Recently the Nation ran with a story which condemned a watchman at a school for hitting a young boy in the eye.

The claim by the boy that he was struck by the watchman turned out to be false.

It is the type of story that if it had involved a prominent or influential person the Nation probably would not have carried the story.

The Nation’s response when the truth was known – it was an unfolding news and it reported on it.

No regard for the reputation of the watchman whose reputation was dented in the process based on an allegation.

The Nation knows this is something that is done by the blogs, not the Fourth Estate.

http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/blow-to-eye/

The newspaper is under very pressing financial measures and profitability targets to meet as set by their Trinidadian major shareholder.
Like the same CLICO boss, the rag sheet would sell its fourth estate soul to the murdoch devil from the news of the underworld. Prostitution knows no bounds whether up bush hill, dayrells hill or down the fontabella lie ground.
A similar ethical telescope needs to be focused to the older damned lying party lady of the night closer to the club for rehabilitation of the sexually deviant or unfulfilled.

Thr Nation is classified:tabloid gossip’ geared to a certain section of the barbados population who likes to gossip. Does anybody take that “RAG ” seriuosly PLEASE!

@ David
Now you get technical….we heard what we heard….
How does socks taste ? Ronnie Clarke..of VOB fame..talks about frying them….yukkks !

Quoting Concerned Barbadian “investigations in this country,…innocence or guilt is proclaimed BY THE COURT… it is about time that the public impose the greatest possible censure on the Nation for its continuous irresponsible conduct.”

Concerned Barbadian do you want the Courts to proclaim the Nation guilty or innocent? or do you want the public to proclaim that guilt or that innocence?

@Random Thoughts

Have you given any credence to the public comment by the Chief Marshal?

@Random Thoughts

You need to pause and take a deep breath.

O<K< to be antigovernment.but anti truthfulness WELL!that's another STORY!

Quoting David of BU “Have you given any credence to the public comment by the Chief Marshal?”

Dear David it depends.Are these the same Marshalls the Prime Minister recently complained about? The ones who can’t find the chile fadders even while drinking in the rum shop with same reluctant daddies?

WELL SAID RANDOM…..you got them DUCKING….Parris still at CBC doa ?
No wonder we can’T get lil outside coverage or news bout nuttin CLICO on CBC….Hey The F____like he get vex bout the JM report Onions did reading Sunday….lol..he vex wid Deolitte and gone punna rant before he come out and say something bout the TEEFING….SHAME.

@ old onion bags | March 20, 2012 at 8:46 PM |

You are too ‘long in the tooth’ not to know that the man who pays the piper calls the tune. When a “Pal” not only owns you financially because of all the large loans called ‘donations’ but also knows all your personal and ‘bedroom’ business you have to admit this man has tremendous power over you and can dictate things either from the former chief corporate chair in walrond St. or from dayrells hill after being asked to vacate the plantation great house.
Just understand old boy, that the letters L & P in the damned lying party (dlp) stands for dangerous “Leroy the Pariah” .

@ David
Is bout time you realize I dun know how your bread buttered.So no sweat…aint go lose no sleep neither.

DOES everyone agree with me that this article is the worse ever article in the history of articles ???

@ David

Can you or anyone on this blog investigate whether the Nation Newspaper or its parent company(s) have an investment in CLICO?

Sometime I think they have a vested interest, do they?

@An Observer
Here is the report.
@Onions

BU has attracted every label under the sun. Note that we are proud to admit our bread is buttered with PY.
Managers defend distribution of CLICO report
Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:05
No copies of the forensic audit report on CLICO were provided to any person or organisation other than as directed by the court.
This clarification came today from the judicial manager of CLICO, Deloitte Consulting Limited, as details of the report continue to be a major talking point.
The judicial manager, through Oliver Jordan and Patrick Topping, pointed out that the court granted them leave to share the report with regulatory agencies in the territories where CLICO operates.
And in keeping with this they delivered a copy of the report to respective government offices or agencies that operate as insurance regulator in each of the territories including Barbados.
The judicial manager pointed out that it remains focused on its efforts to identify an investor for CLICO in the best interest of all policyholders.
They have promised a further update next month
Meanwhile an independent senator believes government has a duty to ensure CLICO policyholders and investors get their money back from the insurance conglomerate
Speaking in the Upper House, Dr Frances Chandler congratulated the policyholders group for its efforts.
Senator Chandler says she doesn’t agree with suggestions that the members are greedy.

CAN anyone say who is the worse Prime Minister of BARBADOS since sliced DO you know that

@miller

Word song has a beef and a grudge for the Nation. Remember how Word song carried on during the GANG of 11 plot. He/she wanted the Nation closed down and now the same thing.

When the DLP is under criticism, the Dems will come out and try to demolish the Nation. But they have no qualms with the Advocate or DLPCBC. Hold your town hall meeting, call out all the Dems to attend and see what difference that makes. But why you worrying about the Nation, you said after the GANG of 11 plotters were exposed that you would not be buying the Nation.

@miller

Have you ignored the earlier point that the Advocate and the CBC have negligible marketshare so who cares about them.

Let us not forget that the Advocate was a visible supporter of the BLP up until the last general election date.

@miller

We know that the make-belief mogul is very comfortable in the space of prime ministers.

@ David .
Thanks for your assistance in providing us with a report on the news bulletin. The bulletin provides two points of interest ; 1 . The judicial managers did not provide any copies of the report to any person or organisation other than as directed by the court ; 2 . they delivered copies of the report to government OFFICES or AGENCIES that operate as insurance regulator in each of the territories including Barbados after permission was given by the court to do so.
These revelations are of great significance since ALL of the heads of governments of the territories referred to and the Chief Minister of Anguilla said they had not seen the report . Mr Stuart’s own comments , confirming the report of the Minister of Finance Mr Sinckler , suggest that no report came anywhere near any of the ” offices or agencies ” to which he was connected .
This statement from Mr Jordan and Mr Toppin fromDeloitte does nothing to explain how UNAUTHORISED OFFICES OR AGENCIES OR PERSONS were able to gain possession of the report , and , in the case of the NATION NEWSPAPER , publish it . In the circumstances therefore their release does not rebut the presumption that they leaked the report to the Nation among others .
Since the managers were moved to address the concerns over the leaking of the report , it is disappointing that they did not address the concern of equal magnitude surrounding the method they used to pay themselves over 7 million dollars for 7 months’ work as managers of CLICO . Maybe they will return to explain this .

@ David | March 20, 2012 at 10:34 PM |
“We know that the make-belief mogul is very comfortable in the space of prime ministers.”

So does Leroy Parris, despite the lack of the right school.

@ David.
” The judicial manager pointed out that it remains focused on its efforts to identify an investor for CLICO in the best interest of the policyholder ”
Is working in the best interest of the policyholder exemplified by paying themselves over 7 million very scarce dollars in fees for 7 months’ work and appointing themselves as auditors ? Would Deloitte please explain how it could appoint Deloitte to audit Deloitte ? They can probably use their perceived ally the Nation newspaper to attempt a FULL explanation .

Its interesting how two people can read a statement and come to an almost diametrically opposite understanding of the implications of the statement.
I had thought that the JM’s had probably delivered one or very few well identified and marked copies to the Court only, leaving it up to the court to make copies available to whomever else they wished to. Such a process would have made it possible for FS and Chris Sinckler and the OECS ministers, who vehemently protested that they had not received an official copy to be deemed as being totally thruthful. My reading of the Judicial Manager’s statement above, however, suggests that the JM delivered the original copy(copies) of the report.to the court and a number of copies, under the direction of the court, to the SOI’s or their equivalent in all the CLICO affected OECS territories. In addition, since the report was dated on the 5th December 2011 and it took nearly 3 months for the report to have been leaked by the Nation, and knowing my caribbean people, it seems almost certain that the number of possible leakers (here and in the OECS)must be significant. I don’t think the leakers could have included the JM for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that 7 million dollars that an oBserver alluded to above. Is it reasonable that the JM would have risked those monies to have given the report to anyone other than the persons to whom the court had directed it be given?

In addition, imho. The release by the JM shows clearly that in Barbados at least, and I’m almost certain in the other islands as well, It would be very very strange that such a bombshell report, turned over to the SOI’s or their equivalents around the 5th december, would not have reached the relevant Ministers of Finance’s and PM’s desks in short order (hours not days). In fact I have hypothesized on this blog that the events of the eager 11 must have been related to that report and not to the relatively innocuous letter penned by one of their number. The circulation of the report strengthens that surmise somewhat.

Now where does that leave FS and CS. I suggest that most thinking Barbadians would conclude that, even if an official report was not seen by these two gentlemen, that they should have made it their duty to obtain a copy, after all the SOI answers to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance answers to the PM. If the SOI did not get copies of the report he received from the JM to the two of them forthwith it would have been gross direlection of duty.

I would also suggest that it is somewhat unlikely that an official copy will be forthcoming soon if ever, as the two gentlemen should have already been provided with unofficial copies. The official copies were for the Court and the SOI or equivalent post. Could it be that sight of an official copy might be an unlikely ploy and excuse that could be used by the Government to never address the questions re. the late DT’s involvement in the $3.333 Million CLICO matter before elections?

Is that the strategy for handling this red herring? in addition to casting aspersions on the JM’s integrity and continuing to beat up on the Nation for doing, in this case, what was the right thing, when provided with a bombshell report that was being kept under wraps by the Government for near to 3 months. If the Nation hadn’t published excerpts from it it is possible that it would have never seen the light of day.

Does anyone else think that the leaker might have been a member of the eager 11 or even an Opposition member?

@ David

I was disappointed in your response to Random way above. She did, and very precisely, ask pertinent questions. Which reminds me of the blog I posted somewhere but now can’t find. Maybe I didn’t post it after all and maybe Miller in his role as sage will have something to say about that. But I think (horrors) it was to this effect.

I happened to hear a part of a TV programme a few weeks ago on the Raul Garcia story. There were two ‘experts’, Mr Gollop and Ms Depeiza plus a moderator. It struck me that the whole programme was insensitive to Garcia’s position and might have been scripted by the government. I looked up Ms Depeiza and found she was a DLP candidate in Christ Church. Of Mr Gollop’s political leanings I knew nothing. So I asked around. The politicos here will know what I was told. I also rang CBC to express my concern about the way I felt the programme was loaded. In fact I spoke to the ‘moderator’ – who proceeded to tell me she had no sympathy with Mr Garcia either.

Now David – that cap doesn’t fit you does it? For myself, I always feel comfortable with Random’s ‘breathing’ technique. It’s always filled with an abundance of common sense.

@robert

Did not watch the program and can only assume the positions taken by the lawyers you mentioned had a basis in law. If such is the case it should not matter the political colour of the participants in the discussion. It is also instructive that Gollop usually makes himself available to VOB to clarify matters of a legal nature for the benefit of the public.

On the matter of Random Thoughts she like everyone else have opinions which help to inform a good debate on the issues at play. At the least the Nation newspaper should have quoted if the Marshal’s Office had served the summons in their original report as a matter of record and to give a balanced report. Whether we believe that office would have been manipulated by Parris surrogates is a secondary point.