← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Minister Ronald Jones, Parliamentary Representative, Christ Church East Central.

THE Nation Publishing Co., in its edition of the Sunday Sun on December 11, 2011, published an article which purportedly carried contents of a letter written to the Prime Minister.

The Friday, December 16 edition of Barbados Today, an online newspaper, carried a letter which it states is a letter similar to that of the Sunday Sun’s version. Readers should bear in mind that the Sunday Sun embedded the contents of said letter in their story and wrapped it in parenthesis. So, in fact, the Sunday Sun has already published the contents of the said letter.

The only difference was the Nation warping its interpretation of the contents of the letter. They alluded to the MPs’ intention: “Their main reason for doing so was to discuss matters of grave concern” pertaining to his leadership and “to chart a path forward for the retention of our party in Government”.

The Nation emphatically stated this in the context of its story of Tuesday last. This differs somewhat from their initial quotation when the article stated that the MPs wanted the meeting, “with respect to perceived weaknesses in our leadership of the country”. This is a variation to that quoted above.

It is the Sunday Sun story of Sunday, December 11 that is of particular interest. The Nation reported that 11 MPs affixed their signatures to a letter and immediately dispatched it to the Prime Minister. The article states “ELEVEN GOVERNMENT MEMBERS of Parliament (MPs) – including seven senior Cabinet ministers – yesterday affixed their signatures to a formal letter and immediately dispatched it to Prime Minister Freundel Stuart requesting an ‘urgent’ audience.” That means that the Sunday Sun had to be aware that such was already done at least some time on Saturday, December 10 so that they would have included their article in the Sunday Sun with such authority.

The Nation subsequently published the faces of 11 MPs in its Tuesday edition, whom they asserted were the persons who affixed their signatures to this letter and dispatched it to the Prime Minister. The article states, “THEY ARE THE 11 dissatisfied Members of Parliament (MPs) who have been seeking an ‘urgent audience’ with Prime Minister Freundel Stuart.

“They comprise eight ministers in the 19-member Cabinet and three backbenchers.
“Their main reason for doing so was to discuss matters of ‘grave concern’ pertaining to his leadership and ‘to chart a path forward for the retention of our party in Government’.”

This was a bold assertion. The Nation was emphatically stating that there were no other MPs who were implicated in signing such a letter. The Nation, by so doing, created an atmosphere in which 11 persons were exposed to intense public scrutiny and ridicule. The Nation Newspaper had no intention of stepping back from their position.

“Since the publication of the contents of a letter to this intent in the SUNDAY SUN, some of them have publicly denied any knowledge of the letter or any issues with Stuart, for that matter.”

In defence of their character and integrity, some persons immediately responded that they did not place their signatures on any letter and therefore the Nation should cease and desist from making such a statement.

The Nation, through its Editor-in-Chief, intimated that it would stick by its word – that is, that 11 MPs affixed their signatures to a letter which was dispatched to the PM.

The Nation further kept the charge going by asserting that it would keep publishing the faces of the persons in its daily publication until the 18th, when they would publish the letter. (One would believe that the letter would have 11 signatures affixed to it and not the mere mention of eleven names) If this is not done, then the Nation newspaper would have made a false accusation against the MPs – especially those who said they had not so done.

The Paper, as part of its continuing engagement of the reading public indicated in its article of Tuesday that they were sticking to their story, they wrote “However, the DAILY NATION is sticking to its story. The newspaper has further been informed that Stuart held private talks with individual members of the complaining group before leaving the island yesterday for New York.

Well-placed sources said while the leadership issue was not yet settled, it was likely that “common sense” would prevail and that the dialogue would continue internally.
Yesterday, one source close to Stuart further indicated that some of the 11, who came under intense public scrutiny following the publication of concerns, were now suffering from “cold feet” and had indicated to Stuart that they were not prepared to press him any further on a meeting to discuss his leadership style.

I am careful to note that the Nation continued to refer to his leadership style and that was not identified in either their quote from the letter of Sunday 11th or the Barbados Today story of Friday last.

Readers should not miss the point. The Nation made a claim. That Claim was in the Sunday Sun of December 11. We therefore await the publication of the Letter with the affixed signatures. A mere presentation of a letter, which they have already published, cannot do. They have already done that in their Sunday Sun of 11th December by inserting the paragraphs in parenthesis. These paragraphs are identical to the letter published in Barbados Today. Can we assume that the letter came from the same source?

I am also keen to note that The Nation Newspaper started to introduce a daily subtle shift in its statements by suggesting that the persons authorised their names to be attached to the letter. There is no more mention of signatures being affixed to the letter. That has disappeared. The Nation Newspaper is now proclaiming “The DAILY NATION will continue to publish all denials while holding on to the letter written on behalf of eight ministers and three backbenchers. Here, we reprint the photographs of the Eager Eleven as we will do every day until Sunday.”

On behalf of’ is the language used previously in the article of December 11. The Nation Newspaper has to deliver this earth shattering letter with the affixed signatures or they would have taken the standards of journalism to an all-time low.

– RONALD JONES, Parliamentary Representative, Christ Church East Central.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

134 responses to “Minister Ronald Jones Clears The Air About ‘The Letter’”


  1. @Adrian Hinds

    Your comments still don’t explain your “certainty” of a Freundel loss. Marginal seat or not. Sun Tzu said that victory depends on knowledge of self as well as the enemy. The “enemy” in St. Michael South is very well known. Not necessarily in the best of lights.

  2. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    @David and BU readers

    I am thinking, how can Chris Sinckler now be trusted in a position that sees over the finances of the country; in a position that gives him leeway and an array of discretion to be used in financial and investment matters among others? How many other things have been hidden from the public?


  3. I just read Ezra column and usual he disappoints. His is to mention what pertains in other jurisdictions that practice some version of Westminster, which to my mind confuses the issue and denies the possibility of bringing clarity to it.

    Ezra states that “decapitation of a party leader is not for the faint of heart” and refers to Australia’s Julia Gillard’s ruthless removal of Kevin Rudd as the Aussie’s PM.

    He then tells us how difficult it is to remove a PM in Barbados version of Westminster, correctly stating the constitutional convention of requiring a parliamentary resolution (no-confidence vote) of the entire parliament.

    What he did not mention is that in Australia a simple caucus vote of the ruling party is all that is required to remove their PM.

    He also forgot to mention that the Australian Prime Minister’s office is not mentioned in the Constitution of Australia specifically (although the Constitution does refer to “The Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth [of Australia]” in general) and exists through an unwritten constitutional convention.

    In other words Julia Gillard could not have had her way in Barbados -her so called ruthlessness not withstanding – and it is likely that Freundel would have been long removed were he in Australia.

  4. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    If not Chris and “forever” so, then who? The kingmaker needs a coronation and the pollster needs a popular card to play. Will it be a Jack (please do not suffix with ass) or a queen (St. John apparently got one earlier this year).


  5. @Observing:
    That enemy defeated Sandiford, and withstood Fruendel before, who only won in a national swing against the BLP. However, I am as certain of his lost as I am of the future, which is with the full understanding that past experiences are no guarantees for future ones, yet I opine as I have. His goose is cooked. 🙂

    @George Brathwaite:
    If it comes to it, Chris can stay in the Back-benches and make life miserable for Fruendel as Mia does with Owen. They both have great oratorical skills that draws the public to them.


  6. @Adrian Hinds
    Well put. To note though, Sandi was voluntarily on his way out, Stuart had just come town. The enemy is well known and damaged goods depending on who speaks. But yes, the future his uncertain. I believe your opining is incorrect giving present conditions.


  7. i agree with you adrian, ezra alleyne’s columns are usually a lot of mumbo jumbo; he says a lot and says nothing because the average person is no wiser. and to george- mr sinckler other than his gift for gab is no where in the league of miss mottley when it comes to oratory. he is loquacious but he too says nothing other than ramble here and there ; flip-flop here and there


  8. david what do you mean by minister ronald jones “clearing the air” about the letter. there is nothing to clear since it is now known that he was among those who syupported the letter seeking and audience with mr stuart. holding on to the issue of who signed or did not sign is not of importance now despite miss jordan.s faux pas for which she should be censored. the factremains that there was an agreement between a number of persons in the dlp to seek an audience with mr stuart as reporeted in the nation newspaper.Why all the fuss?


  9. They say Bajans got short memories. This one will die like everything else do in Barbados if not guess we will go back to being ill treated by the BLP as you all have short memories. Time for a serious 3rd party.


  10. @balance

    Read comments posted in the blog below by ‘brief’ – ‘The Letter – A Question of Honour and Integrity’.

  11. George C. Brathwaite Avatar
    George C. Brathwaite

    @balance

    You would never in this world or the next, hear me place Chris Sinckler in the same league as Mia Mottley. Absolutely no comparison. Chris is more huff than puff but his facial contortions may receive some attention. In fact, I deliberately do not mention Mia but she is clearly a cut above most politicians in Barbados and the Caribbean.


  12. The DLP seems to be bent on POLITICAL SUICIDE and they have completed it. They have exposed their incompetence and inexperience in running a government. The attempted mutiny has exposed how inexperienced these green horns are. There will be a massive swing to the BLP.

    George I agree with you that MIA is clearly a cut above most politicians in Barbados and the Caribbean.


  13. @balance

    Quote”Why all the fuss”

    Asked George Brathwaite maybe he can give you a History lesson.

    BTW . Very interesting above comments.
    Question. Was Chris facial contortions devious in any way to make in Subject #1 in the alleged PLOT. Your p0liticalanalogy is timeless.


  14. Chris knows what is coming in terms of the island’s economy and he does not want to be blamed!

    As a result he has/had two alternatives……

    1. Try to help get rid of the current PM and blame the economic condition
    on the ousted PM’s incompetence.

    2. He/Chris himself get out of the way (out of the Finance minister’s) slot,
    lay low for a while and with the short bajan memories live to fight another
    day.

    By the way….do not rule out a party switch by Chris when the DLP is blamed for the economic mess. He could blame the switch on being pushed out of the party.

    In terms of Jones clearing the air about the letter….he seems to have made it foggier….it’s now fully polluted!!!!


  15. […] Barbados Underground and Barbados Free Press comment on a controversial letter allegedly written to Prime Minister Freundel Stuart by members of his party, expressing a lack of confidence in his leadership, and subsequently leaked to the media. Tweet Barbados Underground and Barbados Free Press comment on a controversial letter allegedly written to Prime Minister Freundel Stuart by members of his party, expressing a lack of confidence in his leadership, and subsequently leaked to the media. […]

  16. PRETTY BLUE EYES Avatar

    As far as I am concerned the whole lot of them are liars, Ronald Jones, Stephen Lashley and David Estwick are the biggest of them all, denying the letter or at least trying to twist words. There was a letter they knew about it and the meeting the only problem is that they did not sign the final copy but the liars knew about it. After that concise intere view which Sinckler gave yesterday, let me see how they would respond. If I was Stuart I would get rid of the four of them, then Hammie LA, he icould only be another fool. Well that is politics for ya, Politicians being themself LIARs!!!


  17. One does not draft a letter for delivery.It is drafted then ratified then delivered.Didn’t Mr.Sinckler say it was drafted for delivery?Just asking.


  18. i cannot understand why someone would be asked to sign a draft letter or affix their signatures to a draft letter.


  19. @balance

    It is custom that a draft letter at the final stage of iteration and if it requires review by others would have a final look i.e. in this case it would have the 11 spaces formatted for the signatories. However if we accept Sinckler’s position as espoused in the inteview many of the others had not seen or even agreed to a letter being sent.


  20. @David

    Who authorised Chris to have a letter drafted? Or did he take it upon himself to do so thinking that people would have signed any letter. If you are going to draft a letter on behalf of people, dont u think that there should have been a consensus on the contents? Clearly some poliicians are not smart at all and it is a pity that we have such limited choices.

  21. Lend Me Your Ear Avatar

    I am disguested by the editorial, it was highly manipulative and I found paragraph two interesting, the part that says “…whether or not journalists live up to the high standards expected of them”. So what is Miss Neophyte Kaymar Jordan saying? In one breath she says that they are a company and cadre of journalists of impeccable ethical character and then says in paragraph two of the editorial in essence that they may or may not have lived up to the high standrads that the profession requires. She should be sacked, an apology issued and since they are no signatures, she has efffectively ruined the reputations and defamed, libeled and otherwise caused emotional stress to those ministers irrespective of their intentions. THEY NEVER SIGNED ANYTHING. It is disingenuous and UNPROFESSIONAL to publish an unsigned letter. Had Chris Sinckler not offered anything, one could easily assume she penned it herself. THE NATION IS AN UTTER DISGRACE. Now Stuart has gone into the annals of history to proclaim his King John type persona with a not so veiled threat to off with the heads of the “Eager 11”, whoever they might be. It is a dirty act of gung-ho. trigger happy copy writing and not journalism at all!

    I refuse to wrap fish in it! Nor would I condecsend to use it as toilet paper did I run out of my Charmin. Instead, I will make a small bonfire in a place wher it can’t affect Poonka and let it disintegrate into ash from which I hope oit will never rise.

    DISGRACE KAYMAR. Stick to being a newsreader. You are not a journalist. Vivianne Ann Gittens also needs to speak up on this hideous faux pas.


  22. @ Lend me your Ear

    Let us draw up the petition and have it signed. The Nation should be forced to apologize and Ms Jordan should opt to resign and if not, fired. Yes Vivianne Ann Gittens needs to speak up about this Disgrace. Seems like they wish to take down all journalists with them. I will NOT buy a Nation newspaper or Sunday Sun again barring a miracle. SHAME on you all. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.


  23. @WordSong

    Draft something and we can start a FB page.


  24. David,
    Why are you so hell bent on encouraging and supporting a campaign against the Nation by these Dems? Why dont these same Dems take on the Advocate and CBC? Dont follow Dems, they will lead you down a path and leave you. Dont you see how the same ones who sat down and hatch a plan and plot with Chris Sinckler left him high and dry!

    The Nation’s only crime is that it exposed the skulduggery in the DLP and they dont like it. It has now put their party at risk of losing the next election and they fear they will lose their feeding at the trough, plain and simple. Is it a fact or not that this group of eleven MPs were part and parcel to a plot to get rid of the PM? Have you for gotten that they were also trying to get him to resign on the grounds of ill health?

    If the few Dems on this blog dont buy another Nation, they really think their $2.50 can sink the Nation??


  25. @Prodigal Son

    Not sure if you followed BU from inception but being on the NATION’s case is nothing new, the advocate and CBC for that matter.

    Yes the NATION exposed the letter incident but it embellished the story and practiced yellow journalism in the process.


  26. @Pretty Blue Eyes

    you need to discern facts from friction. Have uou not been taught logic? If you have not, u need to take some lessons in reasoning.

    Have a logical and reasoning Christmas and a sensible New Year.


  27. David,

    On this blog people come on here and say some of the most outrageous things about other people they dont like or dont share their same ideology. Classic case CCC, there is no proof to a lot of his claims, yet you dont admonish him or his ilk. I hold the Bees to the same standard.

    Yes, I know you will tell me that a blog is different. Ease up off the Nation, I believe they are holding something, a trump card, maybe, ready for the courts!


  28. @Prodigal Son

    You are selective, commenters from both BLP and DLP spout their views on BU. When it was Arthur/Mottley split the DLPites did their thing, now it is their turn to take some medicine. That is the way it goes. About the NATION BU does not care if it has a trump card it had no business embellishing the story and stretching it for 8 days. It was highly unprofession and immature.


  29. prodigal the media is to be the eyes and ears of the people and in so doing must be clear ! Truthful! and Precise! . The story as it was published is indeed False and misleading.It is very hard to defend that. Kymar Jordan and the publishers must take full responsibility. Nothing short of an apology is acceptable..If in the Nation chooses to turn a deaf ear and stupse the readership. A boycott will be necessary in order to send the Nation a hard message .


  30. It seems to some that embarassment is difficult to swollow. attempt to smear Kaymar Jordan is simplistic and understandable in the DLP camp. I think they should be truthful and precise when dealing with Sincklerr and the rest. They must wonder if the Traitors are right but went about it the wrong way. Is Stuart still capable of leading the DLP to victory with his present inertia and dithering? Get real, Stuart is a non starter, and the traitors know. Stuart with Stuart theyare dead in the water. Kaymar cannot help them. Sinckler put them firmly and fully as participants and they have not denied it. You can stick to silliness and stupidity. It would not work. AC you boycott the Nation and send them a hard message. I wish you luck. Think on these things


  31. @true to form

    Through your politcal lens how are you able to split the issues here?


  32. think on what things You either do it or you Don.t Watch Me. Kuncklehead!PEople like you are always Using the word Integrity> However you do have a selective and memory of convenience to whom it should apply. FYI of all the branches the media should be the examples of Integrity because nine times out of ten the media has the last word as it is in this case. What they have printed remains as gospel in the minds of people and can spell disaster to those whom the written word is applied if not factually and truthfully told.

  33. PM, better a little medicine now than a coffin later Avatar
    PM, better a little medicine now than a coffin later

    BU should conduct an unscientific poll to get an indication from its readers of their choice of leader for Barbados. Enjoy your holidays and prepare for some significant events thereafter.


  34. @ac
    There are always people like you who like to muddle and confuse issues for you own partisan agenda. I understand that. And when people cannot agree with you you think that abuse will suffice, I ignore this things. Let me get back to it. The problem with you is that if you can trivialise the important thing which the traitors did with whether or not there was a signature. Do you think that would nullify if there were there or not?, Get real they were there and Sinckler saId so . Quarrel with Sinckler and his admission that they knew. they participated and they decided. If they think their signatures are worth anything, let them sue.. The barnchhes of the media should have integrity. That is a sine qua non of the media Let them who are the peoples’ representatives have some and boldly demonstrate it.Tthey were so bold faced to go to a meeting and then tried to make people believe that they werre not there. Let them show their integrity, they should not be defended by nonsensical posturing . It will get you and them nowhere. The peopl;e will decide about them and may God have mercy on their souls, Think on these things

    @David
    Tthe issue of Jordan and the names or the signatures is an overworked issue in rtelation to the truth. In a conspriatorial action they are certain agreements and these things will be done. If we have men without balls they will want o renege on the agreenments made and then want to get advantage for their dastardly deeds. I believe that a letter with signatures would have been spoken about, but let us not maximise the minimum and put the isssue squarely where it should be, There was a collusion of ideas and men of (dis)homour met with a common design. It is abhorent that we should want to excuse that . Think on these things

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