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.

Two Members Of Parliament David Estwick And Dale Marshall Go At It!

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Minister of Economic Affairs, Empowerment, Innovation, Trade, Industry and Commerce
Deputy Opposition Leader and Former Attorney General Dale Marshall

The publicized incident which is alleged to have occurred on the parliament compound last Friday night has set tongues wagging near and far. It is not the norm for a fight or shall we refer to it as a disagreement to occur between our parliamentarians. What makes the report even more alarming is the realization that two of our most prominent members of parliament Minister David Estwick and Deputy Opposition Leader Dale Marshall are the actors involved.

BU understand that the rules of parliament forbids the Commissioner of Police to mount an investigation. Barbadians will have to await the action of the Speaker of the House Michael Carrington. Westminster conventions require the Speaker to investigate and act in a non-partisan manner. Any incident which involves the blandishing of a firearm in a threatening manner merits careful review.

There was a time when such an incident which we understand to have occurred between Marshall and Estwick would have been hushed-up and eventually forgotten. No such luck in a more enlightened age.

BU reserve comment for now to give the Speaker of the House a little time to consult and act.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

479 responses to “Two Members Of Parliament David Estwick And Dale Marshall Go At It!”

  1. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @BC

    Poor you. In the space of one blog, you couldn’t maintain some level of consistency, You started the name calling first, you did not argue with facts but with beliefs, and now you seek to suggest that I have attributed something to you that is not yours?

    I responded to David who had responded to you.

    Yup clueless, careless and uninformed.

  2. Barnabas Collins Avatar
    Barnabas Collins

    @AH…..yup clueless and uninformed…you are right….Stupse….!!

    BC

  3. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    My approach to understanding things is to first understand the framework, the rules, the policy, the laws etc that govern these things and actions, or that are in place at the time of events and situations.

    It is by way of this approach that I took the position that I did on this matter, the results being that I was similar in reasoning to the PM and his views. This is possible if multiple persons are looking at the same set of rules.

    No bragging on my part for I did not do anything that is not within the grasp of others to do. All the information that I would have use to opinionate as I have, are publicly available. All that is required is the willingness to ask why and to seek answers for yourself.

    I have no idea who would want live in a world where they are not any rules or laws, and yet many of us do not take the time to learn what is expected of them and others in the various roles we play in society. The way to a better society is to constantly strive to understand its rules.

    I take no pleasure in noting that so many of you by way of your comments in this blog are clueless of parliament’s rules. The standing orders document is available online and is only 105 pages long. The firearms act and the public order act are also available, and so few of you have demonstrated an unhealthy unwillingness to query these acts to get a better understanding of the event, that you claim is sooooo important and that has national consequences, and on which little information is being made available. Are we too lazy, or simply being dishonest about its importance?

  4. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    David // March 29, 2010 at 6:31 PM

    Surprise we have not had a reaction to the news trumpeted by Mottley last night that the DLP will boycott parliament when it resumes April 20 if an armoury is not installed.
    —————————————————————————
    Why comment? Mottley positions are not new. Thompson said the same about having someplace to store guns for parliamentarians.

    A David Brooks dealth with this issue on BFP back in 2007, base on an experience he encountered, visiting the Central bank.

    Staying away from parliament is becoming a best practice of the political class. No news in her comments.

  5. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Enuff // March 29, 2010 at 6:19 PM

    @ Adrian Hinds

    You exemplify the adage “more is less”. Given that I am not a megalomaniac, there is no need for me to hog the blog to appear smart.
    —————————————————————————-
    really? proof please! lol!

    I think I have illuminated this issue by reference to the relevant laws governing the institution where the incident occurred, and the laws governing the use of the instrument central to the incident as well. What have you done? Hopefully you learnt something. lol!

  6. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    The extent of privilege

    4/1/2010

    The resolution of the recent alleged incident involving two Members of Parliament from opposite sides of the Lower House is now firmly within the sole jurisdiction of the presiding officer of that Chamber, the Speaker. This will doubtless entail for that office both a determination of the true facts in this matter and an assessment as to whether these involved any breach of the privileges of the House. Strictly speaking, these issues do not touch and concern the public, except to the extent that the public might naturally have an abiding interest in the workings of its Parliament. Nevertheless, a nice point of legal theory does arise on closer examination; that is, the relationship of these privileges to the Constitution which proclaims itself the supreme law of the land.

    It is of some interest to note that the United Kingdom is currently facing a similar problem; that is, with respect to whether those MPs charged with fraud on the parliamentary expenses system may legally claim that they are protected by parliamentary privilege and are thus immune from criminal prosecution. It is clear that the privilege itself does not provide a true defence, such as provocation, self-defence or automatism, and is rather a point of jurisdiction: Do the courts have the power to declare criminal an act committed in Parliament or its precincts?

    According to May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, “[p]arliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions…” And while the most notorious of these “peculiar rights” is that of freedom of speech which precludes civil or criminal action for words spoken in Parliament (though not if repeated outside of the Chamber), there is also the power of the House to exclude strangers from the legislative chamber and that of exclusive control of the publication of debates and proceedings in the House.

    A relatively recent Canadian decision has held that the Constitution may not apply to matters truly internal to Parliament, so that no Member could claim discrimination if he were overlooked by the Speaker in favour of another Member during question time, nor could it be seriously argued that his right to free speech had been infringed thereby. However, a similar principle would arguably not apply where the matter was clearly not integral to the business of the Legislature, for example, if MP “A” were to stab MP “B” to death during Parliamentary debate. In such an unfortunate event, it would plainly not avail the assailant to claim that his deprivation of B’s right to life was merely part of the proceedings of Parliament.

    It may be no wonder then that the term “at arm’s length” – at a distance, avoiding familiarity or intimacy – might in fact have been more properly rendered “at arms’ length” and derived from the traditional seating configuration in the UK House of Commons where Government and Opposition sit facing each other… two sword lengths apart to prevent physical attacks.

    In the public interest, the time is clearly ripe for a review and clear statement of the parliamentary privileges and immunities to which our legislators are entitled when acting as legislators. Already, in Australia, persons who have been adversely referred to in a Senate debate may have, with the leave of the President and the Privileges Committee, the right to request that a submission in reply be incorporated in the record of that debate.

    Our search for an egalitarian society which purports to be governed by the rule of law demands no less.

  7. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    David please edit the above to add attributes to the Advocate news editorial for April 01 2010

    Thanks!

  8. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    Enuff said:

    @ Adrian Hinds

    You exemplify the adage “more is less”. Given that I am not a megalomaniac, there is no need for me to hog the blog to appear smart.
    ===============================================================

    Ha ha ha ha…you’ve assessed him well Enuff. That has always been his approach…he thinks that being verbose makes him look smart, but anybody with half a brain can see that his large and many submissions lack essence.

    For years now I’ve been getting a kick of out exposing his stupidity, and I’m happy to see that folks like you can see thru his nonsense. He barely likes the habit.

  9. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    @WIV

    Don’t you think it is abit childish and disrespectful to be referring to members of the opposition using names that are defamatory and belittling?? It doesn’t speak well for you as an individual.

  10. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    @Barnabas

    I safely say that AH has not voted in a Barbados election in a very long time…not unless Barbados accepts overseas votes like the US does in her presidential elections. So his vote did not exist when the DLP won only 2 seats, and it didn’t exist when they won 20 either.

  11. ''''''FIRE'''''' Avatar
    ”””FIRE”””

    MATHS
    —————
    hey won 2
    and then they 20
    next time they will win 0

  12. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    I see there are still no valued rebuttals to anything I have posted.

    The incident can be looked at within the framework of parliamentary rules and procedures and the Laws of Barbados, specifically the public order act, and the firearms act.

    One can continue to reference the incident via your ‘feelings” and “beliefs” that is a matter for them.

    Atman is there anything that you say that you think beforehand may require proof? No know so little. You are exhibiting that behavior of someone whose brain has been scorched from years of alcohol consumption. lol!

  13. David Avatar
    David

     

    @Adrian

    Most people by now understand that this matter falls under the purview of parliamentary privilege and we will have to wait until the Speaker rules. However the point which must still be made is that in the context of what is happening in the overall society, perceived breakdown in law and order the public has decided to pay close attention to this incident and as the last paragraph in the article you provided states it maybe time for a review and public opinion may just do that…

     

    In the public interest, the time is clearly ripe for a review and clear statement of the parliamentary privileges and immunities to which our legislators are entitled when acting as legislators. Already, in Australia, persons who have been adversely referred to in a Senate debate may have, with the leave of the President and the Privileges Committee, the right to request that a submission in reply be incorporated in the record of that debate.

    Our search for an egalitarian society which purports to be governed by the rule of law demands no less.

     

  14. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    @Adrian

    I suppose that your favorite beverage “White Horse Scotch Whiskey” fall under the category of non-alcoholic…but it’s obvious that the horse has kicked you in the head too many times.

    All I have seen you done is copy and paste extracts from some constitution or the other relating to gun laws and parliamentary privileges, but the more conscious and insightful among us are focusing on the public’s view of the situation, especially the youth in our country. We are focusing on what should be done by the PM in addressing this issue since it could send a very bad message to our young people if it is not handled properly (regardless of what the Speaker of the House decides).

    I don’t expect you to understand this logic Adrian because you’re still suffering from tunnel vision, and it’s going to get worst before it gets any better.

  15. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Don’t pretend that you know anything about me. Those that do know me, would view any reference by me to alchohol, as nothing more than joking around.

    What is the sin of cutting and pasting the relevant laws, via which the situation under discussion would be dealt with, in a civilize society? Barbados is a nation of laws. The rule of law is paramount here.

    Public opinion is good and should be noted, but the law and the rules of parliament are the only tools that can be applied here. Where public opinion is best suited is as David suggested; to insist that our lawmakers look critically at the insititution of parliament and make much needed reforms. Here again, I have been a voice in the wilderness speaking about the need for parliamentary reform.

    Your continued harping about what the PM should do, after he told Barbados correctly that he has not the power to act, demonstrates your lack of appreciation for the rule of law, policy and procedures, and a dangerous practice of invoking your emotions as the only tool necessary, to judge and ajudicate. Am I to wonder why you once found Chavez so attractive?

  16. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @David:
    I don’t think you fully appreciate the words of that editorial that you have highlighted. Even the editorial doesn’t seem to fully appreciate the need for parliamentary reform. What with “It is time for a review?” It is time because a parliamentarian uses parliamentary privileage to disparage private citizens? and you agreed because another decides to “display” gun? I proffer that it was time a long long time ago.

    In 2007 Mia claimed that she feared that “your law is not my law” will take hold in Barbados as it has in Jamaica. Yet in 2004 a report was presented to her that clearly detail the views of young Barbadians males that there are two sets of laws in Barbados one used against them and one that is lenient towards the upperclass of which members of our political class acsends too. How long did you think that the youths of Barbados came to this conclusion?

  17. David Avatar
    David

    @Adrian

    We want the same thing. BU is leveraging the gun incident to ride on the back of public opinion to achieve the reform we all want to see.

  18. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    If you are focusing on Parliamentary reform as being additonal rules that bring decisions to a transparent and accountable position, then that is fine. But, that can be done by legislation governing public decisions and freedom of information.

    My opinion is that legal and Parliamentary ‘justice’ is different, unfortunately, than economic justice, which really depends on Government policy and as said, transparency of Government decisions and expenditures.

    For example, you and I surely by law, should have the saem consequences for say, smashing a neighbour’s fence.

    If it is perceived that you or I do indeed have an advantage, then that is nothing to do with legal rules, bu the applicaiton i.e. perceived favouritism, how do you legislate that?

    In my opinion, of one argues against rules, there may be some desire to remove the rules themselves, to wit, being of a reckless desire anyway, am I wrong?

    On the second point, economic justice, such that either you or I may have, through political affiliation or economic strength, a better chance at getting a contract to build this or that, is more the problem here.

    Certain people seem to ‘get through’, no matter who is in Government.

    Contracts always seem to ‘flow’ certain ways and to interesting persons.

    That is THE problem. That is where economic justice seems elusive.

    If you have a football team and always give ‘Tommy’ a play up front, but always leave ‘John’ either on the bench or at back, you really think ‘John’ will buy into your aims as much as ‘Tommy’?

    You think ‘John’ is going to believe you always that ‘Tommy’ is a better or more deserving player, eespecially if it is not very clear that he is?

    Or will ‘john’ come to resent you and ‘Tommy’?

    Economic justice should be an aim of any society, along with legal justice but one must be careful to attend to the appropriate remedy.

    What needs changing, legal rules or rules governing the application of economics?

  19. Donald Duck, Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck, Esq

    Why have we heard nothing from the speaker of the house?

  20. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Crusoe I read your submission a couple of times and the beginning sticks with me more than the other parts.

    Tell me if I understand you correctly. Economic Justice should be the priority not parliamentary reform. Yet “EJ” relies of a transparent government, which we don’t have. How do we get the transparent Government? reform perhaps?

    BTW : my Idea of reform goes way beyond additional rules and goes into governance structure, and Electorial changes.

  21. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Donald Duck, Esq // April 7, 2010 at 10:14 AM

    Why have we heard nothing from the speaker of the house?
    ————————————————————————–
    Do you really think that this speaker will break tradition an be non-partisan and impartial on a situation that helps the opposition? really!

    I don’t, but if he does, how does this help the BLP with their ultimate goal of capturing the most seats in the next election? Estwick will still win his seat, and Payne and Marshall have their work cut out to maintain theirs.

  22. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    Arian wrote:

    Your continued harping about what the PM should do, after he told Barbados correctly that he has not the power to act, demonstrates your lack of appreciation for the rule of law, policy and procedures, and a dangerous practice of invoking your emotions as the only tool necessary, to judge and ajudicate. Am I to wonder why you once found Chavez so attractive?
    ===============================================================

    Again you are showing your ignorance as it relates to the power of the PM over members of his cabinet. The PM has the power to reshuffle or dismiss members of his cabinet as he sees fit. The PM’s power over his cabinet, and the Speaker’s power in parliament are two separate and distinct things. What I’m saying to you is that if Thompson believes that Estwick behaved in a manner that brought disgrace to DLP and it what it stands for, then Thompson has the power to do something about it. He doesn’t need to wait on the ruling of the Speaker, but he has chosen to take that route for his own political reasons which will backfire later if he’s hoping that people will just forget all about it as time passes.

    They say that the higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his tail. Does this proverb mean anything to you Adrian?

    Now if you want to discuss Chavez we can wait for the next topic relating to him, but I’ll tell yuh one thing, if you had half the balls and merit that he has, your comments would make more sense.

  23. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Again you are showing your ignorance as it relates to the power of the PM over members of his cabinet. The PM has the power to reshuffle or dismiss members of his cabinet as he sees fit.
    —————————————————————————-

    ….and that arbitrary power is checked by the fact the PM remains the first amongst HIS EQUALS by maintaining their loyalty to him. Arbitrary decisions can lead to a weakening of the PM powers.

    The PM derives his status and maintains his position via pledge loyalty to him of a majority of parliamentarians.

    Case in point. Sandiford thought the cabinet was the Prime Ministers cabinet and as its leader he had all say. He was wrong. It is a parliamentary cabinet unless it is so large that the PM via patronage controls more parliamentarians with in his cabinet than exist in parliament it self.

    as usuall you have nothing with which to prove what you “believe.”

  24. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    QUOTE
    BLP column – The plot against Estwick
    Published on: 6/15/07.

    It was Thompson’s turn to sweat in the House
    of Assembly on Tuesday, June 5, when Deputy Prime Minister Mottley dropped the bombshell of the plot being executed by the top echelon of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) and its insurance financier to unseat St Philip South MP David Estwick. It was news that would not surprise Freundel Stuart, former MP for St Philip South, and or which Thompson should have more than passing knowledge.

    The announcement by Mottley threw the entire House debate into a tailspin and drove Thompson
    to his feet in defence. However, at the end
    of his intervention, he had only managed to confirm Mottley’s charge.

    During Thompson’s intervention Estwick remained speechless with only the agonised expression of the truth of the charge etched across his face. The very thought of having to face his constituents knowing
    full well that the leadership of his party does not
    want him must be a very painful experience.

    With the plot against Mascoll resulting in his subsequent departure from the DLP still fresh in people’s mind, Thompson finds himself under the political spotlight again. And why? The answer to this most soul-searching question can be found in Stuart’s declaration to Thompson when he said words to the effect that if he was in the desert dying of thirst and Thompson was the last man to bring him a glass of water, he would choose to die. It is pellucid that the question of trust is at the heart of Stuart’s statement and all Barbadians should take note.

    This ongoing plot against Estwick, the departure of Mascoll and the countless others before him from the DLP, now beg the question why the members who fled the DLP were accused of being wrong but Thompson is right? When will the DLP realise that the albatross around the neck of that party is their English-born leader?

    Thompson’s method of dealing with members
    of his party by whom he feels threatened may well explain why he enjoys the distinction of presiding over the largest exodus of members from the DLP.
    With such poor management skills, Barbadians would want to ponder on the prospect of having a leader
    who is constantly in an apparent state
    of “persecution psychosis”.

    We have taken note that Thompson’s behaviour towards ordinary working-class Barbadians differs greatly from that of the black moneyed class and the white elite class in our society. This recent plot against Estwick reinforces that belief which can be attributed to the kind of socialisation to which he was exposed during his early childhood in England.

    Estwick can feel no confidence or sense of belonging within the bosom of the DLP where friendships are purchased and commitment has no value. We all will share his pain when he will be forced in the not too distant future to share a platform with Thompson or pose in a group photo to give the impression that the DLP is a united party.

    To date the DLP is no closer to unification than it was on the evening of the debate of the no-confidence
    of 1994, and while Estwick ponders on his political future in light of the revelation of the plot to unseat him, his pain is made deeper because the seniors
    of the party will do nothing to help his cause. Thankfully, the people of St Philip West have
    an alternative – a young, bright eloquent speaker
    and trained lawyer, the Hon. Lynette Eastmond.

    Beresford Leon Padmore is a pseudonym
    for the Barbados Labour Party.

  25. Carol Avatar
    Carol

    Donald Duck, you are proving that it is possible to blog without a brain.

    How can the Speaker pronounce on an issue that is not yet before him? The matter has to be referred to the committee of privileges but the House is on recess. Even Ms. Mottley said that at the BLP gathering in town.

    Perhaps you left after Owen – who was clearly drunk – spoke as well!

  26. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have heard NO ONE mention the meeting that Carol referred to in the previous comment. Did anyone go who can give some info as to waht was said?

    another thing how comes the nation (who has a B on their bonnet) have not allowed the bajan public to see the ‘crowds’ that were supposed to be there???????

  27. Alex Fergusson Avatar
    Alex Fergusson

    Teaching by example

    “There is no teaching to compare with example”- Sir Robert Baden-Powell

    Jesus Christ taught by example. It characterized his life and his mission on earth. Christians are invited to follow his example of love for your neighbour, compassion, forgiveness of others and self-sacrifice.

    It is a powerful message reinforced by his crucifixion and resurrection that Christians commemorate and celebrate at Easter.

    It is a message that still has currency, whether or not you are of the Christian Faith. It is a message that would go a long way to solving some of the social ills afflicting our island today.

    In a time when other messages and examples are so readily available to our young people in particular, the method of teaching by example espoused by Christ has great value.

    When adults today trumpet the fact that they were raised in a system that instilled discipline, dignity, the value of hard work and respect for others, where and how have they failed to pass on these values to the present generation? Have they failed to lead by example?

    Recent events by those who put themselves forward as leaders suggest that sentimentalism and a dogmatic approach have replaced teaching by example. It is no longer good enough for our leaders to shout and berate our citizens as if they are the font of all morals and values. They must lead by example.

    When a Prime Minister employs as his most trusted advisor a man who has been found guilty of assault against a police officer with a judgment of EC$5,000 against him, what moral authority does this Prime Minister have to tell young men they must respect the dignity of women?

    When a Minister of Education publicly berates one by one, every single stakeholder in the education system how does this engender respect?

    When a Minister of Transport laments the behaviour of drivers and conductors in the transportation sector, both public and private, but hurls invective after invective across the floor of Parliament every week what example does this set?

    When a Minister of Social Care seeks to twist the contents of a letter for political advantage to justify a policy that most Barbadians are unimpressed by, how does this square with the tenets of good governance?

    When a Prime Minister rewards poor ministerial performance with yet another job, who will take anything he has to say about productivity seriously?

    When a party comes to office promising a code of conduct for its members and not only fails to implement one, but by its very conduct adheres in the breach, how does this inspire faith in the political system?

    When a Prime Minister passes the buck when he has the opportunity and the power to enforce discipline in his own Cabinet, does he think that young people will trust him to do what is right for them?

    Leading by example is never easy. It is far easier to mouth the right words even when the intentions are good. The road to more than one term in office is paved with good intentions. Performance and example though are what Governments are judged by.

    The performance of the Government has already been found wanting and the example it is setting in several cases is doubtful at best. On this the most holy of weekends for Christians we invite the members of the Government to reflect on the power of setting the right example, particularly for our young people. By their deeds you shall know them.

    There is no greater influence on social change, both good and bad, than example. As a nation we can all set a better example for our children, but we expect our Government to lead the way.

    +++++++++++++++++++

    The above was the BLP’s Column of Friday, April 2, 2010

  28. littleboy Avatar
    littleboy

    The BLP column was a day late

  29. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    @AH

    Again I will leave you to swim in your own pool of non-sense…and don’t go too hard on the White Horse.

  30. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Atman // April 9, 2010 at 12:09 AM

    @AH

    Again I will leave you to swim in your own pool of non-sense…and don’t go too hard on the White Horse.

    ———————————————————————–

    As usual you have no useful responses to facts that shatters your beliefs.

    Is it a prime ministers cabinet or a parliamentary cabinet?

  31. 50% Bajan Avatar
    50% Bajan

    I have not been to this blog for sometime but I am truly amazed at some of the comments submitted no less than poultry of the backyard variety. I cannot believe that with a country that boasts such a high literacy rate and a high percentage of persons with at least a secondary education, the garbage that spews from these obvious party lackeys.As an independent, (not like the Honourable one in our Parliament) I prefer to base my opinion on the truth and fact. If indeed Mr.Marshall threatened Mr. Estwick the way it is rumored then he should be entitled to some form of punishment.If Mr. Estwick as it is rumored, brandished a gun in a place no less than Parliament, (maybe its his only way to resolve conflict or debate) then he should suffer in some way.Point blank.(no pun intended).
    With all the concern going around about the direction of our youth can you bloggers irrespective of your political bias, honestly say this is an example displayed by our “leaders” to follow? How can throwing a chair be as serious as a drawn firearm if I am to believe what was mentioned in one of the replies to this blog.
    Too much time is spent laying blame.Who did what before and the comparison of the present.It is almost like the lesser of two evils.”You had you turn so um is mine now” is the attitude I see all across this country.The fact of the matter is while the grass is growing (brown)the horse is starving.I want the government to get on with the job they were elected to do and the opposition reserves the right to criticize & oppose not just for opposing sake but to offer meaningful alternatives. It is in the best interest of BARBADOS and its people that the government succeeds in making this country the best place in the world to live.If they can do it……well that’s another story.

  32. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Published on: 4/16/2010.

    by BARRY ALLEYNE

    BARBADIANS WILL HAVE TO WAIT until Tuesday to find out what, if anything will be done by Speaker of the House, Michael Carrington, relating to an alleged incident in the precincts of the House of Assembly that involved Members of Parliament Dr David Estwick and Deputy Opposition Leader Dale Marshall.

    When contacted this week, Carrington was extremely tight-lipped regarding if any disciplinary decision had been made, and said anything more to be said would be done so in the Lower House when Parliament resumes Tuesday after a three-week hiatus.

    “I’ve said what I had to say before. Anything else will be said when the House reconvenes. You have a good day,” Carrington told the WEEKEND NATION when asked if the House’s Committee of Privileges had met on the matter, and if he would be handing down any discipline.

    Carrington, the Member of Parliament for St Michael West, and a first-time parliamentarian and Speaker, is Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, which also includes Minister of Housing and Lands, Michael Lashley; MP for St Philip South, Adriel Brathwaite; Independent MP, Hamilton Lashley; Opposition MP, William Duguid; Minister of the Environment, Dr Denis Lowe; and Member of Parliament for St Lucy, Denis Kellman.

    The Committee of Privileges is the lone group that can meet to determine if any disciplinary measures can be taken on sitting Members of Parliament regarding their behaviour in the House of Assembly.

    The alleged incident involving former attorney general Marshall, and Estwick, the Minister of Economic Affairs, occurred inside Parliament on March 19, during the debate on the 2010 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure.

    Marshall officially wrote the Speaker of the House on March 23, asking that the incident be referred to the Committee of Privileges for deliberation.

    Since the incident, leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley has asked for a firearms policy to be introduced for all Parliamentarians. Prime Minister David Thompson, at a subsequent Press conference at Government Headquarters, endorsed such an idea, saying it would be wise to have a special “armoury” where the firearms of parliamentarians could be safely stored when there are sittings of the House of Assembly.

    At that Press conference, the Prime Minister said he had spoken to Dr Estwick after the alleged incident, but did not reveal the details of their conversation.

    In addition, Mottley has promised that members of the Opposition Barbados Labour Party would conduct their business outside of Parliament, unless a firearms policy was in place by Tuesday.

    A few days after the incident, former Prime Minister Owen Arthur called Dr Estwick’s behaviour a “national abomination” and urged Thompson to revoke the minister’s commission.

  33. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    No how funny Muttley really is, instead of going to Parliament and doing the peoples’s business this idiot and clown has opted to run scared and run away from Parliament tomorrow.

    Now tell me with this matter that he has cried about for weeks now and the Parliament goes back to work he decides to run away from Parliament and not use this forum to address the matter that he deemed so damaging and the matter that he is so concerned about but instead they refuse to go to work to do the work for the people who have elected them to work for them.

    Some go further and suggest that after over a thousand people both BLP and DLP turned out to listen to the Prime Minister The Hon Mr David Thompson MP, QC, the Deputy Prime Minister Mr Stuart, The Minister Mr Sinckler and the repsentative Mr Lashley that after seeing the tremendous reception both he and the party received by both BLP and DLP supporters they are not keen to have him sitting and facing them and taunting them for the acts of corruption against taxpayers.

    This bunch is a very sick and sad lot when one considers Muttley as their leader it is sick as he lacks the moral fabric to be respected or looked up to as any leader should be.

    All this smoke and mirrors about guns in Parliament but really her issue for not attending Parliament has little to do with this and more to do with running away from their first day looking Mr Lashley in the eyes.

  34. David Avatar
    David

    Not surprise to read that the Opposition will be boycotting the House of Assembly tomorrow. It is surely one way to bring the public’s attention to the matter. The public will be clued in to what Estwick has to say tomorrow. BU did say this matter has the potential to get out of hand. Now that we have the shooting incident which resulted in the killing of the 11 year old the public is up to hear on matters related to gun violence.

  35. Barnabas Collins Avatar
    Barnabas Collins

    @ WIV….Man you continue to scare me! Surely you jest with the above post. The opposition is playing politics like the other side would have if the shoe was on the other foot. Plain and simple!!

    This issue while the opposition playing politics, is very serious to me as a bajan. The nonsense about a registered gun holder must be armed with the weapon at all times is plenty crap because I am sure that when they travel they have to leave it at home or wherever. Therefore, where they leave it when they going overseas, they can leave it to go to parliament. This is a serious issue but none of the parties are really taking it seriously, IT SEEMS. The government hoping it goes away and the opposition is milking it for all its worth. Let’s see what happens from here.

    BC

  36. Donald Duck, Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck, Esq

    WIV

    Are you not scared that your colleague Dr Estwick may pull a gun on you as well in parliament? If he has done it to Mr Marshall who is to say he can’t do it to you. Remember, a leopard never changes his spots!!!

  37. Donald Duck, Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck, Esq

    WIV

    Your party must get bored turning up to hear the same thing at every constituency council gathering. I see on the TV news the smae people at each meeting. It is called political posturing. People also get tired of watching the whole event rehashed on tv the following night.

  38. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    Simple and plain clown, do you know for example your Duguid the Pillsbury Dough boy has two firearms and do you know that you party by far has nearly double the number of firearms in Parliament than the Ruling Party, do you also know that your leader in her very mannish ways is always armed with a Glock, do you know that neith the Prime Minister nor the Deputy Prime Minister own or have a gun ?

    Don’t throw stones in glass house you may get hurt, GLOCK THAT ??

    Quack, Quack, Quacker.

    You need not worry about the Constituency Reports you never had them nor would you and your group stand the test that they provide, you need moreso to watch the numerous persons on hand to be part of all of these evenings and it will tell you that despite your empty mouthings the electorate are eager to be part of this governance and part of the process of freedom and being able to speak freely.

    Wonder program and even more wonderfully attended evenings.

  39. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    I know yesterday’s really hurt you to the point you have decided to vacate Parliament tomorrow, that is your business but the Government has a job to do and it will press on with the work it has to do with or without you.

    I trust you have the goodness of heart to give back to the treasury your April pay packet as you did not earn a cent of it.

  40. Donald Duck, Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck, Esq

    WIV

    We know that “the electorate are eager to be part of this governance”. However how can they be if a minister is allowed to chose who is on the council.

    If these councils are not to be political, why is it that when thre is a council meeting for everyone to attend that the ad which the government pays for says that it is your party who is inviting people to the meeting and not that it is the members of the council of the relevant constitutency who is inviting you.

  41. Donald Duck, Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck, Esq

    WIV

    As to the firearm issue, no politician should be allowed to take a gun into parliament. Are you prepared to surrender yours as well?

  42. Foolbert Avatar
    Foolbert

    I come along hearing that “position is the art of gunnery”, me in no who said that but it is true as John 3.16. It is now that I understand what it really means.There used to be another saying I heard as a child which went like this ” Ya does cut diamond wid diamond”. Lord any old school masters out day that can explain this one.

  43. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    @ WIV (Warped Intellectual Syndrome)

    Your trivialisation of serious matters, as an apparent bona fide representative of the party on this blog, comes across as contemptuous and reflects poorly on the government which promised change.

    The argument was never about the ownership/non-ownership of guns by members of Parliament so your diatribe about who owns what is pointless. Furthermore, to attempt to portray the Opposition members as tainted but their former ally as spotless is also disingenuous and pure politicking.

    I would turn up to support anyone who while Minister I got:

    $11,500 for cutting down a tree
    paid for cutting trees without being contracted by the UDC
    loans without even applying
    received grants when UDC only provides loans
    free Christmas parties (staff got none) and lights, and weekly karaoke
    a large yearly ‘stipend’

  44. Donald Duck, Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck, Esq

    Did you hear how sinckler made hammie la to be a saint on sunday. Who was the person who caused all the problems at the UDC in the first place?

  45. Donald Duck, Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck, Esq

    Hammie la

    Account for your stewardship while minister in charge of the UDC.

  46. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    Enuff

    But……. Hammie La did all those things while he was in Minister in the BLP Gov’t, when the criticism started to flow your esteemed Leader (Owen) declared that Lashley is a “Grass roots politician” and they were proud of him. Today it is Freundel’s turn.

    I didn’t hear a peep from the BLP members then and I don’t expect to hear from the DLP members today.

    A pox on both their houses.

  47. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    Sargeant like you I merely stating the facts, I was not taking sides.

  48. JC Avatar
    JC

    Estwick talking on 100.7

  49. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Speaker sounds reasonable to me. Sounding firm too! Can’t find no fault wid im to be honest.

  50. ''''''FIRE'''''' Avatar
    ”””FIRE”””

    GUNSLINGERS IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

    WILD BOYS WIELDING GUNS

    ALCOHOL AND GUNS -WHAT A MIX !

    Question : Is the public gallery safe ?

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