An interesting submission and one that strikes to the heart of how political institutions manage are forced to manage their affairs. It is no secret that CLICO funded the DLP through the years which, some may say, has affected its policy relating to the CLICO/BAICO sagas. To remove suspicion of manipulation by corporate White and Black shadows the idea that political campaigns should be funded by the public purse may not be so farfetched after all.

My my,

Mr Wickham certainly has formed a few enemies in his short life. I such an in perfect world, anyone who has demonstrated worth deserves better than Anon’s sentiments …

BAFBFP | September 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM | Are the Barbados Labour Party and the Democratic Labour Party legal entities? Can either one be sued in a court of Law?

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

Good question!!

I can’t find either registered as a trademark, business name or incorporation on the Corporate Affairs website.

Don’t know the answer.

UWI Lecturer annoyed at Barbadian Blog, seeks legal counsel for recourse, says Leaked Cable of US Embassy is falsified
Share

Journalist and political analyst Peter Wickham, Sunday nights on Channel 8 will be more boring once again without Wickham’s daring assessments
 
It has come to my attention that a “wikileaks” Cable which is currently being circulated and quoted in different electronic media has identified me (Peter W. Wickham) as the source of information which formed the basis of several improper allegations that were made regarding two current and one former Caribbean Prime Minister. I consider this a most disturbing turn of events which presents me, along with these gentlemen in a negative light and appears to be based largely on information that I have no knowledge of and never conveyed to the Ambassador Kramer.
Specifically, I can state categorically, that I have NEVER met privately with former US Ambassador Mary Kramer, who is alleged to be the author of this cable. I do recall her entertaining about ten journalists, along with myself in 2006 and at this meeting I made reference to an OAS Document that I co-authored entitled “From Grassroots to the Airwaves” which is in the public domain and makes general remarks about Caribbean political party financing concerns that I am well-known to have.
I however did not, at that meeting or at any other time, discuss the intimate details of any specific campaign or concerns about any leader with Ambassador Kramer as is being suggested in the commentary on the cable, because I am not privy to such information.
It would also be misleading to suggest that I was a campaign advisor to either PM’s Skeritt {DOMINICA}, Gonsalves {SVG} or Anthony {SLU} and that I knew of “backroom deals” sources of financing or any quid pro quo which is also being suggested. These are aspects of the campaign that I neither have nor ever had any knowledge of and therefore could not possibly have spoken to. I have therefore sought legal advice on my options regarding these allegations which can impact negatively on my professional reputation.
I have already contacted a representative at the US Embassy and discussed my concerns extensively with her and she has advised that they cannot discuss the contents of these documents since there is no certainty that the documents are authentic.

Here is the link to the recent Wikileaks Cables which mention Barbados:

http://cables.mrkva.eu/index.php?do=search&embassy=187

lemuel

NGO …political party? Why do I sense a contradiction in terms …?

To BAFBFP:
The NGO status gives them the non for profit status. if they get in to money making schemes they may have to open separate entities to deal with that. With the not for profit status they keep out of the tax man off their backs even though millions pass through their coffers.i am not an expert; I just have some knowledge.

My God but this sounds so convenient. I think we have a BIG problem on our hands. Still can I take an NGO to court?

Tried this web-site
http://bangoonline.igloocommunities.com/ngos_of_barbados
Nothing there …
Any knowledge where I could look to find the BLP anDLP listed as NGO’s?

Poor Peter, felt he was on top of the world when invited by the US to observe the US elections. My mantra, never trust these people.

If we all believe the comments that are attributed to Wickham are indeed true as we know them to be — regardless to the truth of his candor with Mary Kramer —, we must embrace him and not allow North Americans, and our own corrupt fifedom rulers to win the day, and continue with business as usual. These revelations are exactly what we want exposed and stymied with FOI and ITAL.

@Adrian

US Ambassadors routinely send reports to the State Dept. of conversations and observations which they may have through interactions with Govt representatives or citizens of countries. This is true in both “friendly” and “unfriendly” countries, some of the observations they have made of Canadian politicians are not very flattering either (Canada is supposed to be the US closest ally and they always talk about the longest undefended border).

The US is not to blame for the revelations; they were supposed to be confidential so it is not a question of us against them. The only entity that has thrown Peter to the wolves is the CBC.

I am sure I have previously read the things that Mary Kramer has attributed to Wickham, and I don’ think I am alone. The comments on BFP does not strike me as being surprise at the revelations but seem excited at the possibility that Peter may have been meeting “secretly with the Americans” no one thus far as sought to defend the various governments and fiefdom rulers from the comments in the document.

Wickham is one of us now, his current problem is one of perception; he may be in shock at having to face the inevitable fall of his livelihood as he knows it, and therefore thinks a legal response is the right approach. Peter Wickham shouldn’t fight it; at some point his convictions about governance and things Caribbean will conflict with the source of his livelihood; he should let this be it, and start to remake himself financially, thereby gaining the freedom to pontificate, opinionate, and work for change in our Caribbean unhinged from the very people and class that are holding us back.

@Sargeant
Ditto; it is time for smart/educated Bajans to look beyond government and its institutions for their daily bread. I have no idea why people like Peter continually put themselves in positions to be embarrassed by the politicos of the day. I would not work or seek to work with any politician in Barbados in any capacity. As long as government owns your place of work you can expect these malicious and unprofessional actions to continue.
However, I still believe that it is in the interest of small players like Peter to be careful in there relations with the Americans and others. The US ambassador will still have the usual access to the highest reaches of our government and Peter may have to suck salt. My lack of trust of “such” people stems from “my view” -iconoclastic though it maybe- that Ambassadors are the “known spies” of a foreign state in a host country. Having this view, then I would be circumspect in my dealings with them, least I become a pawn in their dealings such as Peter Wickham may have now become. No one else is likely to suffer from this but Peter, therefore given your place in the grand scheme of things one should seek to protect themselves at all cost. Mary Kramer and the US government will not. These people cannot even find work for 14+ million of Americans, you think they will care about Peter’s grievance? chupse

@ David

I think the fit and proper this is for BU to host a poll about the pollster Peter Wickham. A good question might be:-

Do you believe the US Embassy cables about Mr. Wickham being an informant of the USA government or do you think he had nothing to do with imformation elledgely provided?

@Ultimate Insider

BU has had our disagreements with Peter about his stance on immigration,CSME and other issues but we see nothing in the Wikileaks cable which supports any action on our part to attack his reputation in the way others are doing.

@Ultimate folly
What would be the purpose of such a poll? What would it gain, and for whom? Does anyone really think that what Mary Kramer stated is new? Did not Owen Arthur publically state his misgivings about Alan Stanford? Did not the BLP accuse the DLP of going against Barbados “One China policy” to curry election funding from Taiwan? Were they not accusations in Dominica against Skerret and property etc, and in St.Vincent about outside influence in an election? What is new about the revelations other than that Mary says Wickham is the author? Here is the proof as to why Caribbean fiefdom rulers are not taken seriously on the world stage and why they are reaching out to Diaspora to form cohesive and reliable voting blogs in their respective adopted homeland so that they can persuade and pressure larger foreign government on their behalf. Something that I will fight against until there is significant governance reform at home.

@Ultimate folly
WikiLeaks has not disinfected the secret dealings amongst Barbados politicos, that is up to those of us not on goverment payroll, or affiliated with either political party. This is were the disease that stunts Barbados growth is centered. It is not Peter Wickham.

Correct me if I am wrong, but was not Mr. Wickham dismissed from CBC under the last administration? Then, if I am, here is more evidence of another similarity between the DLP and BLP.

Peter Wickham seems to be in denial by saying “Not Me” why throw fuel on a raging fire. Who else name isentioned as the source of the information given to the ambassador.? It would be interesting to see how much more was said by him and how damaging it might be politically to our government.

David i remeber when the wikileaks stry broke not thinking it to be a good thing because as i said it can have devastating results and some on BU welcoming such information as having light at the end of the tunnel. Now it seems that since some of this light has involved one of our one as a mole we are seizing to dismiss the story as maybe not”TRUE” BTW why would his name be mentioned? i don.t think it was happenstance or was picked by luck of the draw.not to mention where there is smoke there is fire.

@AC
cool it fella, like yuh aint working. Look at this issue in its total and its core. The comments made are not new. We have heard them before. I doubt very much that Wickham is the “true” author of them – he may have been to Mary Kramer – but certainly these comments have been out there for a while. However Peter has benefitted from his relationship with US government and it is going to be very difficult for him to untangle himself from that document.

Enuff
I believe that Mr. Wickham was on board as a retained consultant with CBC. I might add that he earned foreign exchange for Barbados by his activities through out the reason. This might now be in jeopardy.

Wikileaks as the reason for the firing is speculation, and you know why … singalong with me now …

“Freudel ain’ saying nuttin’…”

Look the information that could be gleaned from these communications as AH is saying is nothing new and most certainly was received from A NUMBER OF SOURCES. Mr Wickham has stated in his defense how the communication between himself and the Ambassador was made

@CCC

You have no credibility on the issue of transparency. Are you mentioning the CBC which has had a blackout on news about CLICO for the last months?

If only we can have this same energy about implementing IL and FOI in Barbados. Here is the irony of CBC allegedly using access to confidential info (unverified) to inform a decision.

Oh the irony.

Enuff

“getting rid of the Sincklerites–Wickham gone and Derek Alleyne gone…All yuh really buying that story?”

You on the other hand are saying a whole lot ..! Keep going Padre, don’t stop now