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.

Fireworks Go Off In The House Of Assembly

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Speaker of the Barbados House of Assembly Michael Carrington

In a stormy debate so far at today’s sitting of the House of Assembly the leader of the opposition has sought to raise a matter (emergency debate on CLICO) which was ruled against by the Speaker. While seeking to clarify the matter along with her colleague George Payne of St. Andrew, the Speaker took the unusual step for Barbados of asking the Marshalls, with the assistance of the constabulary if required to remove the two members (to be confirmed).

Interesting to note Dale Marshall is currently being allowed to narrate events which led up to the gun incident between himself and David Estwick, interesting to say the least. Estwick who offered an apology last week when the opposition boycotted was not seated.

To the BU family, the filibustering strategy of the BLP does not come as a surprise in light of the recent gun incident in parliament and the escalating events of the CLICO issue. Given the adversarial design of the Westminster System how can one blame the opposition? Time will determine how sound the strategy proves itself to be.

The display of disorder which was witnessed this morning would have saddened all who witnessed or heard it.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

188 responses to “Fireworks Go Off In The House Of Assembly”

  1. Donald Duck Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck Esq

    The speaker must resign his post!!!!

  2. ac Avatar
    ac

    @Donald Duck Esq

    On what grounds? must he resign. ! Explain if you can

  3. Donald Duck Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck Esq

    The spealker has failed to allow the ventilation and resolution of an urgent issue that is likely to cost the population of Barbados severely.

  4. ac Avatar
    ac

    @Donald Duck Esq.
    What is the urgency of the issue and how is likely to cost the population of barbados severely?
    Did the House Speaker break any parliamentarian
    rules which governs the houseof parliament?
    Aren’t these rules in place for obvious reason as displayed by the opposition today.

  5. Avatar
    Anonymous

    There were blasted disrespectful and I as a young person could not believe that Mia and Co. were being so rude! I am glad they were removed from the house of Parliament. Blasted fools!

    We are an educated bunch and no vindictive person is going to get my vote! What is a bully! Mia is a bully (I think or a wicki) lol!

    Its not funny but I had to laugh cause I can’t believe what I heard in the house today!

  6. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I just went over to Barbados Today and it has printed a copy of Mia’s CLICO motion. Interestingly enough, all the motion calls for is a vague thing that “the Minister of Finance take urgent action to ensure that the aforementioned policyholders and financial institutions suffer no loss or prejudice as a result of the policy holders buying these policies in good faith”.

    I suppose I can see even more why the Speaker wasnt minded to have this thing debated. I thought Mia was coming with a list of concrete proposals on what the government must do right away which would at least have been constructive. I guess I see why the Speaker reckoned, look this is already being dealt with by the SOI, the oversight committee etc.

    Gotta come better than that Mia girl. Wheel and come again.

  7. David Avatar
    David

    @ Anonymous 2010/04/27 at 8:36 PM

    Talk what you want the public maybe siding with the opposition on this matter even if it is what some may label an emotional argument.

  8. Avatar
    Anonymous

    @David

    Not form what I am hearing, the people are sick and fed up of Mia’s theatrics and demand she behaves!

  9. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    The proposed motion is really nonsensical and clearly only intended to serve political ends. Does anyone really think that we need a resolution of Parliament to tell the Minister of Finance to take urgent action on the matter of any policies sold by Clico, possibly in contravention of the Insurance Act? What good would this do?

  10. Avatar
    Anonymous

    David, just to be clear, I dont really care what the public feels on this issue as I have nothing to gain or lose either way. Dont be fooled by the frequency of my posts. lol

    But I know what I feel and I have an interest in making sense of this for myself. Im finding the views on this blog helpful in shaping my understanding and opinion on the matter.

  11. David Avatar
    David

    @Brutus

    To the point, why did it take so long for the new policies to come to light? Is the regulator asleep at the switch?

  12. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    @David,

    It would seem to me that the Oversight Committee was asleep! They should be getting weekly reports on cash flow, policy surrenders and maturities, etc and monthly financial info within 15 or 20 days of month end. They would have to explain to us why it took them so long to figure out that an order of the Supervisor was breached, if indeed that is true.

    The Supervisor should have been getting reports too – I am not sure if normally they are monthly reports that go to the Supervisor but in the circumstances the Supervisor should have requested more timely information.

    My view of course is that this talk about the Supervisor is a red herring. The Ministry of Finance must be directing the actions of the office of the Supervisor of Insurance perhaps aided by the Central Bank, otherwise the government is being grossly negligent here. The office of the Supervisor of Insurance does not have the capability to manage this situation on their own.

  13. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    Everyone needs to read Marshall’s statement read in the House today, as published in Barbados Today. It is really unfortunate that the other events of the day pushed this statement into the background, and I am perplexed at the Opposition’s tactics.

    If Marshall’s description of Estwick’s behaviour is true, then he really ought to have been instantly fired by Thompson. This behaviour would be absolutely unacceptable. Pulling the gun from his ankle holster and putting it into his waist band is one thing – we can disagree on whether that was threatening or not. But threatening verbally, behaving aggressively, and having to be restrained by fellow MP’s is totally unacceptable of an MP and a Member of Parliament. Perhaps we will hear what Dale Marshall did to provoke this but still there can be no excuse.

  14. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yeah, lemme hear anybody that claim to be sane justify that disgracefu behaviour we just saw on CBC. Seeing it again I am more convinced that the Speaker took too long to expel the two of them. I expect full apologies from them both before they can have the privilege of sitting in there again.

    Oh, and by the way Mia I clearly heard these word from your lips to your members “All the rest of you need to get up now and ask for the clarification”. Even after the speaker had made his ruling clear to you. Some leader you are!! Ah waiting wid muh X!

  15. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    The Almighty Mottley family and this 1000 lbs of Blubber is really a disgrace to the female sex.

    Anyone watching this display today would wonder what we did to end up with these misfits in Parliament of our island.

    This gathering of misfits for an Opposition must rate as the most uncouth pack of animals to grace the halls of Parliament.

    Muttley had nothing to say or offer Parliament and Owing had even less to offer today.

    They have a right to speak but they despite of their political lineage and their belief that it has entiltlement rights being a Muttley, there is no entiltlement to leadership and she must grow used to that fact that she is out of gov’t.

  16. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Boy,seeing is really believing.

    I have never seen such disrespect as that by george payne and mia mottley.

    Wow.

  17. Bajan Truth Avatar
    Bajan Truth

    What a lot of heat. But truely, the speaker really is wrong in his conduct of this matter. There needs to be care taken in how we choose persons for office, and how we prepare persons to undertake positions of authority. Our parliament has had many speakers and presidents. and their duty to the Queen is to uphold, preserve and safeguard the ancient privileges of parliamentarians. He must not become a threat to those privileges. The standing orders provides the guidelines and using those, interpreting them with integrity, and applying them to the issues as they arise before him with fairness is his duty and his power. It was interesting to hear Chris Sinckler, talking about conduct and disrespect, and he has yet to speak to the issue of Estwick’s conduct.

  18. Avatar
    Anonymous

    @Bajan Truth

    let’s say for argument’s sake the speaker was indeed wrong. Would that in any way imaginable justify the barbaric behaviour from Mia and George Payne? Don’t even bother to answer!

  19. Bajan Truth Avatar
    Bajan Truth

    Getting back to Estwick, but really his conduct passes all bounds. The speaker could find quick to expel members but can drag his feet for one month, not put in a firearms policy. He allowed Estwick to speak last week, Marshall this week, and he will let Estwick speak again. How is it justice to allow the perpetrator to speak twice to the victim of the crime once? Why was it necessary to do so much speaking,should not the evidence be put to teh commmittee of privileges.

    I am listening to Chris Sinckler talking about the bad manners and bad example to young people. How would he describe the conduct of Estwick? Hypocrisy dressed in a flag.As the old people would say, ‘Lord come fuh yuh world’.

  20. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @David
    I am no friend of Westminster, but adversarial politics should not include reinterpreting the standing orders, ignoring the standing orders, looking to other parliament’s standing orders while ignoring the ones in our parliament, or wanting to amend the standing orders on a whim to accommodate a government.

    @Anonymous:
    No offence taken.

    …..The Barbados labor party has a habit of not wanting to abide the existing rules and not wanting to change them to address the shortcomings or omissions, or ‘vagueness” they conveniently claim exist.

    A gun policy favors them so they are ready to suggest the rules in other parliaments, as fitted for ours. Ignore the standing orders, don’t wait to amend them via the correct process the BLP cannot wait.

    Another instance is in 2007 regarding Thompson request to debate a no confidence motion on Clyde Mascoll. The motion was contained in a private member’s resolution to which there is no time limit for when the member can speak on his resolution.
    The Speaker clearly guided by Mia Mottley, sought to force debate on the private members resolution. The speaker even suggested invoking rules from another parliament to make Thompson debate the no confidence motion at Mia’s choosing.

    Why have rules if they are so meaningless that they can be change whenever it suites the BLP? But wait hold a minute? There seems to be an existing standing order that might be useful to the BLP .

    The BLP has found Section 18 (2) of the standing orders fitted to their political purpose of tightening the CLICO noose around Thompson’s neck. Or is more likely to be a reinterpretation of the rule to fit their narrow purposes?

    What does Section 18 (2) says? And does the current CLICO issue rise meet the requirements of this standing order?

  21. Avatar
    Anonymous

    @ Bajan truth: How is it justice to allow the perpetrator to speak twice to the victim of the crime once?

    How can you claim one person is the perp and another the victim? The matter has not been heard yet! It is one man’s word against another. Yuh talking outta yuh arse now!

  22. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Looka I had enough nonsense for one day. Mia will come begging for an X again. I waitin. I done wid dat.

  23. Bajan Truth Avatar
    Bajan Truth

    @ Anonymous

    Don’t get tie up, I spoke to the issue of the speaker’s conduct. In any sitation, one or other can be wrong, or both can be wrong, they are not mutually exclusive. The conduct of the MP’s will not threaten democracy, but the speakers behaviour can definitely destroy it. Which is more dangerous to the country? Between Estwicks response and Marshall’s provocation (if it occurred we have to listen next week), which is more dangerous to the country.

  24. Bo'sun Avatar
    Bo’sun

    The ZR Culture has now permeated/penetrated the highest forum in our land.

  25. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @David
    I am no friend of Westminster, but adversarial politics should not include reinterpreting the standing orders, ignoring the standing orders, looking to other parliament’s standing orders while ignoring the ones in our parliament, or wanting to amend the standing orders on a whim to accommodate a government.
    @Anonymous:
    No offence taken.
    …..The Barbados labor party has a habit of not wanting to abide by the existing rules and of not seeking to change them in a procedural way, as to address the shortcomings or omissions, or ‘vagueness” they conveniently claim exist.
    A gun policy favors them so they are ready to suggest the rules of other parliaments, as being fitted to ours — Ignore the standing orders, don’t wait to amend them via the correct process for the BLP cannot wait.
    Another instance is in 2007 regarding Thompson request to debate a no confidence motion on Clyde Mascoll. The motion was contained in a private member’s resolution to which there is no time limit for when the member can speak on his resolution.
    The Speaker clearly guided by Mia Mottley, sought to force debate on the private members resolution. The speaker even suggested invoking rules from another parliament to make Thompson debate the no confidence motion at Mia’s choosing.
    Why have rules if they are so meaningless that they can be change whenever it suites the BLP? But wait hold a minute? There seems to be an existing standing order that might be useful to the BLP .
    The BLP has found Section 18 (2) of the standing orders to be fitted to their political purpose of tightening the CLICO noose around Thompson’s neck —- or is more likely to be a reinterpretation of the rule to fit their narrow purposes?
    What does Section 18 (2) says? And does the current CLICO issue rise to meet the requirements of this standing order?

  26. John Avatar
    John

    Parliament Today …. somewhere else.

  27. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Section 18. ADJURNMENT _ DEFINTE MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANC

    1: Any member other than a Member of the Government may at the time appointed under standing Order No. 10 (Order of Business) rise in his place and ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

    2: A member who wishes to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House under this Standing Order shall, before the commencement of the sitting, hand the Speaker a written notification of the matter which he/she wishes to discuss. The Speaker shall refuse to allow the claim unless he is satisfied that the matter is definite, urgent, of public importance and may properly be raised on a motion of the adjournment of the House.

    3. If the Speaker is so satisfied and either –

    (a) leave of the House is given; or

    (b) if leave is not unanimously given, at least nine Members rise in ther places to suppor the requuest;

    the motion shall stand over until 6:30 p.m. on the same day, and at that hour any proceeding on which the House is engaged, shall be postponed until the motion for the adjournment is disposed of, or the moment of interruption is reached, whichever is the earlier. …….

  28. GoWEB Avatar
    GoWEB

    Just trying to understand. As I understand it, a Point of Privilege can ONLY be heard after it has been submitted in writing to the Committee of Privileges. This means that the Speaker must have knowledge of the nature of the point before it is spoken in the house. Therefore, the Speaker isn’t obligated to listen to the point before ruling on it, because from the time you stand on a “Point of Privilege”, you can’t raise anything which hasn’t already been read by the speaker. In other words, the speaker knows what is in the point before you speak and has the right to decide whether or not you can speak on that point. The only way the speaker can NOT know what is in the point is if you raise a point which was snot submitted in writing, in which case, it CANNOT be a point of Privilege and should therefore not be heard either.

    Have I interpreted the rules correctly?

  29. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    @ Wishing In Vain,

    man why you doan watch wuh yuh writin.

    You could create a sympathy voting block fuh MIA.

    All those pleasantly plump ladies might vote sympathetically.
    Then there are the increasing numbers of “girls gone wild” who may want a woman as their maximum leader.

    Just a thought WIV.

  30. Think on it Avatar
    Think on it

    I am disgusted with the contempt and disrespect displayed by the opposition at Parliament today I think stray dogs would have had more sense of occassion and decency that the BLP showed today.

    Maybe it was conditioned by the fact that Barney Lynch the self inflated egotistic jackass failed to maintain a job at the Caribbean Hotel & Tourism Association before he was fired with haste, reports state that in his usual arrogant puff chested style he and Mr Alec Sanguinetti came to high words in very short order with the nett result Barney Lynch got kicked up his arse and sent packing meanwhile Mr Alec Sanguinetti – Director General & CEO: alec@caribbeanhotelandtourism.com continues in his post.

    I must congratulate the Caribbean Hotel & Tourism Association for not being like the unfortunate people of Barbados to have had to endure this absolute idiot for 14 years too long but for their swift and timely action to kick him out the Caribbean Hotel & Tourism Association in a hurry.

    The electorate fired him in 2008, the St Vincent and the Grenadines Gov’t fired him later in 2008 and having just stumbled on the posting at Caribbean Hotel & Tourism Association he comes into conflict with the CEO and the Board and is fired instantly.

    I wonder if he was arranging one of his Plantation Home Kickback deals as he got on the job ?

  31. David Avatar
    David

    @Brutus

    Your position is accepted which logically means we should be seeing a few more resignations; this time from the Oversight Committee. Just imagine that on the Oversight Committee we have officers of the company onboard! Seems like total confusion, no resolution.

  32. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @Goweb:
    What Marshall did today is a point of privilege. Which is to first submit a letter to the committee of privileges of which the Speaker is chairman. At later date you read your points, and at an even further date the committee will meet on it.

    What Mottley attempted to do was to ajorn the house to discuss a matter of urgent importance.

    You cannot rise on a point of privilege, in Barbados version of westminster, as you would on a point of order.

  33. Noticing Avatar
    Noticing

    In all honesty the speaker should really have allowed Ms Mottley to make her point which he didn’t, he just told her to sit down without hearing what she had to say. Furthermore the speaker threatened to expel all of the opposition mps from parliament. Mr Arthur did not take this threat to his right to speak in the house very lightly so he stood in the house to request that the speaker apoligise to him but can you believe that in the parliament of Barbados that Mr Arthur was not allowed to speak as an elected Mp elected by you the people of Barbados. since Mr Arthur could not speak he decided to write a not to the speaker all the while he was still sitting in his chair. Latter on Ms Mottley kept asking for a point of order and she was denied it. This is a dark day in The House of Assembly when members are denied the right to speak and even worse when a speaker of the house comes with a vendetta and threatens to expel an entire opposition from the house even the ones who said nothing, However Ms.Mottley and Mr. George Payne should not have tried to speak over the tone of the speaker. In the end the real issue is not this event but what will be done about the clico issue and the cost of living in this country because amid all of these distractions the issues have to be resolved they will not go away on their own.

  34. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Anonymous said on // April 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM

    Oh, and by the way Mia I clearly heard these word from your lips to your members “All the rest of you need to get up now and ask for the clarification”. Even after the speaker had made his ruling clear to you. Some leader you are!! Ah waiting wid muh X!
    ==========================================

    If the above is correct then two things occur.

    1: It means that Mia ACCEPTED the part of Standing order 18 section 2 that states ……..
    [The Speaker shall refuse to allow the claim unless he is satisfied that the matter is definite, urgent, of public importance and may properly be raised on a motion of the adjournment of the House.]

    THE SPEAKER WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO REFUSE.

    2: That she attempted to satisfy section 3B of the Standing order which states………[or

    (b) if leave is not unanimously given, at least nine Members rise in ther places to suppor the request;]

    Did the Speaker err in not allowing this? or by the time the nine had risen to support the request the house was already in disrepute and Mia was out of order for disobeying the Speaker’s request to take her seat?

  35. David Avatar
    David

    Former Prime Minister Arthur spoke to the custom or convention of allowing past prime ministers some privilege in parliamentary debates. He noted that under his period in the house he extended such courtesy to Sir Lloyd. Yes this is a courtesy but one which most Barbadians would probably appreciate. Now Arthur is suggesting as a former MP he is treated like crap. He cited the example of an arrangement in a recent debate to speak at a particular time and then the leader of business (Ronald Jones) changed the time without notification. Comment anyone?

  36. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    @David
    I once took issue with a policeman for not giving me a break, that he did not as is his right, and chose to enforce the law, I was held to account. A cortesy is just that, it is not in the rules.

    Please go back and look at the videos on Barbados parliament.com of Mia Mottley’s behaviour during Thompson’s rap up speech, and tell me if the Speaker had any motivation to be courteous to Mottley on this issue.

  37. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    Dave from what I have heard from senior members there is NO ASSIGNED TIME for anyone to speak, the report was that at the time there were no persons on the BLP side due to speak and not having anyone wanting to speak on the ruling parties side the leader did what was the correct and proper thing and that was to stand and sum up the debate, if the member was serious he would have found himself in the chamber and awaited his time to speak, there is not need to cry as he is he was the one at fault, he had a right to be present and attending the peoples business.

    He has nothing to stand on and continues to show poor judgement as we have seen in hispublic display of hatred for Muttley and company.

  38. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Let’s not get confuse by Mottley’s comments suggesting that democracy is under threat.

    The Speaker not allowing her to adjourn parliament does not amount to a threat to democracy.

    That is what occurred. That is what this is all about.

  39. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    How Mia Mottley continues to dodge the “power hungry” label is a mystery to me. She clearly is!

  40. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    Adrian Hinds // April 28, 2010 at 12:31 AM

    How Mia Mottley continues to dodge the “power hungry” label is a mystery to me. She clearly is!

    You could not be more correct, she believes she has an entiltlement to to leadership, she is in for a rude awakeing.

  41. David Avatar
    David

    It is unfortunate the resolution which was tabled under the Minister of Tourism Richard Sealy got lost in the theatrics of the House of Assembly yesterday. It appears that a letter of guarantee which was required by Scotiabank to cover a loan of 20 million to fund the government’s renting of the Carnival Destiny for the cricket world cup was never put in place by the former government. Minister Barney Lynch would have been responsible as Minister of Tourism at the time for completing the transaction. In fact acting Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart during the debate gave the interesting titbit that the house of assembly would have been told 3 years ago the letter of guarantee was no longer required. However the house would have been told that correspondence as far back as 2006 from Scotiabank ask for the guarantee. The country would have been told a lie if we listen to the government side debating this issue. Bear in mind the opposition was not in parliament. If we understand the thing correctly, all borrowings by the Barbados Tourism Authority must be approved by parliament under the act.

    Parliamentary Secretary Senator Jepter Ince in the Prime Minister’s Office felt the need to call the talk show today to clarify this resolution discussed in parliament and could not resist the opportunity to throw a few lick in Mia Mottley.

    Listen to Ince’s contribution which was littered with bleeps.

    Jepter 1

    Jepter 2

    Here are links to contributions made to VOB ‘s talk show by BLP callers after the opposition walked out of parliament:

    Mia Mottley

    Barney Lynch

    Sandra Husbands

    Speaker Exchanges with Mottley and Marshall

    Would love to ask Senator Jepter Ince about his inside views of Parris and the CLICO affair given he was for a period in charge of the CLICO Balanced Fund with an inside track in Whitepark.

  42. No STANDARDS Avatar
    No STANDARDS

    Were I Mia Mottley and her group of bandits I woul be very concerned that the good people of this island not DLP supporters collected and taken to the area of parliament but ordinary people were so disgusted by their actions and style in parliament today that they were massively booed as they were seen at the steps of parliament, now that is a message delivered loud and clear to these bandits actually someone in the crowd was heard to say that the treasury should not pay them one damn cent as they are not driving a stroke of work for the people that put them there.

  43. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    Silly? Ironic? BLP’s Mottley vows to protect CLICO investors after appointing “Worst Regulator” Carlos Belgrave as Insurance Supervisor
    Jump to Comments

    Prior to being appointed to his regulatory position, (current Barbados Supervisor of Insurance) Carlos Belgrave was the General Manager of a local company that manufactures “flour, animal and poultry feeds” … from OffshoreAlert’s 2006 “Worst Regulator” Award

    Reason #846 why Mia Mottley and the BLP Opposition have no credibility

    The BLP Arthur/Mottley government appointed chicken-feed factory manager Carlos Belgrave as Barbados Supervisor of Insurance. In 2006 Belgrave received Offshore Alert’s “Worst Regulator” award for staunch support of three Barbados insurance companies that faked their books and had owners previously convicted of fraud. Not to mention that Belgrave approved and licensed the companies when other countries had turned them down.

    If you need a little more flavour to the story, consider this…

    Barbados Supervisor of Insurance Carlos Belgrave allowed a failing Reliant insurance company to continue in business by approving replacement capital with a face value of $518 million that consisted of nothing more substantial than a loan note issued by a newly-formed Panama firm that was secured by “bearer peat certificates representing the right to obtain peat, a pre-coal state organic material used as energy or for horticultural use, from the Changuinola Peat Deposit of Northwestern Panama”. (See BFP’s Carlos Belgrave, Supervisor of Insurance and Pensions in Barbados, Called “Worst Regulator” By OffshoreAlert)

    Got that? Belgrave approved half a billion dollars of supporting company value based upon pieces of paper promising the right to mine peat in Panama put forth by a newly-created paper corporation!

    Belgrave and successive Barbados governments obviously applied the same tough standards to regulating CLICO and valuing its assets.

    For years the BLP government and Belgrave allowed CLICO and it’s associated companies to violate all kinds of rules and standards that put investors at risk.

    Now that the whole house of cards collapsed Mottley is spewing off at the mouth saying that she and the BLP will protect CLICO investors!

    Well, as our own Auntie Moses says – a lie is a lie and if you’re going to tell a lie, why not make it a big one!

    Further Reading (make sure to take your anti-nausea pills!)

  44. Bull Crap Avatar
    Bull Crap

    For all this huffing and puffing by educated people I cyan believe nobody cyan see we need an independent speaker. Both sides have benefiited from inept partisan speakers. We need our speaker to be independent or this confusion will continue.

  45. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mike browne at Starcom should be ashamed for bleeping out most of what jepter ince had to say but allowing barney lynch to give his full statement without any cuts as well as sandra husbands.

    Everyone knows mike browne the producer is a card carrying member of the BLP,but at least some measure of decency would suggest that you exercise balance,surely?

    What is there to sue on an explanation from an officer of government – the parliamentary secretary- giving the public necessary information.

    We will always be operating in the dark with those kind of tactics from people like mike brown who holds the switch to cut anyone off the radio.

    Steupes.

  46. ''''''FIRE'''''' Avatar
    ”””FIRE”””

    estwick WILL NOT survive this

  47. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    standing order 76

    Privilege:

    1: A motiong directly concerning the house shall take precedence of all other public business.

    2: Any Member desiring to raise a matter under this Standing Order, shall first obtain leave of the Speaker who shall determine whether the Member is entitled to raise the matter as a question of privilege.

    3: If permission is given by the Speaker under paragraph 2 of this Order, the Member may raise the matter at any time before public business is commenced and move that the matter be referred to the committee of Privileges.

    4: There shall be no debate on a motion under paragraph 3 hereof, but if the Speaker decides that prima facie case has been made out, he shall rule accordinly and refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

    5: If during a sitting of the House, a matter suddelnly arises, which appears to involve the privileges of the House and which calls for the immediate intervention of the House, the proceedings may be interrupted, save during the progress of a division, by a motion based on such matter.

    6: No Member moving a motion under this Standing Order may speak for more than 15 minutes.

  48. ISLANDER Avatar
    ISLANDER

    @ David

    I also was an “insider” at Clico, and i can tell u that Jepter Ince never agreed with most of leroy’s shenanigans, and also that he ran and hedged his fund in the interest of all stakeholders….he and leroy could never had lasted, jepter stood on principle in ever instance, to the point that he left !

  49. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    Boy dis MIA person doan mek sport at all at all. It seem like she had save 2 big able men from getting slap.

    Man read de Nation article titled “Marshall: Estwick threatened to slap me.”

    In my ghetto duh would call Marsha and Penny blitches and duh wud say MIA is de man. She got serious street cred.

    Read de Nation an laff.

  50. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    Gun Gate, Clico Gate, Economy Gate, Edu Gate, Speaker Gate, Hammie Gate………..

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