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. David Avatar
    David

    @Enuff

    Try using another browser. You are probably using Explorer which sometimes gives Worpress posting problems. Try Firefox.

  2. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    @Noticing // April 27, 2010 at 11:47 PM

    Like Arthur, you stated that the Speaker “threatened to expel all of the opposition mps from parliament”. It is possible that like Arthur you misunderstood what happened.

    The Speaker said “I will expel all of YOU”. Arthur took this to include him (or perhaps just pretended that he did) and protested. My interpretation is that the Speaker was only addressing the members who were misbehaving. The Speaker started to explain but was not allowed to finish – I forget who interrupted. Hopefully the media will play that segment again.

    Let’s not forget that the Speaker had been given Mottley’s resolution in advance (as required) and had made a decision on it before proceedings started after doing the necessary research. The Speaker said to Mottley that he had asked the Clerk of Parliament to convey his decision to her, and we can only assume that this was done. Therefore when Mottley rose to speak she already knew the ruling, but she made it clear that she did not like it and wanted it explained. The Speaker gave an explanation, but also pointed out that he was under no obligation to do so. So, the Speaker ruled, then explained his ruling. That should have been the end of the discussion, whether you agree with the ruling or not. Of course you are free to walk out in protest, but the Speaker also has the right to expel anyone flouting his authority and misbehaving. They could rightfully have been expelled simply for not shutting up and taking their seats while the Speaker was trying to talk.

  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Excellent banner/masthead David. Appropriate on so many levels and very nice on the eye too. lol

  4. Bajan Truth Avatar
    Bajan Truth

    Remarkable contributions, no balance. A person can rise on a point of privilege to ask clarification, and it shoud be allowed. On clarification, what else is there to ask, that is legitimate. End of story, and the house business could have gone on. Instead the speaker instead of keeping his head on, denies a legitmate pointof rivilege requesting clarification, threatens to send off all Opposition members, apologises for having not allowed Mr. Arthur to speak on a pooiint of privilege and then apologise for haivng done so.

    What slips by in all the talk, that gov’t tables a resolution for loan of 200m U.S., then Chris Sinckler calls it 100m U.S. is he mixing up his currencies or is he seeking to be corrupt ( remember the prison figure) Now what an about face, Barbados debt too high, no room to manouever, left things in a mess, so we cannot do better, that was the song. But all of a sudden after borrowing 1b in two years, they can now borrow $200m US to prop up the reserves that were said to be good by PM and Central bank governor just two weeks ago. Another excuse is that the sinking fund only had 30 million. Arthur left 400m BDs to cover this loan Chris Sinckler says cannot be covered. Chris what happened to it. Did it become part of the fatted calf? The people’s business suffers.

  5. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why is Wishing in Vain @ 28 April at 2:52 a.m posting a Barbados Free Press story (with mention of “Auntie Moses”? and at 2:52 a.m at that (can’t sleep) ?!!! I shudder at the thought that BFP and BU are two sides of the same coin?

  6. sylvan Avatar
    sylvan

    mia mottley, bip wopsy mia mottley, big wopsy badlooking mia mottley, you need manners. george payne too. wunnah disgrace parliament yesterday. i never see anything like this before. lot of people missing the point. the ruling of the speaker is to be respected whether you agree or not. it is like a cricket match. the umpire say you out but you feel you aint out, you dont have a right to break up the match which is what mia try to do yesterday. her image take another blow. another nail in her coffin. she want to be prime minister bad but she goin never become prime minister. hee hee hee, mia, mia, mia. go and sleep, and lose some of that weight that got you looking like 50 000 tons of blubber. george payne now got a voice. cud dear.

  7. Brutus Avatar
    Brutus

    @ Adrian Hinds // April 27, 2010 at 11:54 PM

    “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;]”
    ___________________________

    You raise a good point, and yes, Mia did ask the others to rise. I did not pay much attention to this at first because I assumed the Opposition did not have nine members in the House. However I think I saw Duguid in one of the photos so maybe they did.

    However if Mottley was trying to invoke that paragraph, I think she did a bad job of it because it could have been done up front without all the theatrics. She really exhausted the Speaker’s patience.

    I haven’t seen the video – did they all stand at the same time? If so, that would be strong evidence that Mottley was invoking section 3B of standing order 18. Surely she would have said this at the press conference though, but based on the newspaper reports she only made reference to 76(5). The initial motion was brought under section 18 but the protest seems to be under 76(5) not 18.

  8. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anonymous // April 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM

    … Might be a Phyrric victory though…

    Anonymous // April 27, 2010 at 4:47 PM

    … she really has to weigh if she is not losing more political capital in trying to score these small victories.

    Head aint brain and brain aint sense!
    __________________________________________

    Point I keep making. Check it: Mia, a prime ministerial aspirant, now has the dubious distinction of featuring on the front pages of both major daily newpapers ON A NATIONAL HEROES’ DAY as having been ejected from the House of Assembly because of disrespect to the Chamber.

    How dat look? Frankly this woman is so “bright” she’s even outsmarting her blasted self (otherwise known as self-destructing). Carry on. The words ‘pigs’ and ‘fine market’ come to mind.

  9. Bajan Truth Avatar
    Bajan Truth

    @enuff

    So true. Only two years and look at the record. Next it is going to be the corruption because you cannot share a fatted calf without it. You should hear the talk yesterday in the rumshop, supermarket and on the street. Bajans talking about the muzzling of Oppposition. The speaker was getting some licks. ‘Wait what happening, they never see nutten so’. ‘What barbados coming to’.’He coulda let her speak’ ‘Deh like dey got someting to hid’ ‘Dey done leh dem go pon CBC’. Why dey protecting CLICO so’. Others trying hard to state the speaker was right. A fellow said some of his Dems friends were mum. They may take heart from some of the wild comments on this blog, and find their tongue again. De Bees humming and buzzing. But the most sobering note was from an ordinary Barbadian with no political axe to grind, he spoke with dismay in his voice – ‘ what are they trying to do? choke democracy?.’
    A point for all serious bajans to ponder

  10. David Avatar
    David

    @Bajan Truth

    You have some inaccuracies in your last comment if we understand the procedure ruled on by the Speaker yesterday. Have a reread of Brutus or Adrian. Mia raising the matter yesterday knowing it would lead to a lose-lose situation was political strategy pure and simple. Time will tell if she is able to bend public opinion her way on the issues.

    Also the matter of the sinking funds money was address in earlier blogs. As we understand it sinking fund monies is included in the gross foreign reserves of the country. All the DLP is doing is hedging in a recessionary climate by borrowing to offset declines in foreign revenues in first quarter, a historical growth period and the decline which is projected in second quarter, a period known for contraction.

  11. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Bull Crap // April 28, 2010 at 6:42 AM

    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.
    ==========================================

    You are not alone. This is part and parcel of why we need parliamentary reform. I have long said that it is useless to reform the economy and various sectors of government and leave untouch the parliament of Barbados. We are seeing the realities of this approach. It is fast losing its relevance to the society.

    However what I am seeking to do at this stage is to demonstrate that an understanding of parliamentary proceedures is within the grasp of anyone, and also to look at the behaviours of parliamentarians via the rules of the house.

    The speaker of the house as a party member and subject to the whip of the governing party will always be at danger to be influence by those connections.

  12. The People's Democratic Congress Avatar
    The People’s Democratic Congress

    Yesterday Tuesday’s ejection by the Speaker of the House of Assembly of two senior BLP members from the so-called Lower House for the rest of the day’s sitting, and the events leading up to and surrounding it, are indeed greater more revolting chunks of evidence that both the DLP and the BLP must within the next 7 years be VOTED TO HELL OUT of the House of Assembly of this country by the vast majority of voters in Barbados, who, though, quite sensibly must – as time goes by – see the absolute necessity to give newer and far more serious people-centered parties a deserving chance to be elected to better help manage and run the political governmental affairs of this country.

    It is clear too that both these older very ramshackled parties are bent on running this country further and further into the ground, in almost every regard.

    Moreover, understand that over the years the many countless instances of gross and reckless DLP and BLP misrule would have been leading to the further despoilation and destruction of the political environmental landscape of this country.

    Let us take for instance the matter of CLICO’s deficit in regard of this statutory fund under the Insurance Act. This matter has been badly terribly mismanaged by both DLP and BLP Governments.

    Both DLP and BLP Governments allowed CLICO to get away with nonsense in regard of its racking up such a huge deficit in relationship to this Statutory Fund within the last five years or so.

    They knew all along that CLICO Holdings had racked up such a deficit on the Statutory Fund, and did therefore for reasons best known to themselves relish hiding such information from the public, until about January, 2009, when “all hell broke loose” in the affairs of its parent company in Trinidad and Tobago.

    Therefore, it can be properly argued by the PDC that had not for this international recession – which clearly exposed the depths to which its parent company in Trinidad and Tobago – C L Financial Co Ltd – was also be terribly mismanaged and maladministrated – this issue of the gross and reckless mismanagement by Parris and Co and by CL Financial of CLICO Holdings Barbados Ltd would not have emerged in the public’s domain in the way that it has been done so far.

    So, with regard to this matter wherefore CLICO Life has clearly been writing new insurance policies in stark contravention of the decision that was made by the Supervisor of Insurance – since August 2009 – to prohibit CLICO Life – and another CLICO Holdings Barbados subsidiary – British American Insurance Co Ltd – from writing any new business in this country, this said matter has to be seen by many individuals in some ways against the backdrop that had both DLP and BLP Governments in previous times seriously firmly arrested and brought this matter to a satisfactory state of operation, such a very very grave and serious one as this as CLICO Life continuing to unlawfully write new business without the permission of the Supervisor of Insurance new business would not have been controversially figuring now in the political arrangements of the country.

    As such these egregious DLP and BLP Governmental failings in respect of this latest major CLICO issue must be met by country wide mass popular behaviour that imports that this matter is a very grave critical one that no longer needs being dealt with any more by any more immature DLP and BLP hands.

    But must be dealt with fundamentally correctly by most concerned members of the public of Barbados acting in the fundamental interests of Barbados, and by any public institutions and offices whose responsibilities it is to take active roles on behalf of those others who are being affected by the mal-actions of CLICO Holdings in this matter, esp. given the fact that CLICO Life has gone and unlawfully written new business – when it ought not to have done so – and since this type of criminal misconduct has very clear and adverse implications for the rule of law in this country, for the financial security of the these new policy holders, and for the integrity of the functioning of aspects of the financial system in Barbados.

    Therefore, the Director of Public Prosecutions – as well as the Supervisor of Insurance – must act swiftly to investigate and prosecute any principals of CLICO Holdings Barbados that have been found to be in violation of the prohibition order that has been placed by the Supervisor of Insurance against the writing of new business by both CLICO Life and British American in Barbados.

    The Solicitor General must also sue CLICO Holdings in a court of law in Barbados as a means of getting such a court to properly judicially equitably protect the financial interests of these new and older policy holders and the financial interests of the financial instituions that might be affected by any actions pursuant to the unlawful writing of new business by CLICO Life.

    Surely, the days of the DLP and the BLP engaging in silly mindless theatrics inside and outside of the parliament of this country, in order to primarily score cheap political points, whilst many thousands of the poor masses and marginal middle classes suffer greatly adversely from the consequences of the status quo generally nationally, with some of them too invariably suffering from and fearing the worst of the many consequences of actions that suggest the POSSIBLE BANKRUPTCY of CLICO Holdings Barbados, must be tagged on here and elsewhere as being numbered.

    Clearly, such and other forms of action that we wish to see taken in regard of this CLICO matter and against CLICO Holdings come against the backdrop that the PDC is serious about seeing action being finally taken in the interest of the closing of the chapter on the history of CLICO operations in this country.

    Such desires of ours pale in profound and crystal clear contrast to the parliamentary motion that has been proposed by the BLP parliamentary party – wherefore – after correctly satisfactorily presenting some very grave and fundamental issues that are urgently, yes, without doubt – in need of being addressed as a matter of fundamental public importance by the House of Asssembly concerning this matter of CLICO proceeding to write new business without the permission of the Supervisor of Insurance – the drafters of this motion – and this is what is so disturbing and hypocritical about it – decided to end off such a proposed motion so weakly and so disappointingly by asking the House of Assembly to resolve that “the Minister of Finance takes urgent action to ensure that the aforementioned policy holders and financial institutions suffer no loss or prejudice as a result of policy holders buying these policies in good faith” – Excerpt courtesy of the April 27 2010 edition of the Barbados Today on line Newspaper.

    What a sick sad pathetic ending!! What a farce, joke and mockery – all in one put together!!!

    For, in this motion, it makes no mention of criminal civil action being urged to be taken against the Directors of CLICO Life for their wilful lawlessness and negligence, et al!!! And furthermore the question must be asked: which Minister of Finance would those of the BLP side within the House of Assembly want the rest of the House of Assembly members – who happen to be members of the DLP that itself got so much campaign finance from CLICO in the last election – to be appealing to – one who has already demonstrated a clear bias towards CLICO ? To the one who is already a partial DLP Prime Minister?

    What childish political pranks from the BLP leadership?

    Surely, there is more in the proverbial mortar than in the pestle!!

    So, Down with the Damned DLP and the Blasted BLP.

    PDC

  13. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    It is becoming clear to me that Mia Mottley does not understand the Standing Orders of the parliament of Barbados. I started to get this impression from watching her antics during the Budgets, and estimates debate in past and present years.

    She does not know how to use them to navigate the house to her benefit, and she certainly does not know how to successfully use them for political reason.

    This current situation clearly demonstrates this.

    They are two Standing Orders Mottley used yesterday.

    Standing Order 18: AJOURNMENT _ DEFINITE MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE (the note to the speaker on CLICO contains this)

    Standing Order 76: PRIVILEGE — A motion directly concerning the privileges of the House

    She used Standing Order 18 to get the matter of CLICO to the Speaker’s Attention: —– But a Leave to adjourn the house to discuss an urgent and definite matter is not immediate, can be denied by the Speaker, and needs 9 members standing in their place to support it for the Speaker to be allowed, even then the timing for it to occur is not the most suitable.

    She then attempted to fraudulently use Standing Order 76 to discuss the CLICO matter, which was previously presented to the Speaker as a Definite and urgent matter of public importance, now as a MATTER CONCERNING THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.

    She did this because if allowed, it would give her the opportunity to discuss it first thing before any business of the house.

    How is the CLICO issue a Matter concerning the Privileges of the House?

    It was pure intentional deceptive trickery. But this Speaker proves that he knows the rules. In both STANDING ORDERS THE SPEAKER CAN RULE TO DENY THE REQUEST.

  14. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    @ WIV

    “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.”

    And who allowed the violations since August 2009 when they were prohibited from selling policies?

    @ Bajan Truth

    Marshall’s statement slip by too. I was shocked to learn that even Michael Lashley had to restrain Estwick. The impression I got from the likes of WIV was that the incident occurred in the presence of only Bees. Even more startling is the accusation that a gun was drawn from an ankle holster, though Estwick said last week he never brandished a gun. I wonder if it is an invisible one he got.

    By the way the government hired the BWA Chairman illegally and it was not an issue for the general public or the ‘parliamentary and constitutional experts’ on this blog. Most Bajans judge political ‘events’ based on what is perceived to be right or wrong, rather than on their legal or procedural basis. For many perception is reality.

    The question is therefore whether or not the public perceives CLICOGATE, especially given the latest revelations and the PM’s friendship with Parris, as worthy of an urgent debate. I doubt the LOTO’s tactic would be the issue.

  15. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    This is amazing. Why Mia Mottley enter into a situation that would over shadow Marshall’s report to parliament on the gun issue? After reading his account it clearly begs for decisive rebuttals from Estwick. It would have put Thompson on the back foot with regards to calls to remove Estwick from the cabinet, from the public’s perspective Why did Mottley seek to overshadow this with the CLICO intervention????

    Could it be that she felt undone by Arthur’s revelation of the CLICO issue at a constituency meeting? Was it all about her? Uh mean her attempt to speak to it as a matter of privilege, if allowed would have been at best a second string speech to Arthur’s revelation. Is this why she was heard to be cajouling the other members to stand up and seek clarification? Was it all about her?

  16. Avatar
    Anonymous

    This is not as much about to smoke screen of the Clico matter as it was about the fact that the debate was going to be about how Blarney Lynch wangled a deal that allowed him to buy a Gregg’s Plantation home on the proceeds of Barbadian Taxpayers monies with the deal he did for US $ 20 Million with Carnival Cruise Lines ask Lyncj why he did the nonsense and what was his pay day out of it ?

  17. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Once the Speaker rules you out of order you are to take your seat. Failure to do so can lead to what occurr yesterday.

    In 2007 Mottley and Thompson had a ding dong battle of words on the Mascall no confidence motion. The Speaker ruled Thompson out of Order, and Thompson knowing full well the power of the speaker and the injury to his aspirations should he be expelled from the chamber, abided by the Speaker’s intervention. NOT SO WITH MIA, she stood her grounds clearly in defiance of the Speaker, clearly at fault for causing the commotion in the House. How can she now position herself as someone worthy to be a leader of men? Mia is being slowly cooked and seems to have some frog-like qualities as she appear oblivious to the heat.

  18. Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you look at the pictures on Barbados Today these BLP people were not saddened to have been evicted from Parliament, look at the silly smiles on all of their faces they should have showed more maturity and humbled themselves and realise that the are collecting taxpayers monies and not working for it. this was a dud event for Mottley and company.

  19. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Anonymous // April 28, 2010 at 12:46 PM

    If you look at the pictures on Barbados Today these BLP people were not saddened to have been evicted from Parliament, look at the silly smiles on all of their faces they should have showed more maturity and humbled themselves and realise that the are collecting taxpayers monies and not working for it. this was a dud event for Mottley and company.
    ==========================================

    Taxpayer money? Do you not recall the raise of pay they voted for themselves during a time of recession and admist calls for wage restraint to the public sector unions?

    Mia went on Starcom, and wondered what all the noise was about. Kerrie Simmonds wrote in the papers detailing why they needed the raise. etc. they are not an apologetic group of people. They are a group who feels entitled.

  20. Pearl Avatar
    Pearl

    I know nothing about parliamentary procedures and therefore not in a position to comment on them. However, I can put in my views.

    In regards to Clico the whole issue stinks and it’s just been made worse by finding out Parris has taken his money, is resigning again from the sinking ship. It is also compounded by Directors resigning and the person resigning (I can’t recall his name) who was put there by the Government on the oversight committee. Regardless as to procedures/rules by not allowing Mia to raise her point, it just looks as though the DLP have plenty to hide on the Clico issue and are protecting Clico and Parris and not the average Barbadian.

    I agree with the Speaker that in terms of urgency it does not come close to Arch Cot or the burning of Glendairy however, if you are a policy holder who had faith in the information given by Parris and the PM, to find out that you have non valid policies it is an urgent matter for you. To me the speaker and Mr Sinckler came over as dismissive and that it doesn’t matter.

    As for Mr Parris he should be made to surrender his money or do it so that he cannot touch it until the Clico issues are resolved and let those who are still waiting for their refund to get what is due. No doubt he will get off scott free with all his funds. I always say people get their comeuppance in life. So lets leave him in the hands of God.

    For once the PDC, although I’ve no idea if it is possible have good ideas. If Clico was writing policies after being directed by the SOI not to, someone needs to be held accountable and legal measures taken. All those with non valid policies should be refunded in full now.

    Also in terms of the Opposition not being allowed to speak as an average person it made me wonder who have we really got in power? What’s really going on?
    These days it seems more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

    DLP need to do some serious damage control and fast. They need to show people that they care, are honest and up front. These days they just seem to be coming over as arrogant, shady and not in control.

    They are in power they have the majority, the people of Barbados put them there, there is no need for them to be acting like frightened rabbits. They need to have a clean, polished, caring image i.e. if Estwick pulled a gun on Marshall, take away his job but he can still represent his constituency. Show the people of Barbados that you will not tolerate such behaviour.

    Start focusing on the issues at hand Clico, cost of living etc. all this borrowing of money. They need to review their plans and work out what is really urgent and what can wait. They need to stop living in la la land and get on with the job at hand. Less TV and more work.

  21. Donald Duck Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck Esq

    WIV

    Check out the attached site on the issue of matters of prvilege in the Canadian parliament and then let me know if you still endorse the speakers decision yesterday.

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/speaker/rulings/ruling_3_1_e.html

  22. now i know Avatar
    now i know

    @ Anonymous // April 27, 2010 at 12:05 PM. “TMW, u need to get off here trying to be clever with me and go and help wash the egg offa Mia face. LOL. Hahahaaa.”

    Your shallow comments shows that u know nothing about reverse psychology. i clearly believed that Mia in her wisdom anticipated how her actions would have played out. she is an experienced lawyer!!! I am sure she looked at all the variable angels and knew that it would get many people thinking about the CLICO issue. only a simpleton would think that she expected the speaker of the house to allow her to address that issue without opposition.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    @ Bo’sun // April 27, 2010 at 12:13 PM. “George Payne’s exchange with the speaker of the house, he stated clearly that he saw Estwick pulled a gun on Dale Marshall. In Dale Marshall’s statement, he clearly infers that the gun was pulled in his presence alone. Is Mr Payne “perjuring” himself?”

    It could also mean that Dale Marshall was not aware that George Payne had been a witness to the incident. He has only 2 eyes and they are not behind or to the side of his head. Grow up. Estwick was wrong, no matter how you look at it and I am sure that he would not be selected to represent again.

  23. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Donald Duck the incident in question did not take place in Canada. What purpose does the reference serve? Are we discussing changes to the standing orders?

    Pearl you don’t need to know about the rules of Parliament to have your say. However it would help to know them if you are incline to conclude as you did regarding the Opposition’s right to speak.

    The CLICO matter needs to be ventilated and it is being ventilated. I am all the way up North America and saw this latest CLICO scandal on the front page of the Nationnews. Mia attempt to speak on it secondary to Arthur in the manner that she sought to do so was self-serving only. The two incidents CLICO and Mia’s unwillingness to follow the rules of the house are seperate issues.

    I maintian that Thompson can suffer more than he should if he does not put distance between himself and Leroy Parris.

  24. Chuckles Avatar
    Chuckles

    Manners maketh man not woman. Mia doesn’t need
    manners.

  25. Watchie. Avatar
    Watchie.

    Deed faith tell the truth what can be more deplorable than Dr Estwick’s conduct for which he apologised last week. People need to be honest and truthful. What mirror image do you have of yourselves. Every Bajan, even the ones who never passed near a school door can understand .LOOK INTO THE MIRROR AT YOURSELVES. Fair game and fair play should be the order of the day.Somebody else is seeing .

  26. Pearl Avatar
    Pearl

    Adrian, my view as you correctly stated was not based on my knowledge of rules and regulations of Parliament. My view was based on how I see the outcome of not allowing Mia or the opposition to speak can be interpreted. By not allowing the topic to be raised makes me question as to how much the DLP really know and why they appear to be so uncomfortable with the topic of Clico. The outcome may have been different if Mia was allowed to raise her point and then the Speaker address her to say that it is not as urgent as Arch Cot etc. and that the matter would be addressed at a later date or something…issue done. She’s allowed to speak, the Speaker takes control. I think this little episode has done more harm than good.

    One previous blogger suggested having an independent Speaker. If that is possible I would say that is the way to go.

    Both B& D share some of the blame over Clico but at the end of the day its the little man that bears the brunt and suffers and its the little man that wants answers and his money. Someone in which ever forum needs to be allowed to ask questions. As I said in a previous blog the policy holders need to band together and demand answers.

    This whole episode in Parliament leaves a bad taste in my mouth and raises a lot of questions. Something is seriously wrong.

    I agree with you that David Thompson needs to distance himself from the Clico fiasco and in fact should never have been involved in the first place.

    To be honest I just want this whole Clico issue to be resolved, in favour of the policy holders of course and more energy spent on rebuilding the economy.

  27. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’ve heard the audio clip on Peter Boyce’s blog, I think the Speaker comes off as wanting to avoid debate on CLICO at all costs. I think he lost this one to Mia, had he allowed her request for clarification to be heard all he had to do was restate his case.

    Now he looks like he was trying to shut her up and was frightened for what she had to say.

  28. Donald Duck Esq Avatar
    Donald Duck Esq

    Pearl

    The current government does not have the ability to resolve the issue primarily because of its relationship with the current headof clico operations in Barbados. Something needs to be done soon since with the collapsing values of its properties the realisable value of its assets will be vastly diminished.

    I thought that the Minister of finance said that the company was going to be put under judicial management. What has happened to this. I will say that the oversight committee has failed miserably.

  29. Checkit-Out Avatar
    Checkit-Out

    Pearl; Your comments above are the most reasoned non-partisan and fair ones I’ve seen on the issue so far.

  30. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Anonymous // April 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM

    I’ve heard the audio clip on Peter Boyce’s blog, I think the Speaker comes off as wanting to avoid debate on CLICO at all costs. I think he lost this one to Mia, had he allowed her request for clarification to be heard all he had to do was restate his case.

    Now he looks like he was trying to shut her up and was frightened for what she had to say.
    ==========================================
    It can only continue to look that way if you refuse to avail yourself of the rules that the Speaker use to deny her request.

    This is no different than when we see a Policeman arresting someone particularly if they are resisting lawfull arrest. It takes some measure of thinking, civility and restraint not to at least view such an altercation as unfair on the Authority figure’s part.

    On seeing such action by the police or the Speaker of the house I have to believe that it is being done legally, lawfully, and via writtens rules/laws, unless proven otherwise, and I do so by first reflecting that the vast majority of citizens are never arrested by the police nor the vast majority of parliamentarians are expelled from parliament by the Speaker.

  31. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    Adrian Hinds wrote:

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

    Now I am not a fan of Mia Mottley, but I see nothing wrong with her being “power hungry” as this guy would say. What is the point in being leader of the Opposition if you’re not going to be power hungry. She wants to be PM and that is exactly why she is the leader of the Opposition. Since when is being power hungry a bad thing in politics? I would think it is what you do with the power that could be labelled either good or bad.

  32. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    I haven’t seen much comment Dale Marshall’s explanation of what took place between himself and “De Pitbull”.

    http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/5/1990400/marshall.pdf

  33. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I am surprised that some contributors have not caught on to Adrian’s point that Mia Mottley could not, on a point of privilege, expect immediate despatch to discuss the issues surrounding the 800+ policies underwritten by CLICO since August 2009. What occurred was political theatre but the protagonists waded too far from the script. One can’t do another take when the action is live, so its egg on the Opposition faces I suppose.

    Two quick points though. Since we are on the topic of rights and procedures, are we sure that the correct procedures were followed by the Supervisor of Insurance relative to William Hinds’ comments about an order being in place since August 2009 that CLICO Life not sell any new insurance. And if so, what are or were the enforcement procedures? Further, how is it now, following the Estimates Debate, that such a course of action has been agreed to and treated by the PM as a very RECENT request by the Supervisor of Insurance? Somethings are not addng up and it is to Mr. Belgrave and the PM as Minister of Finance that should answer. Mr. Hinds’ comments seem peculiarly timed as he remained quiet when it mattered most – 4 weeks ago when Clico Life agents could not write any more business!

    Second, we should note that the questions surrounding the ethics of Leroy Parris receiving his cash entitlements while Clico is under stress, might be slightly wide of the mark. All of this relates to Clico Mortgage Finance which, as far as the public is aware has not had difficulty meeting their clients’ requests. If the questions do not relate to Clico LIFE insurance, then that point needs to be made for it is with the latter that we see anxieties surrounding the product, Executive Flexible Premium Annuities Scheme.

  34. Chuckles Avatar
    Chuckles

    Now we see why Owen told Mia a few months ago to
    get a character . Her behaviour last night is an invitation
    to every school child in Barbados to disrespect authority in general and principals in particular. Then again she doesn’t have to worry about that , since none of hers would be involved. Can you
    imagine the speaker on his feet and she on hers at the same time? Never before has such disgraceful behaviour been witnessed in Barbados.

  35. Amazed by it all. Avatar
    Amazed by it all.

    BU, i constantly come on to read posts on these political type issues and i continue to be disappointed by the lack of simple common sense if not serious reflection by members on the post.

    Without being long winded like others I still can’t understand why even the most partisan actors cannot appreciate the point that even if the Speaker’s ruling was bad, or wrong in the view of members of the opposition, in the rules and conventions of parliament that ruling is final.

    You may not like it, I may not support it, but it is final and it stands. Under the rules if you believe that aggrieved by it you can raise it for reflection by the privileges committee. If an Umpire’s decision in incorrect in a cricket game is wrong of felt to be wrong by a fielding team does the team challenge the authority of the Umpire?

    The fact is that Ms. Mottley asked to have a matter raised under a particular standing order. Under such a scenario, the speaker is given almost exclusive authority in first instance to determine if it will go ahead. In this case he determined that it was not or urgent public importance.

    From a few issues arise: firstly, and your members need to concentrate and think first before they jump in and comment, Ms Mottley said she gave a copy of the proposed motion to the speaker the night before. That would mean that either the night before or the very next morning before the sitting he would have seen and read.

    Clearly then, if he made a determination before the sitting, having read the motion already, why would he need to hear her reading it again in order to make a determination whether he is going to allow it to go forward. So this point that the Labour Party people are making much hay out of is a non point. She did not have to read it out since he already knew what was in it. And so he correctly stopped her and indicated that he did not believe it met the standard for urgent public importance.

    Once the speaker had done this Ms. Mottley should have taken her seat. Instead she sought to challenge the authority of the speaker to rule in the debate.

    Secondly, she kept saying that she was asking for an explanation as to why it was not being allowed to go forward. Now clearly this was a stalling tactic designed to frustrate the speaker who not only said that he was not allowing it but said why he felt it did not rise to the standard required. he indicated inter alia, that it was a national emergency, (and clearly it is not), that there were regulatory authorities dealing with the issue, (and clearly there are) and finally given the number of persons it was affecting, (that is in this case the 800 Mottley got policies illegal issued to them) it was not of a large enough number to be considered as having mass effect.

    On top of that, the speaker also indicated in his explanation that if in fact these acts were committed, and the neither the speaker nor the House as a whole had any proof that they were, only newspaper comments and third party interviews, there were provisions under the Insurance Act where criminal and other charges could be brought against the company’s principals if such acts are proven true.

    So that one would have to ask the question, why would any speaker of the House of Assembly accede to a request to adjourn the House, suspend important government business, to have debate on Clico, which as the end of the day would produce no real results or actions to change the conditions of the 800 people whom Ms. Mottley claims are being so terribly affected. The reality is that at the end of the day if such an act did in fact occur its up to the regulatory authorities to act and the law gives them independent authority to act. They don’t need a parliamentary debate to do that they are legally mandated to do so. If they don’t then the Courts of Law are there to sanction them for inaction.

    The other point here on this is does any current of past practice in parliamentary history produce supporting examples of this type of thing happening. I humbly submit that no one on this blog or outside of it can show in the last 50 years where any speaker has allowed such a motion to be carried. Dr. Richard Haynes (now Sir Richard) brought one in the early 1990s and it was refused on very similar grounds as having not met the tests or urgency and public importance. Dr. Haynes stood down. Of course Ms. Mottley is clearly not Dr. Haynes. The fact of the matter is that this standing order and instrument which results is a highly sensitive one which should only be triggered in the most extreme circumstances as it is tantamount to declaring that the country is in a state of emergency or such grave circumstance as to allow for a suspension of the government’s work. It should not be invoked lightly or on whim and fancy.

    And this is even more so when several other opportunities exist for the issues which are at the centre of the matter to be discussed. That brings me to the other point on this issue which blog members are missing and really should consider. On Tuesday in his press conference the Leader of Government Business Chris Sinckler, indicated that the Order Paper had on a resolution to allow the Central Bank to go to the international capital markets to borrow 200 million, (i believe he mistakenly said 100 million) and such was going to be debated on Tuesday which it eventually was.

    Now this is clearly a matter of economy in which all issues pertaining to the state of the economy including the very serious issues of the situation with CLICO could and should have been discussed by both government and opposition. In such a debate, Ms. Mottley as first respondent on behalf of the opposition would have been given unlimited time to raise all of these very important issues which she and her team wanted to raise about Clico. They would all have had the opportunity to speak to the issue if they really wanted to.

    One therefore has to ask the question why did they not just deal with the issues in the motion in that debate that was to come which they all knew of and should have been prepared for? That is the real question. if you can’t get to push through a matter in one way why not seize the other way if the result will be that you still het to ventilate your concerns? There is no way the speaker could have stopped Ms. Mottely form airing her concerns then and from even making bold reference to the resolution which he had earlier refused.

    So i am left to wonder if it is that the opposition really wanted to have this matter debated. I leave that to your readers BU.

    At the end of the day however there is no one who could say with any seriousness that the display which we all witness yesterday from the opposition was appropriate or respectful either of the process or the office of speaker. If the opposition felt aggrieved enough by the situation they should have asked for an excuse and walked out of parliament in protest. But that should have been done long before they engaged in the highly confrontational and disrespectful disobedience of the speaker’s rulings. The standing Orders are clear. When the speaker rules even if you disagree who must abide with the ruling. If the speaker ask that you take your seat then you really should and more still when the speaker stands up in the ultimate act of asserting his authority you must both take your seat and be silent and allow the matter to end.

    The opposition members spat on all those ancient traditions and rules and by doing so degrading not only themselves but reduced the parliament they claim to revere so much to nothing-ness in the eyes of many on lookers both in Barbados and outside the country. And all of this for what again? Hmmm! Amazing.

  36. David Avatar
    David

    @Amazed by it all.

    You appear puzzled by the tactic of the opposition on Tuesday but yet you wrote the following:

    Secondly, she kept saying that she was asking for an explanation as to why it was not being allowed to go forward. Now clearly this was a stalling tactic designed to frustrate the speaker who not only said that he was not allowing it but said why he felt it did not rise to the standard required. he indicated inter alia, that it was a national emergency, (and clearly it is not), that there were regulatory authorities dealing with the issue, (and clearly there are) and finally given the number of persons it was affecting, (that is in this case the 800 Mottley got policies illegal issued to them) it was not of a large enough number to be considered as having mass effect.

  37. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dale’s comments are just that, Dale’s. And so were Estwick’s last week. The Speaker has ruled on the procedure to follow. We await such but I am afraid that the numerous examples of Parliamentary mis-behaviour will be cited, and that the atmosphere of the hearings will be tribalistic thus forcing the Speaker to announce a no-decision in this context. Unless of course, the cunning outcome of today’s fuss in Parliament was to so scorch the earth upon which the Speaker stands that he goes against an objective reading of whatever transpires at the Committee of Privileges and provide succour for the Opposition. But whatever it is, neither Marshall, Estwick — nor Payne for that matter, could claim to be free of belligerent behaviour on that night.

  38. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    She probably thinks that the House of Assembly is her home where she’s the ‘bed-room bully’.

    My condolences to the family of the youngster who lost his life today at Browne’s Beach.
    Take heed to the warnings given by life-guards or whoever nah.
    Lord have mercy.

  39. The Truth Avatar
    The Truth

    Bajan Truth you seem very desperate to score a political point………….lol

    It is clear that Mr. Sinckler made mistake in at the press conference in saying incorrectly that it was 100 million to be borrowed rather than 200 million. The fact is that the order paper of parliament which is a public document for all to see indicates its 200 million, we heard from the PM and Governor that it was 200 million and of course the debate took place without the opposition in which the acting PM and all others indicated in the debate that it was 200 million. So clearly it was a slip of the tongue and nothing less.

    Go find some other non- issue to flap on.

    idiot

  40. J Avatar
    J

    Amazed by it all wrote on April 28, 2010 at 8:22 PM …”BU, i constantly come on to read posts on these political type…Without being long winded like others”

    Looka ya seh you won’t be won’t be long winded and then write a post that runs for 104 lines.

    Ist thing I know ya lie.

    2nd thing I feel ya musse be a lawyer. Only a lawyer would call 104 lines “a brief”

    3rd we ain’t getting paid to read these blogs, and we aint’ getting no degree at the end either.

    4th thing I didn’t read your post ’cause it too long. And if people are turned off by the length of the thing (did I write that?) and don’t read your post, you may as well not have written it..

    Last thing the art of communication is to make it so short and so sweet that people want to read it.

  41. Atman Avatar
    Atman

    I’m one who do not read posts that are too long…more than 3 or 4 short paragraphs. I realize that some folks like to write books here. LOL

  42. Avatar
    Anonymous

    @ J // April 28, 2010 at 9:23 PM
    @ Atman // April 28, 2010 at 9:32 PM

    There is no need for the two above comments from you both, this is how we continue to discourage Bajans from giving they opinion in and open public forum.

  43. Amazed by it all Avatar
    Amazed by it all

    BU. Thanks. I am not surprised by the opposition’s tactics, just amazed that they would go to that extent to achieve them. It was clear what Ms. Mottley was trying to do. The truth is that is back fired terribly, at least in my humble view.

    J………lol………brevity is a function of knowledge. If you don’t know of understand a subject matter you can help but be brief. You won’t read my comments because you can’t comprehend simple logic and argumentation, and certainly they don’t say what you want them to say. Unfortunately for you completely missed the satire of my comment about being long winded and then proceeding to post a lengthy blog to illustrate my point on the weakness of Ms. Mottley’s case. But then again why am i explaining any of this to you anyway. You still won’t get it would you? Byeeeeee!

  44. J Avatar
    J

    You right I don’t get it, for exapmle you wrote “brevity is a function of knowledge”

    What does that mean in plain Engish?

  45. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Well said Amazed.

  46. Amazed by it all Avatar
    Amazed by it all

    Oh dear J. You want it brief ok here goes:

    Ms. Mottley and her colleagues displayed bad manners, were disrespectful of the House and particularly the speaker. If it was a strategy it back fired and was in very poor taste.

    1. The speaker as is his right under the laws of parliament disallowed the moving of the motion.

    2. Ms. Mottley kept asking to be heard when she had no right to be once the speaker had ruled it could not go forward.

    3. She kept asking for an explanation for the decision even though the speaker gave a complete explanation.

    4. She refused to take her seat when asked to do so and encouraged other members of her team to disrespect speaker and flaunt his authority.

    5. She refused to leave the chamber when asked to do so.

    6. She could have debated the matter of clico during the loan debate with no hamper and no time limit but she refused to do so thus showing that the events on Tuesday were really not about Clico.

    6 No speaker in recent memory, if even in the last century had adjourned the house on that standing order not even during the 1937 riots.

    So there you have it.

  47. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    ha ha ha you go amazed by it all. A true communicator. The good lord would be proud of you for going out of your way, into the highways and byways, and even down brevity lane to compel all to your thoughts and opinions. ha ha ha love it.

  48. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Amazed by it all,

    You were spot on in your suggestion that had Mottley really wanted to debate the Clico matter it very easily could have been included in her speech on the borrowing, it was not about Clico it was more about picking a fight so that the Lynch nonsense would not rise to haunt these idiots.

    This must rate as the poorest display in recent memory and for some one like Arthur to sit there and be part of this display of uncouth behaviour by a bully he too also stands charged and found guilty for not trying to raise the standard or showing of Mottley, as for the others the follow Mottley like puppies nursing their mother but in this case their mother is foul mouthed bully and some even question if it is fair to call it female, as it was noted that Marshall required Mottley to MAN HANDLE Estwick in his Marshall’s account, much of which we all saw to be concocted and lied upon.

    If someone pulled a gun on you would you continue to follow that person into the next room or would you retire into the safety of the Chamber of the Lower House ?

    A total and complete fabrication and one lie upon the other right down to who called who out of the Chamber even his own know this to be his first untruth as it was he Marshall who went back into the Chamber not once not twice but three times to challenge Dr David Estwick to come outside, if Marshall can be untruthful to the Speaker a so called friend of his who then can he be truthful to ?

    NO ONE, BECAUSE HE IS A SICKENING LIAR !

  49. ''''''FIRE'''''' Avatar
    ”””FIRE”””

    THIS DLP GOVERNMENT IS THE WORSE EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE BARBADOS
    The sooner David Thompson and his goons are voted out the better,
    Thompson and his gun toting gun weilding pack of wild boys want locking to ass up in the same prison they criticised——–

  50. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Can you tell me of the 8 firearms situated on your side of the House which men are the ones carrying GLOCK 9 MM GUNS.

    Just in the event you do not want to say Duguid has two, Marshall has one and Mottley has two weapons always carried in her bag a GLOCK 9 MM GUN and 9 Inch Dild

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