@Casewell. You could only be a ass. A leader of the opposition has a right of consultation, not of veto, on the appointment of a CJ.

Also, my recollection is that Simmons was appointed in 2001, but I seem to think (and am happy to be corrected) that the then leader of the opposition (DLP) was none other than Mr “I Got To Be PM” Mascoll. NOT David Thompson. Is my recollection right or wrong? Some expert please advise.

@ robert ross.
And remember curiosity kille the cat .Tread carefully.

@ Caswell ! NOBODY nor NOTHING is safe with you far more my identity ; you may continue with your speculation . But be careful ! you are in danger of taking a 6 for a 9 ….LOL . Peace .

The Opposition Office of DLP….( whether gearbox or spiderman)…..”as Leader of the Opposition, was consulted about the appointment of David Simmons as Chief Justice, and he gave the appointment his blessing.”

@robert

Understand your point about legitimate expectations. Let us wait to see those documents then!

@Caswell

In this case it is legitimate to question Simmons’ reference to having documents. It is the speculative ‘drama’ that will now dog election rhetoric up to election time. Who is to benefit from it all?

Timing is everything evidence is nothing,,, in politics..lol

Old Onion bags

Don’t go on the back foot: those fellows can’ bowl.

I am not in the habit of backing down from anything that I would have said, and this time, it will be no different. I wish to state emphatically that DAVID THOMPSON, as Opposition Leader, was consulted and agreed to the appointment of David Simmons as Chief Justice. You would recall when Simmons retired as AG in August 2001, he gave a broad hint at his retirement function at the St. Thomas Branch that he would be moving to higher office. The consultation was completed before Simmons demitted office as Attorney General.

Simmons’ retirement paved the way for a by-election in St.Thomas which the DEMS lost miserably. Thompson accepted responsibility; fell on his sword; and resigned as political leader and Opposition Leader. Mascoll assumed those offices. Simmons became Chief Justice after Mascoll became Opposition Leader, but the consultation was done before Mascoll’s time. A similar thing happened with the appointment of the current Chief Justice. If memory serves me correctly, Thompson consulted with Mia Mottley, as Opposition Leader, on the appointment of Marston Gibson as CJ before they discovered that he did not meet the requirements of the legislation for appointment.

By the way Observer, you were with me on the campaign trail with David Simmons in St. Thomas. What has happened now that you have taken such a hostile approach to Simmons.

To David.
Should be grateful if you would provide the link for this legal authority : LEACOCK ( Pearson ) v ATTORNEY-General…(2005) 68 West Indies reports 181. Counsel appearing ..Steve Gollop for the applicant , Mr Leacock ; Roger Barker and Sharon Deane for the Attorney-General ;
Sitting : Sir David Simmons Cj ; dates of hearing 11 ,13 AND 27 OCTOBER 2005 . This will give readers some insight into the legitimate expectation doctrine to which you referred above . With thanks .

@Pacha

It is unfortunate Cawell has resorted to using such an approach. Be assured it must all be speculative on his part and nothing to do with BU’s involvement.

@Pachamama | April 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM |
@ David
Could it be that persons other than you have managed to compromise the
implicit and or actual confidentiality of BU. And if this is so could you shed light on the remarks above where one person is attemping to abridge the free speech rights of another under a threat of outing that person. How could this be? Is nothing sacred? You David are being called upon to defend this allegation.
**************************************
NOTICE HOW HE TRIES TO DODGE THE QUESTIONS………..

David

Rest assured, I will respect bloggers’ anonymity. I have no intention of disclosing anyone’s identity: that is up to them. Since I have been writing on this blog, I have been able to identify three people from what they have written, one of whom was very offensive to me. I did not even retaliate and disclose his identity: I merely spoke to him on the telephone and ask why he was “cussing” me. You see I am a very good listener, and I am able to identify people by what say and how they say things. My only problem in this regard, I am yet to work out who is the man called Bush Tea. He has me at a severe disadvantage.

@ Caswell.
Throw away the IDENTITY RED HERRING now Caswell . Deal with the misinformation that you fed us on this blog . persons were named to refute your claims about who were first to the honours mentioned by you . DEAL WITH THAT ! CONTRADICT IT NOW IF YOU CAN or forever hereafter hold your peace.

@ David
You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks very much. Of course this does not make contact with the wider internet freedom debate. For we now know that certain agencies are able to compromise whatever security mechanism that you may establish in ways that are generally unknown to most contributors.

@ Observer

Do you think you might get your eyes tested? At no point have I said or implied that the judgment in Leacock is novel in a Caribbean, or wider, perspective. Indeed, you acknowledged this when you quoted me above – see the word ‘here’. In Barbadian terms, it was a landmark decision – as you say clearly in your middle-of-the-night post argued by the son of Gollop for Leacock. For the rest we all have Fiadjoe in our libraries.

As for my reference to GOLLOP in my earlier blog, there was no room for error or misunderstanding. You stated the case was argued by Steve Gollop. I knew it was argued by Steve Gollop – I have the report here. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist because I said it was argued by GOLLOP? Beats me…………………

@ Observer

When all else fails you resort to threats. You tried it obliquely with Caswell; you’ve tried it with me. But no matter – bring it on. On transferred malice – yes you’re quite right I do know it – but I would in fact be aiming at a block of wood.

Pachamama; as Caswell noted, there are ways in which a regular poster can be identified on this blog by style of writing, common typographical mistakes made, references to past occurrences, where he/she lived, or worked, attendance at functions, occupation, etc. etc. (But of course people with an agenda can mislead a seeker by providing false information in their posts)
In addition, there are ways in which anyone’s computer and its location can be positively identified by anyone with the correct software tools that are freely available on the web. Ask the entity formerly known as Halsall, or David, or even Bonny Pepper if that is so? I would hate to discover that Big Brother is monitoring this blog to identify posters (I mean the bajan big brother not the real global one). As far as I can see, David has never disclosed anyones ideentity on this blog. But who knows what can happen.

@BU.David: “Many agree that the state of the courts is a mess which reaches back for many years.

But!!! CJ Simmons was CJ during many of those years.

One might have reasonably thought that someone given the job of CJ would have wished to do the job well (read: make changes to make things better) rather than simply taken the money and done nothing meaningful.

But perhaps I’m simply stupidly naive….

@David
It has returned to a full political issue too. Performance will drift into the shadows of “our” partisan minds….

@BU.David: “This is the point$m(sic) why are we drifting away from what is a performance issue?

Your question is?

Please try to be coherent. You are the blog master, after all….

@ Caswell
LOL.
No need to bother about Bushie having you at a disadvantage, Bushie has your back. You are much more of an asset than you even know, any idiot can be a good prime minister, the challenge is to keep them an honest, caring, faithful representative of their oath of service….
You more than anyone we know, have the knowledge, patience and balls to keep such a person in proper line if given the correct tools to do so…It did not take Bushie long to figure that out (40 years or so…. LOL)
Bushie actually called your name on this blog even BEFORE you came on here…. David may recall….

As to who Bushie is? 🙂 ….. Nobody really, …..unless you are talking about BBE’s side of things…

As to the former CJ, … a nice person, but like most Bajans, never really saw any direct connection between the job he held and any ACTUAL results obtained. It was just a “deserved perk”.
He is probably truly confused that he was not retained because he saw it as a right – rather than because of any reference to producing results.
This is exactly how most Bajans operate… From the leaders to the lowest workers….

@ Onions
Try and go long back to school tomorrow and teach the people’s children. Bushie leaving you to Uncle Jeff …. 🙂

@ Bushie
A rat by the tail will curtail it to be free…..enuff said or no a parting shot..The success of the wicked tempts many to sin. ..but sweet days don’t last forever either…..wanna go find a job for he ..or them!

@An Observer

See link to case:

http://www.lawcourts.gov.bb/LawLibrary/events.asp?id=628

!@DAVID

CAN U get the ruling of the police officer and have it printed here, i am not filly seized of the facts, bit i was told that the commisioner had made the decision and not the the Training Committe.

“One step forward and two steps backward and tremble
Hold belly and tremble …
It’s the breakdown”

Now who pen dah song fah Serenader when he win de crown again … Can’ seem to remember, brain goin’ addle now (Gettin’ too close to Sergeant now)

@ David ..
Thank you most kindly for providing the link for the Leacock Case .

Aint it funny how a few words from someone many believed Thompson ‘fixed’ causing so much commotion.Wunna shudda tell Thompson not to tell lies on folks.