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.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Kaymar Jordan, Editor in Chief, Nation newspaper

A letter the group dispatched to Stuart said: “Against the backdrop of growing concern among supporters of the Government and our party, with respect to perceived weaknesses in our leadership of the country, and a sense of drift and inertia arising therefrom, we the undersigned elected members of the Parliamentary Group seek an urgent audience with you to discuss matters of grave concern to us, as well as to chart a path forward for the retention of our party in Government.”

Nation Newspaper Mon, December 12, 2011 – 1:43 PM

The Nation newspaper broke the story last weekend that 11 disgruntled DLP parliamentarians signed a letter which was dispatched to Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart. The message conveyed in the letter was that many on Stuart’s team were dissatisfied with his leadership. BU subsequently confirmed that there is some concern in the DLP camp about Stuart’s leadership and his ability to lead the party successfully into the next general election. The Nation newspaper was very clear in its message to its readership that the letter was signed by the 11 DLP parliamentarians.

Since the newspaper report Ministers David Estwick, Michael Lashley et al have challenged the local newspaper to produce the letter which is alleged to carry their signatures. In fact they have threatened legal action. The Nation newspaper in its most recent statement on the matter has indicated it is sticking to its story. The question which is on the lips of many Barbadians and political commentators is whether the Nation should produce the letter with the alleged 11 signatures and in the process ensure its journalistic integrity, at the same time the reputations and political careers of MPs identified in the Nation newspaper report would effectively be destroyed. To most onlookers the decision for the Nation is a no-brainer, it should produce the letter. One is left to speculate by the refusal of the Nation to produce the letter whether sensationalism is winning the battle over ‘journalistic integrity’.

BU holds no brief for either party involved; we are on the side of truth, in this case journalistic honesty. Yes the matter can be dragged through the law courts of Barbados but with a narrow window of one year before the government is constitutionally required to hold a general election, the damage would have been done. What has added to the political intrigue instigated by this story is why would a leading media house in Barbados based its frontpage stories in recent days on a non existent letter  stated to list 11 signatures and on the flipside some of those named in the letter counter by saying they never signed. Some one is not telling the truth. The Barbadian public deserves to be told the truth. One again has to wonder if the Nation has the letter why it simply doesn’t produce it and remove the anxiety and distraction the matter has brought to the Barbados landscape.

“Accuracy is at the heart of what we do. It is our job to get it first but it is above all our job to get it right. Accuracy, as well as balance, always takes precedence over speed” (Reuter’s Journalism Handbook of Journalism)

What is clear is that when the truth is finally made public in this matter serious damage would have been done to the reputation of one or both parties involved. Could this story play out to compare with the Carol Martindale Hartley Henry saga which has dissipated?

Given the seriousness of this matter Barbadians should be interested in what the Attorney General of Barbados Adriel Brathwaite has to say.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

258 responses to “A Matter Of Integrity”


  1. @George Brath
    Thinking of the action taken against Mia -signed letter and all- and equally thinking of the assumed intent of action against Frendel – suggested letter and all– Could you explain the difference/similarities of the two sections of the Barbados constitution and also tell us what action thus far that has been attributed to the gang of eleven rises to a possible “resolution” on which section 66-2 rest on squarely? Is that resolution aka a “no confidence vote?”

    section 66
    2. If the House of Assembly a resolution which has received the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members thereof resolves that the appointment of the Prime Minister ought to be revoked and the Prime Minister does not within three days of the passing of the resolution either resign or advise the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, the Governor General shall, by instrument under the Public Seal, revoke the appointment of the Prime Minister.

    section 74
    4. If, in the judgment of the Governor General, the Leader of the Opposition no longer is able to command the support of a majority of Government, or, as the case may be, the support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader, the Governor General may revoke the appointment of the leader of the Opposition.


  2. Caswell Franklyn wrote “people the world over will start to regard this country as a banana republic.”

    Seriously. You really think people are following politics in Barbados when Europe and the USA are in the news 24/7?

    Barbados is only significant to us Bajans and a few Investors who use “the low tax haven” as the Canadians call it.


  3. DAVID, I have only just read a comment carried in today’s Nation at p 4A under the caption ” ‘Not Me’ chorus begins.” It states :
    “The DAILY NATION will continue to publish all denials
    while holding on to the letter WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF
    eight ministers and three backbenchers” .
    I am forced to ask what cheap game of journalistic intrigue is this newspaper dishing out to the people of Barbados? WHO ON THIS ISLAND IS QUALIFIED TO WRITE A LETTER ” ON BEHALF OF ” ELEVEN PERSONS? Can we let this newspaper get away with this foolishness? The editor must be called to account.
    Two persons have already challenged the newspaper to produce the letter to show where their signature appears in their effort to deny their involvement in any plot to overthrow the Prime Minister Stuart, But as it now appears, the newspaper is mounting a response by claiming it has a letter written “ON BEHALF OF”.
    We shall await . the production of that “proxy-letter”, but it seems to me that this newspaper is joining other interested parties in an act of skullduggery . The NATION has certainly put its future on the line.


  4. @Hant
    Caswell is a public sector union hack, the world to them is a magnification of their self interest.


  5. Hants

    Why do you think that people outside of this country are not following our politics? Maybe you should follow wikileaks.


  6. @Hants

    Justin Trudeau was right


  7. @GCB

    I too would like the full story out in the open. However, if the Nation newspaper which is a private enetity feels it is best that they give it in bits and drabs so be it.
    *********************
    Spoken like a true party hack. What credible news organization runs a story this important that could affect the careers of the persons named and purports to have a letter signed by these individuals… no make that a letter signed on behalf of individuals and then promise to publish it on a particular day? Party hacks would support the “bits and drabs” because it keeps the story in the forefront.

    The Nation good for bird cages and fish wrap everywhere.


  8. How does information about Barbados contained in Wikileaks lead one to state as if it is an obvious fact; “people the world over will start to regard this country as a banana republic?”


  9. The Nationnews printed “a letter drafted on behalf of 11 Democratic Labour Party (DLP) parliamentarians.”

    Note “drafted on behalf of”.

    Until they identify the person who drafted the letter and print a copy of the letter, they have no creditability with me.

    I anxiously await the legal spin that will come to explain why they can print the photos of the MPs but not the letter in question.


  10. Very simply put: Barbados as a nation has lost a measure of credibility because representatives of the “people” lack high moral and ethical standards. Reasons: shabby politics and even shabbier journalism. Who is to blame? People who abuse their positions of power in both instances. One group assumes it has the right to govern us down to the level of the Banana Republic indeed with all the corruption, lying and manipulation that that entails while purporting to know more about what and how the masses think than the masses themselves. Finding that they may have been woefully mistaken, they shroud themselves in mystery as they seek to further dupe the masses. The other group – the journalists- who are supposed to uphold and maintain balance, good sense, good judgment and impartiality, ignore the just demands of the public very deliberately and act as if they may wield and deal with “truth” “news” and “evidence” as they deem fit. Both groups miss an essential point: they left ethics out of the equation and put their own narrow self interests in front of them. The Nation newspaper does not emerge from this unscathed despite the utterings of its feisty editor in chief. And the politicians must know now that there is a God in Barbados and it is not them. One other thing: the people of Barbados come before either the media or the politicos. And, they have the final word, always – not the corrupt media nor corrupt politicians with skewed ethos.


  11. And Mara, did I really see your picture in there? I’m still shaking my head.

  12. De-risking the GOB Avatar
    De-risking the GOB

    When an organization becomes too exposed to legal disputes with financial consequences, it is not uncommon for such an organization to embark on a de-risking program. During such a program, the organization goes through a period of solidification, taking little or no risk, doing everything by the book, with strict controls on its staff. The time has come for the GOB to embark on such a program, while working to resolve/settle currently outstanding legal matters and other disputes. Failing this, an excess amount of resources will be wasted settling lawsuits rather than being productively applied in the economy.


  13. @George

    You should take some time and read Wordsong’s contributions.

    The media entity is not only about making money and sensationalizing news, as an estate of the Realm it has a higher duty to civil society as one of the caretakers of the realm to deliver the news with integrity.


  14. @EAGLE-EYED

    Conceptually there must be an agreement by government and private sector players that the way we do business/treat with information must change.

    To do so there must be a reordering or shift in existing paradigms.

    To those who say there is an existing governance structure to make info public is operating/thinking inside the old model which does not work to the benefit of civil society.

    To say we need good people in government/Cabinet is like saying, close our eyes and pray for change.

    It will not happen that way because electing individuals to government and even in the private sector is a roll of the dice most times.

    Also FOIA must be seen as the value it will bring in the context of our society and therefore agree it must be designed in full recognition of this fact.

    What makes the debate about transparency legislation ridiculous is the fact both political parties have promised or hinted at the need to roll it out but obviously it was /is never the intent to do so.

    This in itself is indicative of an old way of thinking which must change.

    The dilemma is that the people with the old way of thinking must be responsible for reinventing the governance system which allows for the new approach.

    Our goose is cooked!

  15. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    @David

    Absolutely, never stepped away from that point. However, I also see the practical side and again as their right, they also have some freedoms as a private entity as opposed to public entity. I am not condemning one and not the other; I just feel that the media including radio and tv have been trending downwards rather than upwards in terms of balance and quality.

  16. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    @David and Wordsong

    I can understand the gist of what you said; however I cannot accept the ‘corruption’ talk on the basis of what has been presented in public without evidence, charges, convictions. Maybe there is and maybe there is not. Maybe there is bending of the rules or maybe misinterpretation of the rules. Until the DPP and the justice system says something different, it is my point that the politicians and media are thistles torn from the society in which they live.

  17. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    @Sargeant
    You need to read newspapers and follow stories from all over the world as I tend to do and you would realise that is the case. However, your opinion is yours and you certainly do not need me informing or attempting to change the way you think. In terms of the party hack, I am a member of a political party because the laws of Barbados say that I have that freedom. At the same time, I have my integrity and I call a spade a spade.

  18. Aspiring Polittician Avatar
    Aspiring Polittician

    Kaymar Jordan will be fired and the natiion will be sued by 8 persons. She does not have a letter with eleven signatures, any letter she has would have 3 signatures. The story gave the impressions that eleven persons had signed the correpsondence. Having a name on correspondence and not signed doe not give me the right to imply that those persons names with no signature is party to the letter.

    Kyymar Jordan should save face and apologize to those persons whose signatures were not affixed to the correspondence. In dafamation, damages are apportioned, among other considerations, what a reasonable person interpreted and from the article, i interpted that eleven persons signed the correpondence.

    What i have been informed eight persons did not sign.

  19. Aspiring Polittician Avatar
    Aspiring Polittician

    @George Brathwaithe

    I WOULD NOT like to be one of your students, by the way have you given up your dctoral studies, and if no how soon are you going to complete it?


  20. by george what is mischievous in seeking an audience with your leader to discuss areas of concern. i find it a very pragmatic and honest approach rather than stabbing mr stuart in the back as was done to mr mascoll. ascwith all comments w3ith a hint of controversy , the nation printed a simple story which happened to be juicy and sensitive story and we ascribed all kinds of mischief to it. the nation never did.read the story.


  21. George “Bits and pieces” that kind of reporting in journalism ethics is called”pandering to lured curiosity. The ethic code in journalism are clear and public accountability is clearly one of them, The Nation has failed on other areas as well such as truthfulness in revealing the nature of the story and its full contents and its objectivity rings shallow for all to judge for what it is worth the Nation newspaper has chosen a sleek and sleazy journalistic approach above the National interest . Truthfulness ! Accuracy! Objectivity! Impartiality ! Fairness! Public Accountability all of which are ethical and deemed necessary in disseminating to the public and which is truly lacking in the Nations handling of this Story!


  22. As a reminder please go to the top of the page and have a reread of the original position postulated by the Nation which was penned by the Editor in Chief no less. Think on these things. The role of a media house must not only be clouded by a money lens but there is a bigger role. As citizens we have a large role to play by ensuring the tenets of good journalism are upheld.


  23. Kaymar Jordan is a ning-nong.

    I think the Nation is not a beacon of jounalistic virtue and integrity as much as it is a mound of shifting sand in a desert sand storm.

    Kaymar your reputation is on the line and if you are playing games, I hope you have everything in order for the crop you will surely reap.

  24. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    @Aspiring Politician

    I am sorry to report that I cannot give you the glee which you are seeking. Yet again persons like you who are on the inside know that there was mischief. Maybe you need to remove your veil and tell Bajans the truth. Now you see why persons of your kind can throw at me but I will always be fearless. By the way, why don’t you attempt to do a PhD? Certainly you must have much more than it takes. Do not be bitter with me for trying to advance myself; it is the least I could do given all the work undertaken by Errol Barrow and many others.

  25. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    I am not defending the Nation not now or ever. But I say, you should hold up the entire media to the same exacting things that most of you want to condemn one media house. Even the dishonesty is vented here on the blogs by some of the commentary.


  26. @George

    You don’t want to read this but there is mischief making on both sides, we can debate the degrees to which it exist.


  27. I don’t know about you all but there is a petulant, point scoring, childish tone to the editor’s comments.

    What was wrong with Lashley’s comments though? he was supposed to go on Starcom and say he was part of a group seeking a meeting to discuss matters of “grave” concern about stuart’s leadership. He would be a bigger johnny than I think he is if he did say so

  28. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    @David

    I read everything and I never see things as either black or white. I like to look at the shades and shadows. Against that, how can I disagree with you?


  29. Well George get real . It is the said newspaper the Nation that has veiled itself in a cloud of suspicion and secrecy above Truthfulness and Decency and the Publics Right to Know. Opting to put the Barbados reputation in disarry for the world to frown upoon . Truly sefserving indeed. Truly!


  30. Let us have a media who will be fearless in reporting the facts. .


  31. You see David, the obssession with party politics has led to distraction from the point you started the thread on. Is the nation artcile credible if they cannot now produce the letter signed by 11 dlp parliamentarians?

    maybe lawyer caswell can help us split the legal hairs.

    The editor’s editorials are a study in superficiality and point scoring. She should stick to so-called “human interest” stories where she seems to be very strong indeed.

    The world is dealing with complex issues and complex choices. We seem stuck with a media that seeks to reduce public policy to marketing, imagery, saying the right things and showing leadership as they put it. Those things ares always important, but when the issues are as tall and as they now are substance is the main ingredient.

    Even one as skilled as Obama has struggled under the weight of the issues and the fact that the choices facing the world are not pretty.


  32. Read Balance’s last post and the earlier link to Wickham’s article on the matter. Most here have jumped off on a tangent. The Nation’s story has been set up and attacked as a strawman to, inter alia, get the limelight off the real culprit.

    There is nothing wrong about politicians seeking to meet with their leader to discuss a very serious problem that could place all of them in jeopardy. That is the reason that you would see Mara’s and Jones and perhaps a few others names there. I can’t see how they would be involved in a crass plot to take down FS. There was no plot related to the letter per se. The meeting and the letter was to find a solution. The problems that they all had with FS’ leadership could not have been a secret.

    There is however something wrong with one of them leaking the letter to the Nation. That could not have been done to further the ultimate aim of the meeting to have FS graciously retire on the grounds of ill health. That could only have been done with malice aforethought. The leaker is the very intelligent machiavellian one that we should be concentrating on.

    Find him, He, not the Nation newspaper, is responsible for the state Barbados now finds itself in and it is a parlous state indeed.


  33. @Checkit-out

    We are not so simplistic to not deal with an issue which is multifaceted. Oh no we can’t let the Nation off the hook so easily.


  34. David, surely you and many of the other posters are jesting. The Nation is doing what any other newspaper would have done under the circumstances. This is probably the juiciest story that has come their way in the 21st century. Do you all expect them to stay quiet on it? Get real.

    The Nation’s response so far leads me to think that a legal challenge by the so called aggrieved politicians is unlikely to succeed. They are standing firm on their possession of the evidence. I understand that the drip they put out today is that Stephen Lashley’s name is the first one on the list of signatories. That is a master stroke. They’ve clearly demonstrated that they have the goods on them and that legal challenges will be futile in one fell swoop. Does that release sound to you like that of a paper that does not have the evidence? Put your thoughts elsewhere and look at the real culprit or culprits and what this whole imbroglio is doing and will do to Barbados’ image.

    You could continue to bring some simplistic points that targets the Nation but you are looking in the wrong direction. Look at the state of the DLP. Look at FS’ leadership. Look at what recourse the MPs have to try to get a FS to see reason and recognize that the DLP will go nowhere under his leadership. Consider the implications of the names that have almost certainly signed the letter. many of them could have no personal grouse against FS. Most of them owe FS big time for retaining them as ministers. They would almost certainly NOT sign on to a plot to remove FS. The letter is demonstrably an INVITATION to a meeting only. The Nation newspaper did not blow it up into evidence of a plot. Most of the big-brain posters on this blog and other commentators did that. Where they have been most stupid is in their legal attack strategy. That was folly. They should have stood their ground firmly. As it is now the emphasis has shifted from where it should have been.

    Who leaked the letter to the Nation Newsletter?


  35. So doesn’t the author of the letter have a copy? Was the original letter actually delivered? If the original letter was delivered then the PM would have it wouldn’t he? The author and all those pictured should now stop talking for the Nation will print their comments as stated.

    It is clear that the Nation is playing like a cat with a mouse. This is the poorest type of reporting I have seen. The Nation should remember its very first article on the issue. For, regardless of how it changes its wording now, the first article (Full Story) is still in print.


  36. @Checkit-out

    You accuse BU of being simplistic when all the other issues you raised have been dealt with over and over on this site? BU like the Nation newspaper will stick to its position that it has exercised questionable integrity by stating 11 DLP members signed a letter (see quote above) and then moved away from that position. Its position in today’s newspaper confirms our position. The article today says Lashley’s name is ‘listed’ first on the letter. If you did comprehension class you can draw your conclusion.

    BU’s first blog confirm that there is disquiet in the DLP camp so what is your point.


  37. @GCB

    I don’t need any lessons on what to read, any newspaper worth its salt would not publish a blanket accusation against subjects with photos no less in such a sensitive matter without also publishing Exhibit 1 (the letter). It is compounded when the narrative changes from a letter signed by individuals to letter signed on behalf of individuals. It owes its readers an iota of respect not a promise that we will publish it at some date in the future.

    In light of denials we need to see the evidence so we can make up our minds about the credibility of the individuals at the centre of the issue. We don’t need a newspaper manipulating us with “bits and drabs” as you so termed it.


  38. @David

    Nice background change, it’s a relief that the garish green is now history.


  39. @Sarge

    Be nice!

    Thanks 🙂


  40. There is disquiet in both political parties, and lot more letters and signatures in one than the other.


  41. I’ll respond fully to your letter above later, but just a few points here.

    I have not seen today’s Nation paper yet.

    If the nation has no evidence it WILL most likely be sued out of existence so the confrontational action it is currently taking could not be in its best interests if it can’t back it’s position up with evidence. Short term measures to boost readership will not be of much use if the individual people on the list can each get a few million dollars in damages (but for what – saying that they supported meeting with FS?).

    This blog, imho, is spending a disproportionate amount of time pillorying the messenger’s horse rather than analysing; the message; the people who evidently support the message; and what caused the message to reach the public domain. I humbly submit that, despite your protestations to the contrary, this area has not been adequately ventilated nor commented upon in this blog. Count the number of posts dealing with that aspect.

    You are to be commended on taking a relatively balanced approach re. the DLP’s problems, but shifting the focus from what is really important for the nation, Barbados that is, is not particularly helpful.


  42. At the end of the day this is bonus for the Nation, papers selling like Christmas Gifts, in a recession this is good news for the Nation. Had there been a political rumbling within the BLP, the Advocate and CBC (all Stations) would have been headlining it, the Nation have a stoey and they are milking it. For their sake I hope they know what they are doing.


  43. @checkit-out

    With respect the blog below ‘Can Fruendel Stuart Rally His Men’ attracted 250+ comments and dealt with the exact concern you have raised i.e disquiet in the DLP camp.

  44. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    @sargeant

    I was not the one terming it bits and drabs; the phrase was used by another writer and I responded with the use of the words in my explanation. And yes, you are quite right. I do not wish to tell you what to read, how to read anything, or what opinions you should project to the people. You see, we both believe in democracy. My presence of mind to write on this and surrounding issues stems exactly from the fact that Barbados’ reputation and that of the Office of Prime Minister means more to me than the 11 individuals, in part or whole, or indeed of the collective political class. You know what you know, and I know what I know. Time will surely reveal much more than is being stated.


  45. We must not pick up for politicians because it suits our purpose. We must pick up for the truth. One blog says that if a name on the letter it does not mean a signature. What poppycock! Another said that if something is done on your behalf it does not man you have written it. A letter of 11 cannot be written by 11. It is clear that therre has to be agreement in principle on the contents. The only problem is whether the lettter writer incotporated people who did not attend and that would be question of integrity on the part of the letter writers. not the Nation. As things go we have a problem of trust and integrity steering us in the face.
    As I have said before I think the 11 showed courage and had a right to bring to the attentin of their leader the belief that he could not lead them to victory. That is not an act of cowardice. What is is when they left one meeting to go to another to formalise a response. These are big men with balls and a lot of spiel and bravado. They should speak their minds out clearly and openly. We are reinforceing the infalliability of a PM. this is dangerous.Think on these things


  46. Leadership of the country is a big issue in both parties; continuation with our adaptation of westminster, were the people have no say is the fuel that drives these distractions.


  47. Man George tell de truth, thanks to “aspiring politician” we wouldn’t be surprise. Your “presence of mind to write on this and surrounding issues” in the manner that you do, is likely to be first and foremost due to you being a political hack and less about the reputation of Barbados and that of the Office of Prime Minister. Why deny the obvious? I will not.


  48. @David

    On Page 2 of the today’s edition of the Barbados Advocate in an article
    captioned ‘ MPs Lashley and Thompson denounce article claims”, paragraphs 4 and 5 read as follows
    Quote
    ”Also yesterday the Barbados Advocate received correspondence from Maurice King who is representing St. John M.P Mara Thompson. He stated that his client categorically denied that she had signed any letter. The intended and inevitable conclusion you are asking the reading public to draw, is that eleven persons whose photographs appear are those you allege signed a letter addressed to the Prime Minister. requesting an urgent meeting with him to discuss, among other things, matters of grave concern pertaining to the Prime Minister’s leadership and to chart a path forward for retention of our party in Government. This is done against the background of allegations of disunity and discontent among Cabinet members and backbenchers in the Democratic Labour Party. Mrs. Thompson categorically and unreservedly denies that she any such letter addressed to the Prime Minister . The publication is mischievous, despicable, shameless and calculated to mislead the public of Barbados and to destabilize and create strife among members of the Democratic Labour Party.

    Ends Quote


  49. The Nation has it’s back to the wall and anything less that a full disclosure in the Sunday Sun if not before, will leave that newspaper and one Jaymar Jordan looking like FOOLS.

    It’s a funny thing and a strange time when so-called credible news entities enters the political forum with an agenta to play tricks and gimmicks.

    I hope the Nation is not doing all of this to ensure maximum circluation of Sunday’s newspaper where the front page will not be anything to do with the PM leadership and the Eager 11 but something else which will, as we say, catspraddle the DLP administration.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending