The CLICO Mess: Pinochet Case Vs Leroy Parris

Augusto Pinochet (l) Leroy Parris (r)

If we are to judge from the back and forth in recent days there is the suggestion that a window of opportunity supported by the Pinochet Case (I,II) favours Leroy Parris. Is the claim that Leroy Parris and company had full knowledge of Patrick Toppin’s role as Receiver for Plantations Holdings – a subsidiary of CL Financial – and failed to challenge when along with Oliver Jordan they were appointed Judicial Managers to unravel The CLICO Mess? Did the onus of such disclosure rest with Patrick Toppin as a professional bonded to uphold the ethics of the accounting profession?  Bear in mind lawyers for Toppin have subsequently confirmed he disclosed his role to the Supervisor of Insurance and Minister of Finance. It is unclear if similar disclosure was made to the Courts which have jurisdiction in the matter.

For the benefit of  BU family who have demonstrated a healthily interest in the legal component of the argument.  Here is the Pinochet Case dissected:

Pinochet time lines:

  • In October 1998, Pinochet arrived in the UK for medical treatment.
  • In October and November 1998, Spain issued international warrants for his arrest and extradition to Spain.
  • On 16 and 23 October 1998 Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates issued two provisional warrants for his arrest under section 8(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989. Pinochet was arrested.
  • Pinochet immediately applied to the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court to quash the warrants.
  • The warrant of 16 October was quashed and nothing further turns on that warrant.
  • The second warrant of 23 October 1998 was quashed by an order of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division (Lord Bingham of Cornhill C.J., Collins and Richards JJ.)
  • Note however, the quashing of the second warrant was stayed to enable an appeal to be taken to the House of Lords on the question certified by the Divisional Court as to “the proper interpretation and scope of the immunity enjoyed by a former Head of State from arrest and extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom in respect of acts committed while he was Head of State.”
  • It was heard on 4, 5 and 9-12 November 1998 by a committee consisting of Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann.

However, AFTER the committee had been named and before the main hearing of the appeal, there was an interlocutory decision and Amnesty International (“AI”), two other human rights bodies and three individuals petitioned for leave to intervene in the appeal. Such leave was granted by a committee consisting of Lord Slynn, Lord Nicholls and Lord Steyn (notice that Lord Hoffmann was NOT a part of this committee) subject to any protest being made by other parties at the start of the main hearing.

  • Judgment of the House of Lords was given on 25 November 1998. The appeal was allowed the second warrant of 23 October 1998 was restored.
  • Pinochet was therefore required to remain in the UK to await the decision of the Home Secretary whether to authorise the continuation of the proceedings for his extradition under section 7(1) of the Extradition Act 1989. The Home Secretary had until the 11 December 1998 to make that decision, but required anyone wishing to make representations on the point to do so by the 30 November 1998.
  • On 30 November Lady Hoffmann’s position as having an interest in AI was raised and contained a detailed consideration of the relevant law of bias.
  • It subsequently turned out that Lord Hoffmann was himself a director of AI for the purposes of fundraising.
  • On 10 December 1998, Senator Pinochet lodged a petition asking that the order of 25 November 1998 should either be set aside completely or the opinion of Lord Hoffmann should be declared to be of no effect. The sole ground relied upon was that Lord Hoffmann’s links with AI were such as to give the appearance of possible bias. It is important to stress that Senator Pinochet makes no allegation of actual bias against Lord Hoffmann; his claim is based on the requirement that justice should be seen to be done as well as actually being done.
  • On 17 December 1998, Lord Browne-Wilkinson appeared before the House of Lords in session and vacated the decision. The written reasons were provided on 15 January 1999.

We have a case that started on 16 October 1998. On 04 November 1998, the House of Lords empanelled its committee, which gave its decision on 25 November 1998 and not say 2008 as would be the case with the Barbados courts. On 10 December 1998, a mere 2 weeks after the judgment and just over a month after the committee had been empanelled, Pinochet objected to Lord Hoffmann. On 17 December 1998, the decision was vacated.

At no time did Pinochet “sleep on his rights” the technical term to read: Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit).

Accordingly, there is no application of the Pinochet case to that of CLICO and Leroy Parris – as suggested by An Observer –  in which, as separate and distinct from the Pinochet case, CLICO and Leroy Parris are estopped in law from claiming bias. The state of play is that Leroy Parris and co were aware of the composition of the judicial management team and given their active interest in the matter could have objected. Indeed, by their delay, they must be deemed to have acquiesced in the composition of the committee. Although, whether the principals of equitable estoppel have even been heard of by the Barbados judiciary is highly questionable.

193 thoughts on “The CLICO Mess: Pinochet Case Vs Leroy Parris


  1. Hants | February 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM | “Focus on getting your money and ignore the BU/DLP/BLP politically opportunistic banter. Most people on this blog are trying to influence the outcome of the next election and don’t give a flying puck about the policy holders.( a puck is what you hit with ice hockey sticks lol )”

    “Replace the word “puck” with one that rhymes and I agree 100%. Well said, as always.

    In answer to your question as to why this report was given to the newspapers, I don’t know. However, I believe it ought to be published in its entirety, not just selections. But, the newspapers seem to hold themselves to a far lesser standard than the social media. Indeed, I recall an ultra vires statement once made purportedly on behalf of the Barbados Bar Association by one of its officers. The lack of transparency in dealings in Barbados seems to have reached epidemic proportions. I support David’s call for FOI.

    Is this report, in its entirety, on the Internet? If so, can someone direct me to it? I want to see what Pinochet-like elements have got up the noses of certain people.


  2. @ Floyd

    You went to school and you can think – you are disturbed by the fact that report went to print and gov’t does not have it? How you know? If you were disturbed by the report how come you not disturbed about who has the money, any misspent funds, invested funds are the monies of the policyholders, tracing it should be important to you, whether it went to buy property, finance campaigns, Parris pocket, Thompson pocket. The people who got out their money, what was the basis, when others were told no some were told yes. Who orchestrated that? If those who got theirs told policyholders wait, and keep paying their premiums, you do not want them punished?

    @ David where will they get 190m from, they found money for 4 seasons, will find money for hospital and waste mgt plant 500m. if they plan to pay that back they can pay policyholders back if they cannot find the assets or get the money back from those who have it.


    • @Bajan Truth

      Are you saying you would be happy to allocate NIS pension funds to pay CLICO policyholders?

      At this stage it is not clear how the proposed new hospital would be funded which will not happen until after an election is called anyway.

      In the case of Four Seasons whether you believe in the payback it is a loan.


  3. I read the Nation and Comrade Gonsalves is not happy at all. While our wannabe AG is talking about a Commission on Inquiry (and we know how those go, bare talk shop, no results) Mr. Gonsalves is saying “the judicial manager is saying we get 60 cents out of the dollar I want more than that those who have caused pain to individuals, pain and suffering and put the financial system at risk, must pay if the authorities amass the evidence to proceed with criminal proceedings against any individual or groups of individuals, so be it”


  4. Quoting David of BU “It is like saying the George Walton Payne and Dale Marshall continued to practice while ministers in government. Is this what we are saying?”

    Isn’t it??


  5. I wonder if the policy holders in the other islands can take Le Roi P et al to the Caribbean court of Justice if the Barbados courts fail to prosecute?


  6. Quoting Floyd “I have come to the view that the only solution for people like me is a combination of a sale of the company to an interested buyer and some government assistance.”

    Even while I understand your anxiety that your family will be left homeless if you die before your martgage is paid off. I do not want the government to use my tax or NIS money to fix the CLICO mess. I would prefer to see CLICO sold to another company which can manage it well, and I would prefer to see the courts claw back the money from those including David Thompson who benefitted from CLICO’s largesse. After all when I had to fly LIAT David Thompson was enjoying rides on CLICO’s executive jet and his principal political adviser was advising ordinary Bajans like me that David Thomspn is accustomed to living large. My question then and now is living large offa who. And if as Amused is saying no liability can be attached to David Thompson’s estate how come people are seeking to put th eliability on ordinary taxpayers such as myself. Ordinary taxpayers who have never lived large. Ordinary taxpayers who did not get a single slice of the fatted calf.

    I’ve never got a thing from CLICO, so why should my tax money be used to pay off CLICO’s debt?

    I did not enjoy any rides in CLICO’s private jet. David Thompson did and at at the time of the executive jet ride he was Prime MInister and therefore NOT CLICO’s lawyer, so why therefore was he accepting expensive presents from CLICO, and why did his principal political adviser advise us the taxpayers that the Prime Minister is accustomed to living large? I have never enjoyed any rides in Leroy Parris’ big ride pictured on the front page on the Saturday Sun, so why should my tax money pay?


  7. Dear Floyd:

    It seems as though CLICO spent your money on big salaries, big bonuses, big cars, big houses, big airplanes, and big law firms, in other words the same shite that gets companies (and individuals) in trouble ALL THE TIME.

    As the CLICO big shots and thier big shot hangers-on to rapy you your money. I don’t have a cent of the mney you paid to CLICO, and NOT ONE RED CENT of my tax money should go to pay CLICO’s debts.


  8. Did any CEO of CHL or CIL really have three vehicles at the same time?


  9. This would be the height of effrontery and boldfacedness, but with the standard set by the Thompson Law Firm collecting 3.333 Million dollars for specific invoiced work and apparently passing it on to LP, Is there a possibility that the 10 Million that the former PM got the Central Bank to pass on to CLICO, might have been also intended for onpassing to certain individuals who might not have got their claims from the Company because of the strictures of the Oversight committee?


  10. Quoting Floyd “Where david is the lord will deal with him”

    I add (or the devil)

    Quoting Amused “hauling them up on matters of either grammar or spelling, is prissy and pedantic and makes those who do it look like…….well…….maiden aunts.”

    Wha happen to you? You got a problem wid maiden aunts. I think you need to apologize to all maiden aunt bloggers. Wha’ happen you think only old farts blog?


  11. @Random Thoughts
    “how come people are seeking to put the liability on ordinary taxpayers such as myself.”

    It is my understanding that there are Government guarantees to protect consumers if insurance companies get into financial problems.


  12. Dear Floyd:

    Ask the CLICO big shots and their big shot hangers-on to repay you your money. I don’t have a cent of the money you paid to CLICO, and NOT ONE RED CENT of my tax money should go to pay CLICO’s debts.

    I’ve worked longer than David Thompson has lived and I am still working.


  13. @Random Thoughts

    I get a kick when you intersperse your comments with “ not one red cent of my tax money” or “not one red cent of my NIS contributions ”should be used to bail out Gov’t boondoggles or prop up Commercial projects which need an injection of taxpayer funds. You remind me of the woman who when told that her house was on fire replied, “it can’t be my house, I got de key”.

    The house has been on fire for some time, you should try to catch the arsonist…..


    • @Miller

      Now understand the 3.3. million money laundering matter.

      Did not pick up the point the the law firm generated an invoice for services rendered for the amount.


    • Prime Minister Arthur announced at his nomination meeting this evening that late PM Thompson approved the waiver of taxes on 13 properties in one day sold to CLICO.

      He also announced that PM Stuart needs to relieve the suffering of Clico policyholders now who were assured by a Prime Minister and Governor of the Central Bank they would get their money back.

      He also suggested the government should go after Parris’ assets.


  14. DONT you know that Leroy Parris actually turned me off from showing any interest in buying a policy at Clico??
    DONT you know that I never felt comfortable with Parris ??
    DONT you know that there was always something puzzling about him to me at least ??
    DONT you know it is ditto for David Thompson ???


  15. @JUST ASKING ,

    You did not buy a policy from Clico because you probably had a better option.

    For years Bajans were silent about the intellect or language deficiencies of the dumb ash Kolij an Loj boys who were placed in mainstream Barbados businesses as “management”.
    Maybe it was because they were a lighter shade of pale.

    I don’t want to cause David problems so I dun wid dat.

    And for the record, if the WORLD economy did not go in to RECESSION Leroy Parris would be seen as an amazing CEO making people rich in retirement…….

    an Hants would have relocated to Barbados employing at least 25 Bajans while spending most of my time fishing.


  16. @ Hants | February 26, 2012 at 7:31 PM |
    “And for the record, if the WORLD economy did not go in to RECESSION Leroy Parris would be seen as an amazing CEO making people rich in retirement…….”

    WTF are you implying here? That the CLICO problems were brought about by the Western World recession (there was NO World recession- Ask China, India, Brazil et al)?

    Don’t make us laugh Hants! Are you telling us then we should take our money out of the other Insurance companies or what, Hants?


  17. David | February 26, 2012 at 7:23 PM |
    ” Miller” Now understand the 3.3. million money laundering matter.
    Did not pick up the point the law firm generated an invoice for services rendered for the amount.”

    And then paid it over to LP under the disguise of a “gratuity” or other amounts due to him or others?

    Now you can follow my drift as to why those 2 pieces of legislation ought to be activated to bring some sort of justice and recompense to the aggrieved policyholders.

    Dale Marshall’s call for a commission of enquiry (CoI) is just a diversionary tactic.
    He is not up to the mark for proffering solid advice and workable solutions. A BLP convened CoI would just be a waste of taxpayers’ money and geared towards lining the pockets of BLP affiliated lawyers; thus perpetuating the crooked game of playing the policyholders for suckers.


  18. I never considered CLICO as an investment alternative because I was raised up in the 60’s and 70’s when anything Trini was considered tricky!!

    I could never understand O$A and CSME.

    However, CLICO operated in Barbados under Barbados Government Regulations … that means the representatives of us taxpayers and voters undertook on our behalf to ensure CLICO would be regulated and could be promoted as a safe investment to anyone who missed out on the upbringing I had and knew no better!!

    The simple point is we taxpayers and voters guaranteed CLICO to be a safe investment for all and sundry.

    We might not like to think so but it is so.

    To the extent that we (through our representatives) let CLICO avoid keeping the requisite cash/assets available for the eventuality that arose and causes investors grief I cannot but help think we taxpayers/voters are liable.

    Had our representatives simply done their jobs and followed the regulations there would be funds/assets available to cover the loss investors suffered.

    Any true true Bajan would have scoffed at the play play idea of CSME!!

    The mess that is CLICO was entirely avoidable.

    We need to growup and take the responsibility and the cost for the errors of the persons we chose to represent us ….. maybe then we will figure out how to use our vote next time around when the same perpetrators present themselves for re-election!!

    Avinash like he ain’t going get nuh NIS money because it is committed already to cover the irresponsibilities of our representatives …. and by extension, us!!


    • John

      You just made enemies on this blog by talking sense. Government is responsible for the loss that the investors and policyholders of CLICO suffered and is suffering. Government’s failure to perform its statutory duty allowed CLICO to defraud innocent people. Then rather than taking Government to court, those policyholders and investors relied on an assurance, from the head of Government, that CLICO was sound. Government is liable to make good the loss and then seek to recover from CLICO.


  19. Sargeant | February 26, 2012 at 7:14 PM |
    “The house has been on fire for some time, you should try to catch the arsonist…..”

    We all know who are the arsonist and his accomplices. The question is: Does your “favoured” DLP administration have the correct size in the codpiece to run after the elusive arsonist and his den of thieves- dead or alive?


  20. @ John | February 26, 2012 at 8:27 PM |

    Avinash will get his millions from NIS.
    The people to open the money vault have already been guaranteed their share of the loot. This CLICO disaster and revelations would not mean a damn to those people with no conscience who only see politics as a fast road to riches; not genuine public service to their fellow citizens.


  21. millertheanunnaki wrote (there was NO World recession- Ask China, India, Brazil et al)?

    Barbados does 90 % of its business with the USA, the UK, and Canada. They were in recession.
    The BLP government did exactly the same when they were in power.USA, the UK, and Canada.

    If you are suggesting that the new trade deals will be with China, India, Brazil, you and Owen can go after these emerging super powers.


  22. millertheanunnaki wrote “Don’t make us laugh Hants! Are you telling us then we should take our money out of the other Insurance companies or what, Hants?”

    I do not care what you do with your money. If you have enough sense to blog you should have enough sense to spend your money wisely or if you choose you can buy ice and fry it.

    Every adult is responsible for himself unless he has mental or physical problems.


  23. @ Hants | February 26, 2012 at 8:49 PM |

    Hence my specific reference to Western economies (North Atlantic) with whom we have a symbiotic relationship .

    I am not suggesting anything. You are. Let us hear you again: Did the recession cause the collapse of CLICO or what?


  24. @Hants | February 26, 2012 at 8:49 PM |
    “If you are suggesting that the new trade deals will be with China, India, Brazil, you and Owen can go after these emerging super powers.”

    Not at all! Because I know these countries just see Bim as a marginal export market. Bim is not attractive to tourists from these places. Sea, sand and sun mean nothing to them. They don’t need suntans. Exotic traditions, history, gambling, fun rides and a chance to do things they can’t back home are more of a drawing card than what Bim is offering.
    But surprise, surprise Hants, these are the exact “nouveau riche” economies that the present administration is targeting for tourism growth and FDI. Soon we will have a Chinese business importing solar panels and related products for the local and regional markets.


  25. Owen is reported to have said “approved the waiver of taxes on 13 properties in one day sold to CLICO.”

    Question. Is this type of “waiver” applied exclusively to properties owned by Clico?


  26. From what I understand, some of CLICO assets have been sold, where has that money gone? Why is Terrence Thornhill still at the helm of CLICO?

    1. The Mortgage Finance was sold to the Public Workers Credit Union financed out of our NIS monies……..is the Credit union repaying this money?

    2. The General Insurance was sold to Bernie Weatherhead…where is this money?

    3. British American was sold to Sagicor…where is this money…

    4. Can the assets be sold which are being held in the statuary fund and wind up the company?……this money could be shared with the policyholders.

    CLICO just seems to be a black hole, money keeps going in and disappearing.

    The authorities need to turn someone into a star witness to get the truth of this. I saw Easy Magazine featuring Denise Mongerie again today. She could become the star witness, she was LP’s right hand woman, travelled the world with him on the US$71000.00 monthly leased plane. (Floyd, this is somewhere where you money went).


  27. “You just made enemies on this blog by talking sense. Government is responsible for the loss that the investors and policyholders of CLICO suffered and is suffering. Government’s failure to perform its statutory duty allowed CLICO to defraud innocent people. Then rather than taking Government to court, those policyholders and investors relied on an assurance, from the head of Government, that CLICO was sound. Government is liable to make good the loss and then seek to recover from CLICO”.

    Caswell, I have no problem with this line of argument, yes the SOI failed in this aspect. However, I have a problem with the supporters of the dead king who are saying that his estate is untouchable.

    Hear me out on this…… if the paper trail leads directly to David Thompson, Thompson Associates, Branlee, Marfa, Families First, PFS, Leroy Parris mansion on Dayrells Hill why cant these all be seized and sold to repay the policyholders who did not have a clue that their monies were being used recklessly to keep people living large????


  28. Hants | February 26, 2012 at 8:57 PM |
    ” I do not care what you do with your money. If you have enough sense to blog you should have enough sense to spend your money wisely or if you choose you can buy ice and fry it.”

    At least I might end up with hot water. The same substance that is scalding the government. The longer this CLICO saga drags on the quicker will the frying ice turn to steam to evaporate. The same way are the chances of policyholders getting back their investments. If the government can’t compensate the policyholders because of its “regulatory negligence” then with dispatch go after the assets misappropriated in the ponzi scheme. Don’t let the vultures (accountants and lawyers) clean the already lean carcass of any more flesh. Caswell has a point about the Government’s negligence (both B&D). Don’t let the compound the problem like Barrack’s.


  29. And while according to the auditors report Leroy Parris was being paid annual bonuses of between $300,000 and 600,000 per year, CLOCo employees were being given a ham for Christmas.

    The boss with the advice of his hot-shot lawyer, our late Prime Minister pays himself hundreds of thousands in bonus and the employees get not a pucking cent. They get a ham.

    Yes a ham. One lousy ham.

    Even while other people were living large offa the blood, sweat and tears of the hard working CLICO employees.


  30. @ David.
    Re : Owen Arthur. ” he also said the Government should go after Parris’ assets ” .
    Could you tell me David if he said under what STATUTE this could be done? It does come through very clearly that EVEN Owen Arthur is reacting to the FALSE legal concept That CLICO Barbados IS CLICO INTERNATIONAL and not a mere SUBSIDIARY of the big Trinidad based conglomerate and that Leroy Parris IS CLICO BARBADOS. It is about time the TRUE picture were painted for the proper education of the general public ; political clap-trap will only be of short-term benifit . The promised Commission of Inquiry touted by Dale would also be of interest . What period will it cover ? Will it reveal that UNDER PARRIS’ LEADERSHIP CLICO was moved from an ordinary , little ,Insurance business with assets somewhere in the region of TWO MILLION DOLLARS to a company with assets in excess of ONE BILLION DOLLARS and EMPLOYING OVER 3000 BARBADIANS? Commissions are fact- finding tribunals and this FACT should come out Dale Marshall’s efforts notwithstanding.
    The real weakness of our corporate system and of which CLICO has been a victim , has been the negligence of our law makers over time to put legislation in place to regulate the relationship between Holding Companies and their Subsidiaries; as long as this remains, subsidiaries will have no remedy to stave off incursions by their parent companies and parents will always be free to prop up their subsidiaries.Developed countries have had this type of anti-trust legislation for decades. The country is crying out for this level of debate among our political leadership ; a debate centred around the fortune/wealth of Leroy Parris can have no benefit at this time when serious developmental issues are at stake.
    When all the smoke has been cleared and all the political posturing has abated and if there is still some time left before the calling of the next General Election , I sincerely hope there will be time for mature debate on these matters. The political tirade we are getting MIGHT BE good enough for the party supporters here on the blogs ; it is far from satisfactory for our leaders to proceed in this manner.
    Finally , it should be worthy of note that the CLICO saga goes as far back as 2002. Need I say more ?


  31. “Prime Minister Arthur announced at his nomination meeting this evening that late PM Thompson approved the waiver of taxes on 13 properties in one day sold to CLICO”
    David

    I have heard THIS BEFORE and I believe it to be true


  32. @An Observing

    You are bringing a perspective which although worthy will be ignored in the emotion and political feeding frenzy which is currently playing out. In the absence of relevant legislation as you have pointed out it does not address obvious squandermania and inappropriate decision making which can be assessed without said legislation.


  33. If the theiving and skullduggery go back to 2002 would that mean any ordinary citizen would be accontable ? Was there any traceable wrong doing at that time by the political directorate . Tell us . Would failure or act on Stuatory Fund Deficit cause any one to be culpable and wuuld that byself make any act done outside the laaw? Woukldn’t acting outside the law be a clear cse of dishonesty rather than just failure to adhere to the rules. Think on these things


  34. @ An Observer.. | February 27, 2012 at 8:06 AM |
    “Could you tell me David if he said under what STATUTE this could be done?”

    The Anti-Money Laundering legislation and the Income tax Act can be utilised, for starters. As long as it can be established that the CEO & CFO (or whatever titles used by the top executive management) acted without the clear approval of the Board (ultra vires) and payments were made under the guise of legal fees when in substance were intended for another beneficiary who were employees of the CLICO business then a case of fraudulent activity can be alleged. Were these payments/receipts subject to the PAYE deduction requirements or even declared in the tax return for the year the payments were received by the final beneficiary?

    “The real weakness of our corporate system and of which CLICO has been a victim , has been the negligence of our law makers over time to put legislation in place to regulate the relationship between Holding Companies and their Subsidiaries; ”

    Could you please enlighten us as to how the present Companies Act and Income Tax Act are deficient or weak in regulating financial transactions between holding companies and their subsidiaries?


  35. @ David
    ” you are bringing a perspective…..”
    I am very aware of this fact David but it is the responsibility of all agencies, including this blog, to EDUCATE , thereby reducing the incidence of uninformed and underinformed comment taking root in a literate society such as Barbados . it is with this attitude in mind that I contribute to this blog where ordinary persons who are eager to become better educated ,
    contribute . I try hard to ignore invective and personal vilification hence I avoid response to contributions like some of those made here . Hence i will have NOTHING to say to the one immediately above. It is unworthy of serious comment.


  36. @An Observer.. | February 27, 2012 at 10:23 AM |
    “Hence i will have NOTHING to say to the one immediately above. It is unworthy of serious comment.”

    YOU CAN’T!
    If you could you would in order to inform “ordinary persons who are eager to become better educated”.

    Not me, I am already “educated’ (according to you) about these matters. More so than you would ever be, here or any where in the World.
    Don’t do it for me. Do it for the other “ordinary” bloggers, to use your words.


  37. @An Observer

    Appreciate your comment and encourage you to continue to bring your perspective to the issues.

    Unfortunately some will resort to robust and muscular exchanges. This is the nature of the beast.


  38. @ David
    I am by no means David , afraid of the ” robust and muscular exchanges ” : I have myself been brought up in a culture where one can become a street-fighter IF NECESSARY…I however still hold firmly to the view that the pen is mightier than the sword and the place for robust and/or muscular language is not during intellectual debate. I shall try zealously to remain faithful to this tenet. Peace my brother …


  39. @ David

    “Owen is reported to have said approved the waiver of taxes on 13 properties in one day sold to CLICO.”

    Including the building currently housing the law offices of David Thompson & Associates?


  40. i just heard the PM on the TV. with all due respect Mr. PM what planet are you living on again? please tell me but the longer he hold out on calling elections, is he not doing more damage to his parties brand?

    i believe calling the elections now or at the last minute will have the same effect but the only people that i hear think the government is doing a good job are party members and supporters. but as this Clico mess drag on, does it not have the legs to play down the DLP. don’t get me wrong, i believe the BLP will get some of shit on them too but its the party in power who does not want to deal with this issue that get the worst of it.

    i have to sometimes wonder of this politicians don’t listen to anyone outside of party supporters.


  41. Why is Pinochet’s picture being juxtaposed next to Parris’. Is this fair to the man?

    Shouldn’t someone stand-up for Pinochet?


  42. @Guy Fawkes 1,200–3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 were interned, and up to 30,000 were tortured by Pinochet’s regime including women and children.


  43. @ David (not BU) | February 27, 2012 at 7:21 PM |

    The same person promised in early December 2011 (just after returning from T&T re the incarceration and punishment of the Bajan fishermen) that the appointment of a new GG will be announced very soon not later than very early in the new year (2012). March is almost upon us and the royals have come and gone and we are still holding our breath. How can a person like that be relied upon to keep promises, tell us?
    We hope Al Barrack keeps his end of February deadline or we will see him in the same light, a bloody joker.


  44. @Hants

    My comment could easily be a compliment to Parris. I’m grateful that I can still play a wicked spin. 🙂


  45. Amused; You made a comment earlier in this blog, I think. It was to the effect that Leslie Haynes was not deserving of his honorific of QC and that he owed that appelation entirely to Owen Arthur. You went on to suggest that this was unlike the late David Thompson who had earned his with excellent and sustained good work as an attorney at law.

    This afternoon I happened to come across a news Item with a picture that showed the late PM in the company of a number of other legal luminaries, including the current PM at DT’s accession to the inner circle. The date was sometime in 2009. DT was therefore PM when he became a QC. I suspect that becoming a QC requires the PM’s acquiescence or promotion, based on your comment about Leslie Haynes, but I might be wrong.

    Care to tell us what DT’s other good legal works were that qualified him for the QC honour? Did he practise in any significant legal cases other than for CLICO in general and Leroy Parris in particular?


    • Why was the deputy Supervisor Of Insurance Mr Vernese Brathwaite sent on special leave by Public Service Commission, since April 19th April 2010?

      Was it because she sent the CLICO file to the DDP?


    • The Public Service Commission is supposed to be an independent constitutional body, but over the years it has become anything but independent. It has now become a rubber stamp for party political decisions and as a means of covering up maladministration that is taking place throughout the Public Service.

      Vernese Brathwaite’s special leave is a classic case of political nastiness. She trained the last three Supervisors of Insurance but she did not have the correct political stripes to be promoted to the top job. Since the Insurance Section of the Ministry of Finance has now become part of the Financial Services Commission, the officers there were forced to give up their job security and accept short term appointments at the FSC. She refused and is being victimized.

      Government has now foolishly been advised to establish the Financial Services Commission as a statutory body rather than a department in the Public Service. When Bajan politicians hear statutory boards their little minds just jump to how they can manipulate the organization without a care for the people employed there. They have destroyed officers’ careers with the assistance of the NUPW.


  46. Hants it looks that we Bajans are not alone, In Canada too there are allegations of executive perks
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1137713–deb-matthews-can-t-say-where-missing-25-million-in-ornge-cash-is?bn=1
    A Saturday Star story revealed nearly $25 million raised by ORNGE with taxpayers’ help cannot be accounted for and investigators are digging to see if the cash was used on a spending spree, bad business decisions or if some of it went to executives’ pockets. Health Minister Deb Matthews can’t say what happened to $25 million in missing ORNGE funds but members of the opposition argue she had the authority to monitor the air service more strictly than she did


  47. Are you sayiing then that DT reccommended himself for a QC?

    And is so is that cricket (as the English would say)


  48. As usual this QC thing is political favoritism . The PM of T&T was the best though,she like ours will go down in history as very controversial.


  49. Random Thoughts | February 27, 2012 at 9:35 PM |

    Hants it looks that we Bajans are not alone.

    The 25million is chump change compared to the $Billion wasted on something called Ehealth here in Ontario.

    Anyhow, I don’t like to say anything bad about Canada cause de gimme a little scotch up hey an uh doan want to soun ungrateful.


  50. Random thoughts;

    I’m not saying anything like that. Its just a random thought. But I would really like to know what DT’s practice entailed. Was he primarily into company law? what other clients did he personally have other than CLICO and Parris? Was working for CLICO a big plus in becoming a QC? Was the PM’s approval also a big plus? Are QC’s appointed on the recommendation of the PM? Are they appointed on the recommendation of the CJ or of the AG? Does the opinions of their peers have anything to do with it?

    I always thought that a QC designation was based on merit, worth, and seniority as determined by the Bar association, but Amused original comments suggests otherwise. I would like to be educated on this matter.

    Perhaps it might be one of the many matters in the legal field of Barbados that Amused may wish the new CJ to change.


    • What about Dr Frank Alleyne head of the FSC and Tony Marshall Chairman of the NIS Fund?

      Should these men be piloting these two important agencies?


  51. @David, based on the criticism leveled at Parris, Tony Marshall is overqualified to head any Board or company in Barbados.
    Nobody speaks English more correctly that Marshall.lol


  52. Lawyers like many other people are fond of having some letters or honorific titles associated with their names look how many Pastors in Barbados have some very impressive titles. In former years the term QC meant something nowadays it has been a patronage plum which Gov’ts use to reward those lawyers who are their friends. In Ontario appointment ceased in 1985 at the time the Province’s Atty. General who spearheaded the abolition said with unmistaken sarcasm he preferred the term Senior Ontario Barrister (SOB) for any lawyer who was upset.. The Federal Gov’t of Canada no longer appoints QC’s but the practice has continued in some other provinces.


  53. David we got a whole lot happening in Canada.

    “A Postmedia News-Ottawa Citizen investigation revealed last week that Elections Canada has traced fraudulent phone calls directing voters to nonexistent polls during the federal election to an Edmonton call centre that worked for the Conservative party across the country.”

    At least Barbados too small for that tactic to work.


  54. @David, given that your only Electricity company is now owned by Canadians you may want to pay attention to what is happening up here.lol


  55. Checkit-Out | February 27, 2012 at 9:32 PM. I don’t remember when DT was made a QC. In any case QC is usually given to government ministers (those who are lawyers) and to ambassadors and high commissioners (ditto) upon their relinquishing office. David Thompson was a minister in the Sandiford government. He had also practiced law, if memory serves, at Trident Chambers (the chambers of Errol Barrow Q.C.). He was also a UWI lecturer. I will ask a question and find out for you when DT was commissioned. But the question is moot and that fact remains that, in all the circumstances, he was a proper and correct person to be appointed a Queens Counsel.

    @David. BUT what is that that I see that Owen Arthur has now, with the elections in sight, decided to try to jump on the PM’s FOI bandwagon? Will wonders never cease – that or political expediency.


  56. What do you see ac…that like Jeff Broomes….(who I am told acting up again)…everything about this man is questionable.Heard Uncle Jeff strutting his stuff once more …now he is aware the DLP don’t have a snowball chance in hell.So ole Dispatch, phase II thru just went straight out the window….hope you see thru that also…


  57. ac:>>>No more stalling by BLP! Let FOI become legalislation!

    That would be MOST welcomed……OAS don’t steal like David,Mona Lisa ,Fay and LeBoy did……hope it don’t come back to bite FUNNY_D in the bot bot though (more thiefing)…when we take over the reigns of control in 2013 or before…. (don’t mind dat iduoo.)…I doubt this country could last til December…there is no money in circulation people…we will have once more to print moe money …don’t forget those cruise ship tourist not spending any and the Guyanese sending home bundles of cash…print moe money FUNNY_D moe money to see us thru…hotdog!..lol


  58. Hey almost forgot Hants..Emera takes out cash too they .send up to Emera $14 mill Cdn converted.. each and every month..imagino…..Hants have you seen any bajan money up there looking for the way HOME..???… a Grantley color is…grey..a Errol Barrow..greeny red, a Samuel is purple…..cuz they musse begging to come home poor fellows……


  59. @ Amused
    I did warn you that you should be rather more circumspect in your ” factual ” assertions if you want to be credible or taken seriously. The FACT is that Mr Thompson was called to the Inner Bar some time AFTER he became Prime Minister and as such was NOT at the time practising as a lawyer. That is unexceptional ; Mr Tom Adams was given silk similarly . You need not do any further research on that fact ; It is NOT A MOOT POINT.
    Your posturing on this issue is however somewhat surprising ; it is obvious that you would wish to deify Mr Thompson on the one hand but would , on the other hand , seek to bury CLICO and Mr Leroy Parris . So , like a primer- standard boy who had found out something for the first time , you rushed to Wikipedia to empower you to discuss technical concepts like laches and estoppel ALL IN AN ATTEMPT to bury CLICO and Parris while at the same time trying to misrepresent what I posted . Maybe you will now rethink your position and I hope you do a better job of defending it than you did in your defence above . YOU FAILED MISERABLY in your response to ” check-it-out ” .
    You may have the FINAL word on this ; I shall not be returning.


  60. @ Checkit-Out | February 27, 2012 at 9:32 PM |
    “Care to tell us what DT’s other good legal works were that qualified him for the QC honour? Did he practise in any significant legal cases other than for CLICO in general and Leroy Parris in particular?”

    millertheanunnaki | February 26, 2012 at 8:15 AM | @Amused | February 26, 2012 at 5:41 AM |
    “So David Thompson “got his silk” from fighting in the legal trenches to bravely uphold the hallowed principles of Justice?
    He made many appearances in the High Court where he displayed his excellent debating skills and sound knowledge of the law to argue cases on behalf of his clients that immensely impressed the juries, clients, legal fraternity and the on-looking public.
    Amused, when was David Thompson made a QC?”

    Thanks for checkmating “Amused”. I tried to get the dead king’s apologist to leave the castle seeing that he is no longer required, but to no avail.
    You are far better than I in shutting up “Amused”. He has been “punished with laughter”. At least we now know where he stands: stripped naked in the middle of the field amusing the on-lookers:


  61. Too good not to share.

    If you ever testify in court, you might wish you could have been as sharp as this policeman.
    He was being cross-examined by a defense attorney during a felony trial.
    The lawyer was trying to undermine the police officer’s credibility …..

    Q: ‘Officer — did you see my client fleeing the scene?’

    A: ‘No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender, running several blocks away.’

    Q: ‘Officer, who provided this description?’

    A: ‘The officer who responded to the scene.’

    Q: ‘A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?’

    A: ‘Yes, sir. With my life.’

    Q: ‘With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?’

    A: ‘Yes sir, we do!’

    Q: ‘And do you have a locker in the room?’

    A: ‘Yes, sir, I do.’

    Q: ‘And do you have a lock on your locker?’

    A: ‘Yes, sir.’

    Q: ‘Now, why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with these same officers?’

    A: ‘You see, sir, we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room.’

    The courtroom EXPLODED with laughter, and a prompt recess was called.


  62. “Care to tell us what DT’s other good legal works were that qualified him for the QC honour? Did he practise in any significant legal cases other than for CLICO in general and Leroy Parris in particular”?

    Checkit-Out,

    At the time that DT was given the QC designation, I asked a lawyer friend how are lawyers recommended for QC’s and how much law had DT practised that he was given a QC. He told me that on request from the PM, the Bar Association recommends names. He told me that when the list when to the PM, DT put on his name.

    As far as my legal sources tell me, Garth Patterson was the man behind the partnership whilst DT practised his politics and Garth left DT because DT still expected his fair share of the profits even though he DT did little or no work.

    So based on that pray tell me, how on earth did the dead king deserve a QC title???


  63. Excellent weblog here! Additionally your website rather a lot up very fast!

    What host are you using? Can I am getting your affiliate
    link for your host? I desire my website loaded up as fast as yours lol

Leave a comment, join the discussion.