Cost Of The Use Of Money Too High In Barbados

Submitted by the People’s Democratic Congress

Fixing money

As the cost of use of money theory would have it to be, the cost of use of money (in this case – Barbados money) invariably relates to the total amount of nominal costs –  expressed as a percentage of the Barbados dollar – that  individuals, businesses and others would find themselves contractually paying for from out of those nominal  incomes, payments or transfers that they would possess at the time; or would find themselves contractually passing on as further nominal costs to be borne by other individuals, businesses and other entities, in each and every case where they and others go and  USE – at the same time at innumerable points across the country – the Barbadian people’s money (value) on a daily basis.

In line with that theory, is the reality that whenever the cost of use of money theory is applied in the Barbadian setting, it naturally relates to the total amount of nominal costs – expressed as a percentage of the Barbados dollar – that individuals, businesses and others did find themselves contractually paying  for from out of those nominal  incomes, payments and transfers that they possessed at the time; or did find themselves contractually passing on as further nominal costs that were borne by other individuals, businesses and other entities, in each and every case where they and others went and USED – at the same time at innumerable points across Barbados – the Barbadian people’s money (value) on a daily basis.

Therefore, any variations or inconsistencies between what is theorized and what is actualized in terms of the cost of use of money in Barbados must be contextualized by the PDC in such a way as to manifestly underscore the very negative, deepening and ruinous political commercial financial trends that are currently taking place within the political economy and services industry sectors in the country.

Indeed, such trends are by and large the interconnected material financial effects of an alarmingly high cost of living and doing business in the country. Those three variables (the trends, cost of living, cost of doing business) are in turn therefore a direct and partial consequence of an already constantly rising, very exceedingly high cost of use of money dispensation in Barbados.

Hence, after the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, the THEORETICAL COSTS of use of money now stands, in 2012, in the region of an egregious 82% – 87% – in a country that is fairly quickly becoming a second rate Third World developing country.

So, what this particular statistic illustrates is how each point within the 82% – 87 % range of the dollar would represent the extent to which every Barbados dollar that would now be being transacted in ALL spheres of Barbadian dollar-denominated business activity in the country  would be being used for purely unproductive, under-used, atrocious money merchant tourism peddling purposes across all political economy and services industry sectors of the country;  whereas every point within the remaining 13% to 18% cohort would essentially represent the extent to which this same Barbados dollar would now  in respect of ALL spheres of Barbadian dollar-denominated business activity in the country   be being used to denote the precious little incomes that would be  generated from local productive activity conducted now.

Now, after 4 years straight of significant material production and exchange decline, the ACTUAL COST of use of money in this beloved country stands in the region of a staggeringly pernicious 84% – 87.5 % – a sign of the spiking of this phenomenon. Now, what each point within this 84 % – 87.5% range of this dollar represents is the extent to which every Barbadian dollar that is now being transacted in ALL spheres of dollar denominated business activity in the country is being used for purely unproductive, underused, abhorrent money merchant tourism peddling activity; whereas each point within this 12.5% – 16 % range  (a deepening of the phenomenon) represents the extent to which this same Barbados dollar is now in respect of ALL spheres of dollar denominated business activity in the country being used to denote whatever comparatively little incomes that are being generated from productive activity in Barbados.

For the year 2009 alone, the THEORETICAL COST of use of money would have been in the range of an appallingly destructive 80% – 85 %. What each and every point within that range would have represented was the extent to which every Barbados dollar would – in the same manner and in the same times described above – have been used for very redundant purposes; whereas each point in the remaining 15% – 20% cohort would have represented the coming about of less and less local productive activity. But, in the same 2009, the ACTUAL COST of use of money was in the range of another destructively high and growing 82.5% – 86.5 %. Such redundancy of use of money was also despairing. As for the remaining insubstantial 13.5 – 17.5 % range, each and every point within that range represented the actual coming about of overwhelming less and less productive activity in the country.

So, the above information – relative to the post 2008 to 2011 period – will show any person with a fundamental interest in the political economy service industry affairs of this country how commercial times have truly got more dramatically devastating since 2009!!!

Anyhow, some explanations of the variations between the THEORETICAL COST of use of money statistics and the ACTUAL COST of use of money statistics are:

  1. Over-borrowing (THEORETICAL COSTS) on the part of DLP and BLP governments over the last 15 years, and then very astronomical repayment costs (ACTUAL COSTS) seriously adversely affecting the money circulation and material production exchange processes of the country – it has been reported in the 2012 – 2013 so-called Estimates that this government is planning to provide a walloping $ 500 million plus in debt servicing in this fiscal year.
  2. That the political economy sectors (Manufacturing, Agriculture, Agro-processing, Construction, etc – where ACTUAL COSTS are mainly absorbed, sectorally speaking) being the main sources DETERMINING PRODUCTIVE INCOME generation and degeneration in the country are more terribly affected by a perniciously high cost of use of money variable than the services industry sectors (Tourism, Government, Financial Services, Retail, Wholesale and Distribution, Public Transportation – where such THEORETICAL COSTS are mainly passed on) are adversely affected by it – the latter being the main sources DETERMINING PURE COMMERCIAL MONEY peddling expansionary and contractionary activity in the country.
  3. That in all the recent political economic depressions in Barbados, including the current localized political economic depression, a greater proportion of income, payments and transfers go to providing ACTUAL COSTS for the maintenance of mortgage, rent, insurance, vehicular maintenance, communication bills, more than that proportion that provides the THEORETICAL COSTS for producing food and beverages garments furniture buildings and factories (thus deepening the recession).

What can also be gleaned from all the above analyses on the theoretical and actual costs of use of money is that actual costs can in the long term become expected costs of use of money when looked against the backdrop of a hardening of the theoretical costs of use of money.

The hardening of the theoretical costs of use of money comes about when greater and greater PROPORTIONS of the cost to national nominal  incomes, payments and transfers would, and in very concentrated and intensified ways, be concomitantly agreed at different levels to be given up and  passed on to multifarious other levels of business and commercial activity, in order for many other people in Barbados to simply USE the Barbadian people’s money, notwithstanding the already very scandalously high actual cost of use of money.

The hardening of the theoretical cost process also takes place when there would be NO reversals in the alarmingly high theoretical and actual costs of use of money trends in the country, primarily because there would  NOT have  been the Abolition of Interest Rates yet; there would NOT have been the Abolition of Institutional Repayable Productive Loans as yet too; the Abolition of Exchange Rates Parities with the Barbados yet; there would NOT have been the Abolition of Motor Vehicle Insurance and other unproductive insurance arrangements as yet; and  NO significant Debt forgiveness programs, etc. – things which constitute the component structures of the COST OF USE OF MONEY IN BARBADOS. But, so far there would have been so much more of these same very inane disarrangements, that there will certain to be continued greater aggravated contagion effects brought about in the actual incurring of very astronomically high costs for the  use of money in this country.

With regard to the cost of use of money statistics rendered above, there is every bit of evidence of the realization of the very toxic, ruinous, calamitous stage that the political economy and service industry sectors of Barbados have reached. And the evidence is there that this hardening of such theoretical costs, and that, also, this calcification of the non-redemption of such actual costs (the drying up of the means of repayment costs) have helped to tremendously cause: the CLICO Mess, the Al Barrack scandal, the Red Jet crash, Almond Beach Resorts Debacle, the Four Seasons cum Four Seasons/NIS affair, the demise of Speightstown as a commercial town centre, the critical state of private and public sector indebtedness, and the state of prolonged political economic depression in Barbados, with many more businesses to close and many hundreds more to become unemployed.

These present long term declines in national nominal incomes, payments and transfers – which have however significantly come about through increases in the theoretical and actual costs of use of money in Barbados (as well as TAXATION), can ONLY in the medium term be slightly attenuated by the favourable impact on those variables of NET sufficient political material productive growth and expansion, through the investment of significant monies allocated for such purposes.

But because the theoretical and actual costs of use of money are so staggeringly scandalously high in Barbados, and because the systemic and conditional causes of such are still pervasive throughout the country, there is NOT going to be – from where the country is positioned right now politically materially financially, being so lowly backwardly positioned – any such investments so collectively substantial and so sustained, so big and so well organized that they can be altogether help produce the many necessary cost-efficient spin offs to help bring about such acceptable levels in the national growth and expansion rates in the political economy and service industry sectors in the long term, in the face of patent material production and exchange decline and ruin.

Finally, while it is true that many Barbadians are realizing the stagnation, decline and ruin that are taking place all around them in the political economy and services industry sectors of the country, it is really a pity that so-called economists seem not capable of diagnosing what are the real and underlying causes of these very horrible political material financial problems. Moreover, many economists are using old, outdated ineffective tools of analysis and research in attempting to diagnose some of these causes, and are therefore seen by the PDC to be tremendously failing at coming up with effective partial policy solutions to the problems associated with such stagnation, decline and ruin. They are therefore unfazed by what they cannot see but that which is there!!

People like Mr. Clyde Mascoll, Mr. Ryan Straughn, Dr. Winston Moore, etc.,  are therefore failing to realize that the very astronomically high costs of use of money in Barbados are one of the big and  fundamental problems causing such considerable decline, stagnation and ruin in the material production and distribution exchange structures and processes of the country.

0 thoughts on “Cost Of The Use Of Money Too High In Barbados


  1. Talking about the value of money…

    HookersDowngrade US Credit Rating

    Shortchanging by Secret Service Draws Strong Rebuke

    NEW YORK (TheBorowitz Report) – Days after SecretService agents shortchanged a group of prostitutes in Colombia, the international trade group representing hookers downgraded the United States’ credit rating from AAA to B. The strong rebuke from the International Alliance of Professional Escorts came after a Secret Service agent reportedly paid one of its members $30 for an $800 service, or only 4% of the stated price. The statement from the International Alliance of Professional Escorts said that in downgrading the United States’ credit rating it was sending a clear message that its “members should be aware that doing business with the government of the United States carries with it a significant risk.”;“We are urging our members to avoid conducting transactions with the United States and to focus on more reliable customers, like the International Monetary Fund,” the statement added. Just hours after the announcement from the escorts’ group, the U.S. Congress passed the following resolution blasting the Secret Service for its actions: “We strongly denounce the Secret Service for consorting with prostitutes, which has traditionally been Congress’s role.”; But it was not all bad news this week for the Secret Service, which today reported a 5000% jump in enlistment.The agency said that enlistment offices across the country have been packed with prospective agents, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who abruptly dropped out of the Presidential race to join. 


  2. Chelsea beat Barci…thru to the UEFA Cup Finals…..BIG up CHELSEA….Barcelona…better luck next time…..now we talking BIG MONEY.. final score 2-2
    Droppa works for 1.3 Mil Pounds a week….what would I do with that kinda DOLLARES……$5.2 Million Bds a week..Cheezon breds


  3. This thread TOO HIGH for my lil comprehension.I wonder why .

    The hardening of the theoretical costs of use of money comes about when greater and greater PROPORTIONS of the cost to national nominal
    incomes, payments and transfers would, and in very concentrated and intensified ways, be concomitantly agreed at different levels to be given up and passed on to multifarious other levels of business and commercial activity, in order for many other people in Barbados to simply USE the Barbadian people’s money, notwithstanding the already very scandalously high actual cost of use of money.

    NOW THAT HAS TO BE THE LONGEST SENTENCE TONIGHT ON THE BLOG !


  4. The real post-independence failure is that of economic leadership from either party of government. We have depended on academics with no real experience to pass on their book learning. In the process we have failed to develop an industrial policy, depending on something called services, we have failed to open new non-bank lines of funding businesses, we have no policy for the launch and support of small enterprises and self-employment, and, worst of all, there is no intellectual culture of challenging the consensus.
    The global banking crisis and recession were a good time to review old habits, but instead we retreated in to the old shouting and screaming. But, this time it is different.


  5. I’m ‘sure’ that title means an awful lot to the ordinary man in the street!! lol!! Dave, way u does get dese people from nuh?!!

    Well, Mr Hal, if, as u say ‘this time it is different’, it would be considerate of you, to say the least, to at least inform us how ‘this time it will be different’ or, r u waiting to be asked!! ok, i asking yuh!!


  6. Term Report
    PDC has attended all the economics classes this term. He has also put himself forward for the post of Head Prefect.
    His coursework has not received good marks as he fails to concisely and logically address the topics set. He relies too much on his textbooks and does not seem to have a proper grasp of the subject.
    He needs to realise that simply repeating the information from the textbooks is not sufficient to gain good marks.
    His bid for the Head Prefect post is unlikely to succeed as his fellow pupils do not respect his academic ability.
    I suggest that he attends remedial lessons in the summer break.


  7. @ St.Lucy appointed

    Adapt yourself to the things among which your lot has been cast and love sincerely the fellow creatures with whom destiny has ordained that you
    shall live.


  8. @ David

    Sorry David – this is a ‘by-the-way’ in a post which doesn’t yet have too many blogs.

    Did you see the case reported in the Nation yesterday where Leacock accepted a manslaughter plea from a fella who was otherwise guilty of robbery/burglary and who shot and killed two persons in the house where the offence was committed? According to Leacock he had to accept the plea because of the abolition of the felony/murder rule in 1994. This is total rubbish. On the facts as reported murder charges could properly have been brought irrespective of the 1994 reform, What is this man playing at?


    • @robert

      What recourse do we (the people) have to question the DPP?

      We have had this discussion about Bjerkhamn and other cases.

      A good parallel example is the decision by the public prosecutor recently in Florida to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder as a result of public pressure. Can our DPP be influenced and or err in judgement with a file?

      In Barbados there is a reverence when it comes to questioning the DPP and others in certain positions.

      BU remains concerned that the DPP can hobnob on the Sandy Lane golf course with the who is who of Barbados without any need to question the potential influence this can have on decisions taken.


  9. @robert

    This matter you referred to seems to have you perturbed if one is to infer from your comment. To what extent do you feel the decision by the DPP is affected by the file given to him by the police?


  10. @ David

    I have no idea what he was given or what weight would normally be attached to it without more. What bothers me a bit is whether this is a back door way of seeing the end of the abolition…by way of an appeal to government…point being that there was no need to mention the ‘rule’ at all.. I think I’m right in saying that T&T have reintroduced the ‘rule’ after the PC wrote it off. But there was ample evidence here of an intention to cause at least GBH. The fella would doubtless plead self-defence or accident but even if they were successful (and I don’t think a jury would buy either), a manslaughter conviction would follow. There is a pattern of the DPP’s Office manipulating the law in this way. Is it just to avoid the expense of a trial? Cf the case of the arsonists where the fire-bomb was thrown at no-one in particular but where the public screamed ‘murder’. I don’t know what the position of that one is now.


  11. @robert

    Do you deny that the DPP should be influenced by cost considerations if the case is not airtight in his view?

    What mechanism do we have for a kind of ‘peer review’ of the DPP’s decision?


  12. @ David

    When is a case ‘open and shut’?

    I imagine anyone who could show an interest might bring an action for judicial review which would have the effect of compelling the DPP to reconsider; but I suspect the Court would say he still had a discretion save, I suppose, in the case of fraud or corruption.. Off-hand, I’m not aware of any cases here where judicial review has been sought for this purpose.


  13. @ David

    Why, chuch, are you smiling? LOL. Because there may be no cases here? There are plenty elsewhere. The point in this case is that the reference to the abolition of constructive malice as the reason for not charging murder is a total sham. Or are you just saying ‘good boy’ ?


    • @robert

      It was a eureka moment.at the realization there is someone who can do the DPP’s job better!..lol


    • @robert

      One would think if we are serious about oil checking our jurisprudence the office of the DPP must be on the radar as well.


  14. @ David

    Have been thinking about your remark that people seem to be intimidated by the Office of the DPP. How does that manifest itself and why? Is it a way of saying (simply) that people are scared of him and what he can do? I do recognise that he can be a little bad tempered on a personal level if you cross him…though underneath I’m sure he’s a doll.


  15. @RR. It isn’t as easy as you make out. The Police investigate crime and collect the evidence. They then present it to the DPP which decides whether or not there is a winnable prosecution. If the Police have not done their jobs properly, there may either not be enough evidence or vital evidence may be inadmissible.

    Remember too that persons can be sued civilly for taking another’s life. However, in a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, whereas in civil law it is rather less (balance of probabilities). Therefore, to win a civil suit for wrongful death by no means indicates that a criminal action can succeed.

    We do not see the evidence collected by the Police and presented to the DPP. Therefore, we are in no position to judge whether or not a successful prosecution could be made.

    Also, there are certain elements without which murder cannot be proved. The “actus reus” and “mens rea”. The first is the actual act of killing and the second is malice aforethought (in other words the intention and planning to kill). If the mens rea is absent, then the killing is manslaughter, not murder. There is no such thing as murder, absent mens rea.

    So, it is not as simple as you would have us believe. Then too, there are defences that the DPP would have to consider. One such is mental condition as originally set out in the McNaughton Rules of (if memory serves) 1835. If the DPP feels that a defence under these rules would succeed, then he is right not to prosecute for murder as it would (a) be a waste of taxpayer’s money; and (b) be a waste of the court’s time. Best to negotiate a deal on a charge that he knows will stick.

    Hope that assists you.


  16. @ Amused

    Oh dear…now dear Amused, you know I love you very much and though I would defer to your friend Observer (well mostly) when it comes to Administrative Law, I don’t think I would readily defer to anyone when it comes to the kind of matter we are discussing. Do you really think I would sound off in the way I did UNLESS I know what I’m talking about? Is that really my ‘style’ do you think? Your little lecture would all be dealt with in the first two weeks at Cave Hill. You’re not a pedant are you?

    Now: if you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that I prefaced my remarks with the usual disclaimer – ‘if the report is accurate’. You will also see that I acknowledged that this might be a cost saving exercise. You will also see that I referred to two possible defences. BTW – insanity? Well if that, the manslaughter plea would never have been accepted.

    Now a very little lecture of my own…for the mens rea of murder the killing does not have to be premeditated – planned – in the way you suggest. There’s no point in going on with that.

    Now I do assure you that I will argue this subject with you or anyone else till the cows come home…but I wouldn’t want to subject anyone to that. All I will say is that for the DPP to witter about the abolition of the felony/murder rule in a case of this kind as a justification for a manslaughter plea is complete tosh – and most particularly worrying if it signals some attempt to reinstate it on our books….which was the reason I wrote to David. If a man goes to a private house with a loaded gun and then proceeds intentionally to shoot two people, what is that if not murder? The self-defence issue is a possibility, I agree. But then the prosecution would say that the use of force was excessive – which it clearly was on the facts as reported.

    But it was kind of you to take an interest.


    • @robert

      Have no idea. Perhaps it is the perceived autonomous nature of the job and the threat of what Coleridge Street/Whitepark is capable of.


  17. @ David

    As I say, I didn’t quite know what the perception was – but, yes, I agree it must be as you say and, perhaps, not entirely without cause.


  18. @ David

    There is another point I was thinking on last evening. By withdrawing this kind of case from jury trial the DPP is actually inhibiting the development of our Criminal jurisprudence. The case in hand, on the facts as reported, actually raises an issue, actually a critical issue, in relation to what’s called ‘self-induced provocation’. The English law on this is to a degree conflicting and so this might have been a fine opportunity to settle it for ourselves.


  19. @ David

    Gawd I don’t know……but at least it’s not a BLP/DLP thing. I mean candidly I’ve often thought of writing to the CJ about this and that…so maybe this. I was present when he told the newly-Called beloveds that they should not diminish the importance of the Criminal Bar – which, for me, was a very welcome thing to say because, of course, that is what they do when they become ‘Miss Lawyers’. But then when they do they meet so many frustrations, as with others in a litigation practice, that they get fed up. And despite everything that’s said they really don’t earn much. I know someone who in the first seven months has only once earned enough to pay for their Chambers’ rent….and that person is totally dedicated and able.


    • @robert

      Sorry to learn of the plight of the inexperienced one. Do you think there is the opportunity for some of the ‘hungrier’ lawyers to market themselves to companies (local & regional) and become inhouse legal advisors? Companies may see it as an opportunity to cost save although the protection of ‘big’ law firm is stripped away.


  20. @ David

    Yes, some, I think, do that or think of doing it. But in other cases they really do want to realise whatever talents they have at the Bar. It takes time, of course, but in time they also get cynical. Sitting in an office waiting for a brief from a pupil master, or from CLS, or someone they happen to meet looking in at District A reading the Nation aint much fun I think. I wonder how many pupil masters do nurture those who pay them rent for sitting there.

    But there’s another thing. ‘Having a go at the CJ’ or ‘knocking the Bar Ass.’ or arguing about the legitimacy of practising certificates is great fun and is a crowd puller on BU.. But if you want to talk about law reform, like my whining about the Bail Act, no-one is interested. You said something in your first blog on the ‘Transformation’ post…about scrutinising our laws. And yes, it’s time we had our own Law Reform Commission and what used to be called in UK the “Criminal Law Revision Committee’.I once got the idea from a friend that the Government was interested in this idea passed on by him from me. But that was at least two years ago and nothing has come of it I think..


    • It is evident despite our investment in education we have been unable to feel the force of it in these times given the new way of thinking /doing things which is required. The job of reviewing our laws appears to call for an expertise which we would have to acquire and there is technology which complements it. Our reliance on a CPS which is overworked and has implication for building efficiencies in civil society is not acceptable.


  21. @BU.David: “The job of reviewing our laws appears to call for an expertise which we would have to acquire and there is technology which complements it.

    Do I understand you correctly that you are saying that Bajans are not capable of reviewing our own laws?


  22. Investment in education…at the tertiary level is about copying and memorising and regurgitating We stifle original thought..and so again (forgive me) we breed copiers. There are people here who have the innovative ability ….Sir DS is one; Alleyne J is another; Chase JA (retd) is another – should be easy enough to find 10. As for the technology required – I’m out of my depth and so don’t see it as an obstacle. But then in my heart I’m still hooked on quills.


    • Agreed that we should be able to review our laws but such an exercise will call for more wouldn’t it?

      A Google will throwup many outfits who will bring in off the shelf solutions.

      No doubt they would have to work with the local talent.


  23. @robert ross: “That is how I took David’s statement. And for me – yes we are capable.

    So, then, we have a bit of a disconnect.

    The most important BLOG master in Barbados doesn’t think we have the ability to decide our own fate.

    You, on the other hand, do think we do.

    Who is correct?


  24. @BU.David: “Try to depart from your usual pedantic nature.

    Why?


  25. @David: “Time is valuable.

    Indeed. The fundamental currency is Time.

    Some may choose to spend their time by pointing out when others are trying to waste yet others’ time.

    Is doing so being pedantic?


    • @Chris

      Not at all. Do the Google about how law reviews and activities which support is done and let us have your thoughts. Afterall you are the expert here.


  26. @BU.David: “Afterall you are the expert here.

    Far from.

    I am but one expert. There are many experts who spend a lot of time ensuring that BU is honest and relevant.


  27. Well…I really don’t know what that was all about. But @ David….do we really want ‘off the shelf solutions’. I mean…say you scrutinise the Firearms Act. You can look at it from the moral, policy, analytical and relativist perspectives – but it would have to be within a Bajan/Caribbean perspective – in that order. You might then decide that seven years for possession of a single round of ammunition is absurd given that seven years was the term for a fella who accepted the DPP’s offer of ‘guilty of manslaughter’ in what was rooted in a murder scenario and when there were no compelling reasons to conclude that self-defence and provocation were realistic runners. That may tell us something about sentencing policy for both offences. But you surely don’t need anything or anyone from elsewhere to teach us any of that. Oh, by the way, add Burgess JA to my list and Crane Scott J as the statutory female. Then you can add three senior members of the Bar…well, Observer and Shepherd might be two. Then an academic. Cumberbatch is by far the best of the current bunch. Then an economist or philosopher if there are any good enough. Ditto an intelligent cleric – difficult that one. Oh – at least one junior member of the Bar – because more likely to be up to date and keen – ensures meetings are quorate.. Then you’ve got it. Sort out the remit – and tell ’em to get on with it. Supply secretarial support. Reports and proposals to be presented to Parliament by Att-General. I reckon you’d have as good a bunch as you’d find anywhere. There’s also room for a pedant – yes, the ‘official’ pedant.


    • @robert

      The off the shelf solution refers to how the information would be indexed, archived etc. The work that the documentalist would do,

      No mention of Lesly Walcott?


  28. @robert ross: “You might then decide that seven years for possession of a single round of ammunition is absurd given that seven years was the …

    On the other hand, why would anyone unlicensed hold a round?


  29. I’m not going to be drawn. You have the statutory female. LOL As for the mechanics…I do think we’re unduly obsessive about all that. See my quill remark. How did we manage once upon a time before mobiles and all the rest. But if it helps – sure.

    Supposing a man is left his Dad’s shotgun in the latter’s will. He doesn’t know what to do wth it though he knows he doesn’t want it. He decides to throw it in the sea which is five minutes away. Three minutes into his walk he is apprehended. The gun has a single cartridge. What offence(s) has he committed? Supposing it was an air rifle with a single pellet. Does it make any difference if he places the gun in his dustbin which is on the side of the road?


  30. @robert ross: “Supposing a man is left his Dad’s shotgun in the latter’s will.

    You know what? I suspect this is not the case for those who are sent away for seven years for possession of a shell.

    Please correct me if I am wrong.


  31. @David

    Just saw your link to the story about the employee who donated a kidney to her Boss and got fired for her efforts. As the report states there is a new contender for “Boss from Hell”. Just to play amateur psychologist perhaps the “Boss’ didn’t want to be reminded of the “gift” and seeing the employee everyday would make her feel indebted to her and the “Boss” couldn’t handle those feelings. On the face of it seems heartless but there is a reason that medical authorities want donors identity to remain confidential because they don’t want to place undue burden on the recipient or expectations on the donor’s family (in the case of a deceased donor). Medical ethicists would have a field day discussing this issue.

    In the subject case perhaps someone is wishing for a bit of karma, you don’t suppose that there is a wish that a little bit of rejection occurs?


  32. Sargeant I thought you would be commenting on the Ontario dowgrade and the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that will tax the millions you have in Barbados.lol


  33. @Hant’s

    What ruling? Did I miss it something? I heard that you moving to Alberta after the last budget which adds a surtax to you high rollers making over $500,000 p.a 🙂


  34. @ The Entity

    The fellow has a record of crimes of violence and has a previous conviction for a firearms offence No-one believes his story. Cf. Pope Cr. App 11 of 2007

    L


  35. Supposing he reaches the beach and meets a friend who tells him he’d better discharge the gun before jettisoning it. The friend, as he knows, is 16. He gives the gun to the 16yo. He fires the gun into the sea where there are a number of swimmers. They are then both arrested.

    But time for you to do some work – if only to confound the ‘pedantry’ charge. Is the Law Commission proposal workable?

    And you too David….as the island’s Chief Blogger.


    • @robert

      It is an important topic. Will access our limited inhouse resources and see what is possible.


  36. @RR. “Do you really think I would sound off in the way I did UNLESS I know what I’m talking about?”

    Yes. That is precisely what you are doing. Indeed, if you look over all your posts, what you usually do.

    @RR. “By withdrawing this kind of case from jury trial the DPP is actually inhibiting the development of our Criminal jurisprudence.”

    Ever heard of the Court of Appeal and the CCJ? The DPP has a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that when (not if) a case comes to appeal (which is not before a jury) the decision of the jury will not be reversed. Once reversed, then double jeopardy applies and even if later evidence of inculpation comes to light, it cannot be retried.

    @RR. “I’m out of my depth….”

    Agreed!!!

    For the rest, I agree with CH (or entity that was).


  37. @ Amused

    LOL…what an unintelligent toad you are but good entertainment. One thing though – why ARE you always up someone’s ass? Consider whether it constricts your brain.


  38. @RR. I admit it is a challenge for me, an unintellegent humble toad (whom you have accused in the past of being over-educated) to deal with self-confessed small men like you whose brains are so expanded by their constant desire to get up other people’s asses. But I am happy with my big pond and lilly pad and unintelligent education and leave the excrement of the world to you. I am sure you will regurgitate it contsantly for our edification.


  39. This guy Hal must either be very ignorant or rude, or both. So many replies n not a single response from him! Dave, u mus have a lot of fiaf, bro!!

Leave a comment, join the discussion.