslet.

Since 1994 the owner of the Sanctuary has invested more than US $35 million in the 35-acre Sanctuary to preserve the last significant mangrove woodland and wetland on the island.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

56 responses to “The Future Of Graeme Hall: Setting The Record Straight”

  1. permres Avatar
    permres

    I was hoping that the PM would be given a question about GHNS at his recent press conference. No such luck. I wonder why?

  2. ac Avatar
    ac

    The government has shown no respect in
    ignoring Peter Allard and letting the santuary fall into such disarray After all 35 milliondollars of his investment has litterally gone down the drain . Seeing the pictures of what has happened to the wetlands is heartwrenching. Something
    must be done by the government to correct this horrific attack on the wetlands by them . It is shameful to say
    the least. Abunch of morons.

  3. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    Did Allard sue the government over Graeme Hall about, let us say, six months ago? I do believe that he did. I disdain to use the Loveridge-patented, “Remind me if……”

    So, for the BU family to answer, two questions.

    1. Is this another baseless case and a bluff to force Barbados to do what Peter Allard wants?

    2. Is it customary for litigants to meet and speak to each other while a litigation is in progress on matters that are the subject of the litigation?

    My experience, by way of guidance only, is that litigants do not meet, except under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) circumstances, to discuss the subject matter of a litigation and I did not realise that Mr Stuart Heaslet is an expert in ADR or a lawyer – remiss of me, I know. His law degree must be as difficult to find as he apparently is.

    If you have read the complaint filed by Peter Allard in Ottawa, you will see it is on precisely the issue that Mr Heaslet (he of no fixed abode – I mean that – and representing the Plaintiff, but not legally) wishes to discuss with Barbados (but with the Minister of the Environment, not the Attorney General) matters under litigation.

    So this begs another question and let me take just a line or two to set up the question with a few other questions.

    1. I assume that the BU family has heard of these pens that carry radio transmitters that lead to a tape recorder – and other such devices, not necessarily pens?

    2. I assume we all remember what happened the last time Mr Heaslet (of no fixed abode) got his hands on (a) recording devices; (b) Peter Allard’s fixed abode in Vancouver; (c) an e-mail link to K. William McKenzie/Donald Best in Ontario; and (d) an unsuspecting Peter Simmons?

    So the question:

    Given the record of Mr Heaslet – no fixed abode and a propensity for secretly recording private and likely privileged conversations and sending the tapes and transcripts to lawyers – would any of you private citizens agree to meet with him to discuss matters pertaining to an ongoing litigation involving his paymaster, Little Peter?

    This is patent nonsense by Graeme Hall. You have sued Barbados, so now let us await the outome of the litigation before any discussions take place. If you unconditionally withdraw the litigation, that is another matter.

    But in all the circumstances, since you have sued the country of Barbados, it is not the Minister of the Environment you have to speak to, but the Attorney General.

    Bunch of blasted idiots.

  4. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    I get it.

    I just visited the GHNS/Allard-owned blog that will remain nameless and lo and behold I see that our noble Fourth Estate has regurgitated in total the latest ‘announcement’ from Barbados’ equivalent to the White House and Buckingham Palace rolled into one, in this case as all Bajans know and genuflect towards it thrice daily, I refer to Little Peter’s palace at Long Beach, Chancery Lane.

    It appears that even with its high-priced legal help, no one has thought to tell the Advocate that it is a BAD, BAD, BAD idea for Barbados to meet with GHNS, except in an ADR situation and that offers to settle the outstanding litigation ought to be addressed, without prejudice, to Barbados’ Ottawa counsel, NOT to Barbados’ Minister of the Environment or to the Advocate, which of course, would place the offer to settle in the public domain and thus negate its standing and privilege.

    Ottawa counsel, in their turn, would submit it to Barbados chief legal officer and adviser, the Attorney General.

    So, the statement of one S. Heaslet (of no fixed or discernable abode who considers Barbados to be an extremely dangerous place peopled by savages, but who, as we can see, continues to visit here in order to meet the leaders of the cannibals) is irrelevant. Worse. It is disrespectful to the Court in which GHNS/Allard have filed their action.

  5. David Avatar
    David

    BU wondered how long it would have taken a member of the BU family to realize the corner Allard has painted himself. We also see the incompetence or should we say inconsistency of the Barbados press where they would blackout coverage on the Kingsland/Nelson matter claiming sub judice but print these PR notes which Graeme Hall Sanctuary issues from time to time.

    Yes BU is aware that some feel they can manipulate the blog by getting us to print press releases, we print some of them for reasons which we prefer not to discuss at this time.

  6. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    Government should fix the sluice gate at Graeme Hall and control flooding in the area.

    It is up to the owners of the Sanctuary to make it financially viable.

    David you got it right.

    Allard sues the Government of Barbados and now wants to talk?

    I done before I say something canadian.

  7. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    Hants // February 16, 2010 at 10:18 AM. So you see it now. Good. Thought you would at some point.

  8. Nostradamus Avatar
    Nostradamus

    Hants,

    The sluice gate or a similar mechanism is vital for the management of the level and flow of water in and out of the Graeme Hall wetland and the health of the ecosystem depends on it. As important as the gate is for releasing water, it is equally important to allow sea water into the wetland at the 4 -5 times a year when the tide is high enough.

    And yes, the sluice gate is also critical for flood control in the event of high rainfall or hurricane.

    You are absolutely right it is up to the owners of the Sanctuary to make it financially viable, but how do you do that when the very mechanism that your investment depends on for its economic and environmental viability has not functioned in years.

    That action or rather inaction by those responsible is indisputably destroying an area (50 % public owned / 50% owned by GHNS) that we as a Nation have elevated to the status of Natural Heritage Conservation Area and Ramsar site.

    It’s our Heritage that is being destroyed not Allard’s. In the event of flooding and the gate is not functioning will the flooding affect Allard’s house in Canada or the Barbadian homes and business in St. Lawrence, Worthing, Rendezvous?

  9. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    Nostradamus // February 16, 2010 at 12:18 PM. Agreed, to a point.

    But there are other considerations and the most important is that Barbados and Bajans must not EVER be held to ransom in their own country and Barbados and Bajans must never be denigrated in furtherance of someone’s business aspirations. Otherwise, let us just negate the work of the two Admases and most importantly, Errol Barrow.

  10. David Avatar
    David

    The day Allard took Barbados to the Canadian courts and has compounded it by trying to prove in Canada the Barbados government has contravened some environmental law over Graeme Hall, that was it. No way government will cooperate now.

  11. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @David et al…

    I know I really need to learn to keep my mouth shut. But until that time…

    As has been said, there are three sides to every story…

    What if Allard might be just a little bit right?

    And the Government just a little bit wrong?

    What then?

  12. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @ CH

    If Allard is a “little bit right”, then he has nothing to fear. His day in court is coming. He sued us.

    hmmm..makes me wonder why this publicity piece at this time.

  13. ac Avatar
    ac

    everbody waiting to see each other in court meanwhile the sanctuary has been
    condem to death.

  14. Nostradamus Avatar
    Nostradamus

    @ Pat

    I think Dr. Lowe started the ball rolling in an interview published in the Advocate on Feb 12.

    I also recall it may have started a few days earlier when he made some comments regarding GHNS that were reported on CBC.

    He must have his reasons for bringing it up.

    However you look at it, the release above is saying he has been untruthful so the ball is back in his court to repudiate.

  15. David Avatar
    David

    @Nostradamus

    Sometimes it is useful to resort to using commonsense. Forget about what Minister Lowe promised, this matter is bigger than Lowe. Allard has dragged the Barbados government and many of its leading citizens through the courts in Canada and Barbados. The chickens are coming home to roost now.

  16. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @David et al…

    Sometimes it is worth considering that *possibly* you don’t always know everything absolutely.

    Sometimes the truth is something you don’t like.

    There are three sides to every story….

  17. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    @Chris. Every position has three sides and your point is correct. But, as you also know, there are degrees of rightness and wrongness. Complete right and complete wrong do not exist, except in the minds of some deluded folks. I agree with you.

    Given David’s sources and research on this issue, I think you have to take on board that he has some information that he is just waiting for the right time (like it coming into public domain, maybe) to release. He does not seem to be a capricious person – or do you not agree with me there?

    Pat then asks why the publicity now. Most of us have noted that every time this is a court proceedure in Canada that cannot be adjourned and in which Allard is likely to fare badly, there is publicity – and we know that the case is being closely followed in Canada by the legal fraternity, especially as the law firm representing Allard seems to be in serious trouble. http://lawbuzzlitigation.blogspot.com/.

    Is Pat right? I recall here on BU an Order of the Ontario court where it sets preemptory dates of hearing for February 22, 23 and 24 – hey, that’s Monday. So it looks as if Pat is right to question.

    What is happening at the Sanctuary is indeed sad. But Government has had to make the call – should it give in to Allard and sacrifice the integrity of our country and its institutions, or should some wildlife go instead. Basically, it is a question of Bajans or a very small part of Barbados’ wildlife to be compromised.

    And that choice is one forced upon government by Peter Allard, not the other way round.

    You cannot sue anyone or any entity and then send some itinerant vagabond of no fixed abode and extremely questionable personal and business ethics like Stuart Heaslet to them to ‘negotiate’. In this case, Heaslet attempted to entrap someone who had been a senior Barbados diplomat and was brother to Barbados’ Chief Justice, using the recordings that he secretly obtained, to try to claim to a worldwide audience that Barbados was a violent place where no one was safe and thus having a negative impact on our main industry.

    Now, that tactic having failed, any normal person would have paid off Heaslet and sent him on his merry way to whatever caravan park he now calls home. But not Allard. Oh no. Allard is going to show Barbados just how big and bad he is by sending in Stuart Heaslet to negotiate with government – sort of force government to kiss his red ass. Allard is not interested in negotiations, otherwise both this and the Kingsland matter would by now have been settled long T. Allard wants unconditional surrender. It is quite clear.

    Well, Chris, you have lived here long enough now to know that Bajans NEVER surrender – and certainly not to subterranean jerks like Little Peter Allard. I wish that the government would allow me to deal with Allard. I would take him to the airport and boot his sorry ass out of Barbados permanently. And know what? Graeme Hall swamp would survive as it has survived for hundreds of years, but maybe minus all the non-indigenous additions brought in to make it commercially viable (and which have failed). And, of course, the bleeding hearts who will cry over the death of one little fishy, while presenting the sovereignty of Barbados to Peter Allard on bended knee, will have faded back into their colourless lives, until they find another pied piper to follow into oblivion.

  18. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    @Anon,

    “What is happening at the Sanctuary is indeed sad. But Government has had to make the call – should it give in to Allard and sacrifice the integrity of our country and its institutions, or should some wildlife go instead. Basically, it is a question of Bajans or a very small part of Barbados’ wildlife to be compromised.”

    Why does saving the wild life mean giving in to Allard and sacrificing our integrity?

    The release from GHNS states:

    “Because of the government-run sluice gate being in total disrepair for years, the ecosystem is dying. And because of government policy to dump sewage and allow continuous pollution to run into the wetland, the ecosystem is dying. And now all environmental buffers and adjoining parklands have been rezoned for urban development in the new Physical Development Plan.”

    Anon, is this true and could this not be remedied regardless of whatever disputes the government has with Allard? Why give them the opportunity to muddy the waters and gain sympathy with these charges?

  19. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    @Brutus. If you look at the big picture – and, under correction, I think that is what BU is suggesting we all must do, it is clear that we cannot negotiate with Peter Allard. Not “do not wish to,” because I am sure the government wishes to. But it cannot.

    A sluice gate, sadly, has to go by the wayside and, in any event, Allard is using it as a red herring to mask his true agenda. And we know full well what that agenda is.

    Brutus, you are a very bright person. Therefore answer me one simple question:

    If you really wished to negotiate in good faith with the Government (any government) would you send as your ambassador or spokesperson to those negotiations the spy whom you had used to try to entrap a senior diplomat into showing that country up as savage, lawless and violent? Or would you send in someone who would be respected by that government?

    By sending in Stuart Heaslet (he of no fixed abode in the Mojave Desert) Allard is not asking the government to negotiate or discuss, he is attempting to dictate…..to say, “This is how it WILL be done and any body I want to send in, I will, no matter how offensive they may be to the government and people.”

    So how long before he demands that Barbados give asylum to fugitive from justice Donald Best? And how long after that will it take for him to demand that Barbados give up its extradition treaty with Canada over Donald Best.

    Well, if course, when he gets that far, the next steps are obvious:

    1. We will have to jetison Elizabeth II and her governor general, buy a set of regalia and enthrown and crown King Peter.

    2. The next Chief Justice will be Alair Shepherd, with K. William McKenzie as attorney-general.

    3. Hillary Beckles will be dismissed to be replaced by Professor John Knox.

    Far fetched you say? Is it any more rediculous than sending in an itinerant vagabond to negotiate with a government and people he has been trying, unsucessfully, to spy on and entrap?

  20. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    @Anon,

    I have not said to negotiate with Allard. All I am saying is that if the Government of Barbados has a responsibility to fix the sluice gate and keep it in good order then it should do so, regardless of who will benefit and whatever other disputes it may have with the beneficiary. If our integrity is defined by who our opponent is and what our opponent does, then it seems to me that we really have no integrity.

    You should be ashamed at the rest of what you have written, but this seems to be the norm for public commentary in Barbados nowadays.

  21. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @ Brutus

    The government also has responsibility to house the poor, provide running water for those who pay their rates, to maintain the roads, provide adequate medical services with proper hospitalization,etc., etc.

    Do you think a SLUICE GATE should be its “top priority”?

  22. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    Now there is a drought in Barbados government should fix the sluice gate and prepare it for the next rainy season.

    There could be a problem with flooding if we get heavy rainfall during the Hurricane season.
    Our concern should be about the safety of residents living adjacent to the swamp.

    Mr.Allard can figure out how to make his investment in ghns profitable.

  23. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    @Pat,

    I am disappointed in you. No I do not think a sluice gate should be top priority for the government. Does it have to be a top priority in order to get done? You mean the government has to fix all the other problems in the island before it can fix a sluice gate?

  24. ac Avatar
    ac

    The sluice gate will be fixed when the worst happen and people are affected. Have no one learn anything from recent events in our neighbouring country .

  25. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    If it was argued that the sluice gate is not the responsibility of government I would accept that. If it was said that to fix the sluice gate now might be to accept liability for damage caused I would be skeptical, but I could respect that argument.

    But other than that it seems to me that the government could fix the gate immediately, proclaim that unlike the previous administration they are very concerned about the environment and value our natural resources highly, and pledge to do everything in their power to protect the swamp. The strategy of “let some wildlife go” is a losing one in the court of public opinion.

  26. ac Avatar
    ac

    But if by not fixing the sluice gate can be problematic for the government in the future,then what do they have to lose?

  27. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @ Brutus

    I am disappointed in you. My reasoning is that the well being of the populace, is more important that the swamp and the tilapia that live there. There are many more important things for the government to focus on now. The sluice gate simply does not rank that high. There are things like Al Baracks millions, teachers and civil servants salaries, etc.

    If the sluice gate is so important to Allard, who is labelled, in some circles, as a WORLD RENOWNED PHILANTHROPIST, then let his philanthropy shine by fixing the gate and putting the government to shame. Oh, excuse me, on second thoughts, we dont want to give him that mileage, do we?

  28. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    It is my understanding that the sluice gate is the responsibility of the Government and it should be fixed and maintained by Government.

    an wen de hurricane come?

  29. David Avatar
    David

    @Brutus

    Your position is logical but if you have been following the Kingsland/Nelson matter you should understand the relationship became toxic a long time ago and not what we have is both side leveraging what positions to score points.

  30. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    @David,

    I have been following the matter. My point is that the government should not allow itself to be dragged down to the level of the other party. Forget about who the other party is and just do the right thing. Doing the right thing in this case will also score political points. So what is the problem?

  31. David Avatar
    David

    @Brutus

    Your position is a reasoned one but you forget one thing. A government is driven by making political decisions in this case BU believes you are witnessing a government following its predecessor where our sovereignty and Bajan brand has come under attack.

  32. ac Avatar
    ac

    This government is going down a slippery slope in this matter and it can’t
    win in the international court of public opinion . They must not forget they need tourisim and it all depends on international markets

  33. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    ac // February 19, 2010 at 6:25 PM . There is a slippery slope and someone is going down it, but it is not our government. It is one Peter Allard.

    I do not think that Brutus’ arguments are well conceived or thought through. The whole situation is same old same old. Let me tell you a story.

    Once upon a time, the was a house painter from Austria who moved to Germany in the middle of a depression. He persuaded the German people that he could get them back to work and get the country moving again……and he did. But they had to pay his price. They had to give him total power to do whatever he wanted – eradicate all Jews, blacks and homosexuals and go to war with the rest of the world, not to mention behead or hang or shoot all his opponents, provided they were not Jewish, black or homosexual – he had special showers for them. Germany even, as we now learn, had to provide him with an early form of Viagra so he could get it on with his old lady.

    The story of once upon a time attempts to repeat itself in principal, if not in fact.

    A Canadian has come to Barbados. He has identified a conservation job that needed to be done and he has, without government assistance or agreement, done it as a commercial venture to the applause of the world’s “Green” minority, of which I am one. But, like our friend in the story of once upon a time, he has a price. That price is that Barbados, while maintaining its rule of law for others, must change it for him at his whim and to do whatever he says.

    Unlike the government and people of Germany once upon a time, the Government of Barbados has refused to treat with this Canadian and, furious at the temerity of Barbados, this Canadian has taken Barbados to court. In furtherance of this aim, he has learned from the Austrian from once upon a time and he has made sure that he has a whole slew of inexpert ministers of propaganda, instead of just one Goebbels. These are Keltruth, BFP, Heaslet and McKenzie – and of course, he needed a figurehead – a front man/woman, if you will. Hence the presence of Marjorie “Quisling” Knox.

    Government had a decision to make. Was it nobler in the mind to accept the “philanthropic” efforts of the Canadian (efforts that government had never sought) and hand over the payment price of these “philanthropic” efforts – the sovereignty of Barbados. Or should they take arms (metaphorical) against a sea of trouble (propaganda, law suits that attack sovereignty, etc.) and, by opposing, end them.

    Government has clearly chosen the latter, having learned the lesson of Germany from once upon a time.

    But Brutus thinks Government is wrong, and Brutus is an honourable man.

  34. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    And know what? I just drifted over to BFP to see what rubbish they were spouting. And I found it right away. BFP, the champion of GHNS, is rubbishing the government because it chooses to spend $85 million on Harrisons Caves. It suggests that these caves owned by Barbados are not worth having the $85 million spent on them, because they will not make the money back commercially.

    Yet, they suggest that Government ought to plough its resources into another venture, which failed commercially, that of GHNS.

    Consistency is not high on BFP’s agenda – hey, but what can you expect when you have one Bourne and one Insane Jane trying to comply with the wishes of their master?

    Peter A. Allard. Does anyone now have any doubts what the A stands for? Other than A**h***, that is. As I said before, time he left our country. High time!!!! Take his chattels and go.

  35. ac Avatar
    ac

    @Amused
    Having read all of the above. Why did the government made any agreement in concerning zoning around the sanctuary.
    Now one must consider that certain questions are being asked by people who are seeing this matter played out in the public arena with only side being given.
    Enviromentalist friendly people would not be so kind to the way in which the
    government has treated the wetlands surrounding the sanctuary. I must say this is a publicty disaster for Barbados
    and the government need to stop any further damage given to its image internationally.People are only going to focus on the enviroment and the wildlife
    to form their opinions.

  36. Anon(2) Avatar
    Anon(2)

    Amused, I find it “amusing” that you are always casting doubt on the sanity of anyone who apposes your views and resorting to libel. Most of your posts invoke pity for the rantings of someone who clearly has a personal obsession and agenda. However, you have gone beyond the pale when you equate Peter Allard and Graeme Hall to Hitler and his “final solution”. David is being an idiot to allow you to use his blog to defame others in such a sickening and venomous way.

  37. ac Avatar
    ac

    Amused : grasping at straws to make apoint using an issuethat is void of any revellancy to the matterat hand.

  38. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Amused,
    That is some mighty queer reasoning!

  39. ac Avatar
    ac

    The Bajan brand needs to hire a good public relations firm to deal with this mess .One thing the government seems to be overlooking is the fact that any bad publicity affects the way that the country is perceived.

  40. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    You know, Anon(2), Anonymous et al, I do this every so often to shake you into a state where you feel you have to come to the defense of P.A. Allard and M.I. Knox and their subterranean crew of no fixed abode who try to use the death (and subsequent consumption – either steamed or fried) of little fishes (with or without coucou) from GHNS, to mask their nefarious business aims and ambitions.

    With a big hearing looming, according to the orders of the Ontario Court posted on BU, tomorrow, I have to wonder if the straws at which YOU are clutching, will prove to be substantial enough to carry the extreme weight you now have no option (that I can discern) but to place on them.

    I won’t wish you “Good Luck”, because I hope they break and that the people you support (and may indeed be one of) get decimated by the Court and the Goebbels-like propaganda that you have tried to stir up against Barbados and its people is revealed for what it truly is – the illegal, disappointed and frustrated outpourings of bile by a bunch of twisted fraudsters when their fraud blows the hell up in their faces and they have to climb back into their sewers and beneath their rocks and other places of concealment.

  41. ac Avatar
    ac

    The big problem facing the government
    is the pollution which has infiltrated the water within the sanctuary.It is going to take lots of money to clean it up and with
    the financial problems barbados can’t afford it.The court is gong to rule in favour of Allard and the enviroment.

  42. David Avatar
    David

    @ac

    You are making a good point and it is why BU recommended ADR sometime ago but it is now too late for that, unfortunately this matter has become mired in a cesspool of deceit and has long tentacles which have become tightly interwoven.

  43. ac Avatar
    ac

    @Davd
    I don’t think t is too late. The government
    and Allard went into this project with good intentions and I suppose those intentions are at the heart of this matter.
    Unfortunately for the govenment the
    preservation of the sanctuary might have
    become a project which they cannot afford. However i believe that by the government not living up to their end of
    the bargain is where the problem started.I don’t expect the government to
    give in to Allard every whim but when the government first got envolved they
    must have known what they were getting into.

  44. David Avatar
    David

    @ac

    You MAYBE right but the involvement of Allard in the law suit against the people and government of Barbados may have soured the deal. Just our opinion.

  45. Amused Avatar
    Amused

    I have seen nothing to suggest that Allard/GHNS’ Ottawa case falls under the bilateral agreement they claim it does. I have seen nothing to suggest that GHNS is in any way a joint venture project of which the Government of Barbados is a party. This action stems, from what adnmittedly little I have seen, from the desire of a failed commercial venture to blame its failure on and recoup its losses from, the people of Barbados by attempting, externally, to dictate our internal and sovereign public policy.

    As far as the other and undetachable side of GHNS, the Nelson/Kingsland matter, the time for ADR is long past. And, from what I have seen, Barbados and its fellow defendants have no reason to go to ADR – there is nothing in it for them, only for Allard.

    Because or the level of counsel involved and because of the highly unusual situation where costs are being sought against Nelson/Allard’s counsel, McKenzie) personally and because of a highly publicized (in Canada) defamation case in which McKenzie’s law firm is also alleged to be involved, then there is the committal order for three months for Donald Best and the probability that McKenzie will be disbarred, also McKenzie and Best’s ongoing connection with Allarco, the Allard family company that is under financial protection (or whatever they call it in Canada)……then, the stories of skulduggery in Arab princes in Egypt and the connection with that in the person of one Marc Lemieux…..

    This is a major Canadian and international news story waiting to happen. From what I have seen, Barbados has no need to fear – therefore, with all the stick we have taken from Allard, does Barbados need ADR? Does Barbados WANT ADR?

  46. David Avatar
    David

    Does Allard deny he has expressed an interest in buying the property guarding the the wetlands?

    If we go by what little we know, like the previous government this government will NOT negotiate under duress.

    The issue of the gate we agree is a separate issue which the government should deal with but we do have a toxic situation here.

    BU’s advice to government, fix the damn sluice gate.

  47. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    If the Judge rules in favour of Allard and the environment, I hope the environmentalists in this country do something about the rampant pollution that goes on up here.

    Do you realize that the cities of Halifax, in Nova Scotia and Victoria in BC, dumps all their raw sewage into their harbours? I took a ferry trip from Halifax to Dartmouth and was told when I put my hand overboard to take it out. The raw sewage was floating on top, the water was black and thick like molasses.

    The City of Ottawa also releases millions of gallons of raw sewage into the Ottawa river whenever it rains. This same river is the source of drinking water for many communities.
    Just examine the two scenarios and decide which is worse.

  48. David Avatar
    David

    @Pat

    You of all people should know a case is decided based on the evidence presented and not logic.

  49. Tudor Avatar
    Tudor

    Just wish to clear up 2 statements that were made.
    GHNS offered to replace the sluice gate for the Govt, the Ministry of Public Works selected 2 officals who visited the South Florida Water Mangement and had an extensive tour. This was paid for by GHNS back in 2005 to this date a decision has not been made by the last Govt nor the present administration.

    Secondly GHNS was never set as a profit making company, unlike Ocean Park or any of the other attractions. Allard knew it never could or would make a profit the best he hoped for was that it bring in enough revenue to break even, he was prepared to subsidize the operation.

  50. ac Avatar
    ac

    as far as the enviromental accusations leveled against the government of Barbados and brought about by Allard
    The court must have thought they were merited and worth hearing.

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