Not This DAVID – Who Writes For the Blogs!

Submitted by David Bryan, Attorney-at-Law and former General Manager of the Barbados Advocate Newspaper

I received a telephone call last Friday June 8th, 2012 by a concerned person, who decided to do what rarely Barbadians do, when they have heard a rumor about someone, and that is to approach them directly about it.

Even though I was surprised what this individual informed me on what people were saying concerning me, in this country. Indeed, I was not disappointed, since it is systemic in our culture to gossip about individuals regardless of the consequences this behavior may cause. Hence the law of libel is there to protect such innocent parties.

In any event, I would like to “clear the air” as it relates to these rumors which according to my anonymous friend were circulating for the last 5 or so years, to which I obviously had no idea, until now.

Why the last 5 years? Well as the story goes this was the time, that the Barbados Underground and the Barbados Free Press started their blogs. It was also around the time in which I resigned as General Manager of the Barbados Advocate newspaper.

So as the Bajan powers of deduction goes, I had to be the “blogger” behind these sites and the several libelous articles over these last few years, because I had the wherewithal journalistic connections to get the stories.

But here’s the rub, which the caller really had with me; that I was this “David” of the Barbados Underground – a “serial” blogger who has written numerous (libellous) articles relating to the former Attorney General and Chief Justice Sir David Simmons whilst he was in office and still up to this day because I had some sort of “vendetta” against him.

Firstly, I have read and do read the Barbados Underground and the Barbados Free Press. Secondly, I informed that caller and would also like you to know in the interest of clarity that this “David” has never written, and or submitted any article at any time to either blogs on any issue, especially those pertaining to Sir David Simmons (this is my first time!). Thirdly, I categorically deny any connection whatsoever with any person writing or managing the said blogs.

Finally, I have no vendetta against the former Chief Justice Sir David Simmons and for what it is worth I told the concerned caller that during my tenure at the Advocate newspaper (2000-2006) all my articles were well researched and responsibly written under my name and if I did or do have to write anything about something or someone in this country concerning any relevant issue, I would continue to attach my name without fear as I do now.

Posted by BU unedited

0 thoughts on “Not This DAVID – Who Writes For the Blogs!

  1. We post this blog UNEDITED to demonstrate how the BU household operates.

    Our only comment is that this is the first time we have heard this rumour to which David Bryan alleges.

    The “tales” which are likely to flow…

    • @David Bryan

      Feel free to send us a front shot, the image we posted is the only one online when you were charged a few moths ago.

  2. So as the Bajan powers of deduction goes, I had to be the “blogger” behind these sites and the several libelous articles over these last few years, because I had the wherewithal journalistic connections to get the stories.
    One of the catalyst behind the DLP’s ascention to power was the virulent manner the blogs attacked the appointment (although well after the fact) of Simmons to the post of CJ. This issue still seems to resonate to this date even today although he has been cut adrift from that position.
    The blogs general anti Gov’t position rankled the BLP so much so that a Cabinet member (Mia Mottley) mused publicly about imposing restrictions on the Blogs. In a curious turnabout the DLP has now found itself as the target of this anti Gov’t rhetoric and it brings to mind that Bajan adage “wah sweeten goat mout” etc.
    The BLP may very well regain power in part thanks to the blogs but I wonder who is trying to unmask the real “David”? The real “David” should ensure that he has his bases covered as the fore mentioned Mia is kin to the other David and as the other aphorism goes “Blood is thicker than water”

  3. @David. I saw a comment involving BU’s resident troll RR, who I prefer to refer to as “Red”, on BFP in which the following speculation ensues:

    “Nemesis du Nimrod
    June 2, 2012 at 4:10 pm
    Quoting John Legend, ‘Everybody knows…’ that BU is the son of Anthony Bryan, owner of the Advocate, it is why he gets those unusual legal scoops even the Nation doesn’t list, um, ATB has 3 sons & this is one of the twin – David? Which is the same name as in BU, h’mmm!”

    And Red’s contrubtion is:

    “robert ross
    June 2, 2012 at 8:10 pm
    @ Nemesis

    Really? says RR with a look of amazement on his face. Funny, I know one of the sons and have spoken about the Free Presses to him…he has always expressed either ignorance or incredulity. So who is ‘David’ – the ‘many headed’ in his hydra-headed form? On legal scoops – some are total fabrications – but I do realise there’s a link with HH in Roebuck St – which explains the unmitigated vitriol against the former CJ and the obsequious fawning of the present one.”

    So, Red, maybe Mr David Bryan might like to name the person who contacted him to ask if he was David from BU.

    However you choose to slice and dice it, if the true identity of “Robert Ross” is revealed, then “Rober Ross” will have only himself and his own duplicity and stupidity to blame.

    I cannot tell you the last time I have been so amused.

  4. So the power of my deduction is that David Bryan is wasting our time for reasons I can’t fathom.

    He should try to have this removed from the internet.

    Everyone makes mistakes but he was not found guilty of anything so in my layman’s opinion he is an innocent man who was wrongfully accused.

    As far as the blogs are concerned you must all be aware that if BU is terminated HU or LU or FU will start up.

    As for who leaking to whom……. It is freakin Barbados people!

    Everybody got a personal friend or family who will leak a leak.

    nuff said.

    Now let’s big up Tino Best. He is more important (to me) than attention seeking goliaths.

    • David Bryan – as a lawyer – BU invites you to provide the links on BU where we have defamed Sir David Simmons.

      We have been highly critical of his tenure as CJ that we admit.

  5. @David. I suspect that David Bryan will not answer you, because nowhere has David Simmons been defamed on BU and I am astounded that an attorney-at-law and one who has worked and managed an organ of the Fourth Estate appears not to be familiar with:

    1. Fair comment on a matter of public interest.

    2. The Public Figure Doctrine.

    Once Mr Bryant has had the opportunity to review his notes from law school, he may like to withdraw the accusation that BU has defamed David Simmons. He is reminded that David Simmons is and was a public figure and therefore that BU has exercised fair comment on matters of public interest.

    This self-righteous bullshit from members of what masquerades as a Fourth Estate in Barbados (and thus demeans proper international journalists) is a LIE – a fiction that the Barbados Fourth Estate has cooked up to excuse their lamentable record for actually reporting issues of national interest, if they run contrary to which ever political master they happen to be serving at the time.

  6. First Robert Ross and now one David Bryan. I smell a dead fish. that Ross person appears to be a petulant youngster, who gets upset if he does not have his way. He has lots of questions and gets his pants in a knot if he does not gets answers. This is a blog. We are not in School and he is not the teacher. Besides, he fraternises with the enemy. We who have been BANNED from BFP, like myself and BAFBFP, (banned again from Barbados Free Press) should be leery of his utterances.

    I am looking forward to the day he is caught up between Bush Tea and MME with Amused as the Godfather. I suspect he is no Adrian Hinds, his skin does not appear thick at all.

    • @pat

      Good to see you about.

      robert is on a mission, let him be, time is longer than twine said the man from St. Philip.

    • @BU’s legal eagles

      To criticize the performance of Simmons as CJ is to impute Malice?

      Yet another blog freely lampoons him (Simmons) but evokes never a reaction?

  7. @ David

    As I read this, David B has heard that he is reckoned to be ‘you’. Given the timing I would guess that the catalyst is the BFP exchange which Amused has accurately published. The suggestion astonished me, as you will see, but whoever it was seemed to be saying it was an ‘open secret’.

    What DB is saying is that he is not you and has not contributed any post to either BU or BFP; it follows that he has not uttered any libellous remark about DS in any formal setting of that kind.

    That seems to me a perfectly proper thing for him to say though it will be interesting to see whether he also publishes his post on BFP – which I suppose he should since that was seemingly where the specific allegation was made.

    The whole thing has sparked an interest in BFP – which may be a good thing since, as compared with BU, the following is not presently that numerous. You have Amused to thank for that.

    However, I am bound to say that of course there is speculation about who you are. You do have a number of faces. Certainly for the ‘law’ posts I simply do not recognise the David whom I first met on BU – a David who was helpful and, though he led from the front (excessively I thought), did at least have a sense of open-handedness and was prompt in answering questions just as he was answered when he himself prompted them. I am not the only person to have noticed what I referred to as the ‘hydra-headed’ David.

    It is also clear that certain persons – for this purpose unmentionables – do have an affinity with David and have seemed to me to lead BU along a path quite different from what it was. For much of the time it is ‘for David read unmentionable’. Well that is BU’s prerogative but it is not, I believe, something which is lost on those who have eyes to read and ears to hear. And in my view, as I have said several times lately, it is BU which is the poorer for it..

    • @robert

      Have you ever considered the very blog which affords you anonymity you would seek to have the owner(s) exposed?

      Who gives you license to speak for David Bryan?

      Were you the person who apprised Bryan?

      What has BFP to do with Bryan’s concern if he is about being misrepresented as David of BU?

      Sorry robert but it is evident you are the person perpetrating this dastardly act.

      Previously you were advised BU would treat you as a hostile commenter, treat that as firm.

  8. @David. Red wants to know if I have heard of malice. But BU has covered this exhaustively already, with comments from all of its legal eagles. So I see no need to go there again. If you wish, you can point Red to those discussions, but I shouldn’t worry – where ignorance is bliss (and man, is he ignorant)…… Malice, as was stated and re-stated in those blogs, in the case of a public OFFICIAL, as opposed to a public FIGURE, is almost impossible to prove. The burden of proof is astronomical and when there are politicians involved, impossible.

    @Pat, dear Pat. As always you have smacked the Red R*ssh*le firmly on the head. Just pretend that he doesn’t exist – he doesn’t, you know. He is a figment of his own imagination, a legend in his own mind. As you have almost certainly surmised, he is off his meds at the moment.

  9. @David

    Yet another blog freely lampoons him (Simmons) but evokes never a reaction?
    Quite right about that one, but look at it this way you must be ruffling some feathers otherwise you would be ignored. What is really amusing is R Ross seeking solace in the bosom of BFP in the hopes of bolstering his case for the retired CJ which akin to carrying coals to Newcastle as BFP had a few prominent blogs with the CJ in a dress.

    • As I read this, David B has heard that he is reckoned to be ‘you’. Given the timing I would guess that the catalyst is the BFP exchange which Amused has accurately published. The suggestion astonished me, as you will see, but whoever it was seemed to be saying it was an ‘open secret’.

      Submitted on 2012/06/10 at 6:36 PM

  10. Sarge did you enjoy the Barbados Ball and did you get an audience with the PM?

    Don’t need the list of good lawyers. I already got one from a person who shall remain nameless.

  11. @ David

    You’ve lost the plot.

    1. Who gives me the right to speak for David B?

    BU has posted something from him. I explained him as I understood him. It was what Amused calls ‘fair comment’.

    2. I wish to have the owners exposed

    I have no wish to have the owners exposed. But I do want the owners to live up to the standards they have forged.

    3. Was I the person….?


    4. What is BFP’s concern?

    It was on BFP where the suggestion was made that David is DB. You have published it yourself.

    5. It was you that committed this “dastardly” act

    Which particular “dastardly” act? There have been so many on BU lately. And actually your questions to me amount to one of them. But no matter.

  12. Ross

    Something must be wrong wid me … I don’ find you offensive at all, even though I must not agree with you on all that you say …

    I will say this though, if de women gun cuss you, tek it like a man and move on …! The ones pun BU does get it wrong from time to time.

    (Oh shite if Pat come back that means GP gun put in an appearance shortly … HA HA HA)

  13. @Hants | June 10, 2012 at 4:26 PM |
    “Everyone makes mistakes but he was not found guilty of anything so in my layman’s opinion he is an innocent man who was wrongfully accused.”

    where in the article was he found not guilty? in fact on reading the article, the case was dropped because the money was repaid…meaning block-head, he was guilty, in order for the case to be dropped he repaid ALL that he had stolen from his client…u people never ceases to amuse me with ur vast knowledge of world affairs and infinitesimal knowledge of understanding simple sentences.

  14. Hants

    Because the case get dismissed don’ mean that he ain’ guilty … He probably find somebody to bail he out of the mess that’s all .. This is Ba’bados man, evabody guilty of some shite, it’s just that some ah we foolish enough to mess with the wrong people and that is the “mistake” that lawyers is mek … regula … !

  15. who cares if people mistaken him for David of BU? i was once accused of having a married work-mate and never hear about the rumour until 3 years after i left big deal, life goes on. i then understood why his wife almost ran me over with her car, why she would give me really dirty looks whenever she saw me…poor me never knew what was going on…humans are truly amazing creatures and to think that if she was mature enough to come to me, i would have directed her to his real lover..tsk, tsk tsk

  16. @ Sarjeant

    Disappointed in you. But if you must be one of the herd…..

    For the record…

    When I first started blogging not very long ago I first discovered BFP. I knew nothing about them nor anything at all of BU. There I encountered the Garcia story which I empathised with. Then I discovered BU…and found the experience I suppose, at least initially, more invigorating. Someone I respect told me that BFP was for “white boys”. That mattered not to me. Someone else told me BU was ‘racist’. That didn’t bother me either. Get it? Now – I have never in my life run from a fight, whether it’s one to one, or a gaggle of BU people who in my book don’t amount to that much. So, yes, I’m quite prepared to mix it with any or all of you. As I said to someone, there are people on here I respect very much. I know very little about them besides what I read. But I regard them as honest, open hearted people. For the rest I couldn’t give a toss.

    Now Serjeant…of course I know the BFP attitude to DS. That doesn’t concern me either. When the time presents itself, as it may, I will take exactly the same line then as I have here contingent upon what exactly is being said.

    What intrigues me is why there is all this fuss about Robert Ross. Have I pushed too many buttons? I really don’t know. What I do know is that Amused is following me all over the place; likewise Tea. That’s up to them, poor things. And then there’s David – this ‘David’ who had already seen what I’d written on BFP since Amused had published it on the first “Tales’ post at a time when it was, for me at least, off the radar. So Serjeant – work it out if you can. It is all being very carefully manipulated…maybe even this ‘post’ from DB. Much the same was done with the anonymous email about Gollop.. I really don’t know but to quite someone I once respected “Never a dull moment on BU.” So watch this space will you…

    • To quote Mr.robert ross

      Now Serjeant…of course I know the BFP attitude to DS. That doesn’t concern me either. When the time presents itself, as it may, I will take exactly the same line then as I have here contingent upon what exactly is being said.

      In other words it matters not that BFP’s opinion about Simmons is already a matter of record. It has to be restated by them (BFP) for Mr. Ross to have his say. What better opportunity, if we understand it correctly, for Mr Ross to raise the issue under a topic highlighted which he penned recently about the Courts?

      Mr. Ross you have the BU familee bawlin!

  17. @ David

    Is your quote from me supposed to be a “dastardly act” – a piece of interpretation? That is sooooooo dumb – and I can say that because I am “hostile”.

  18. BAFBFP “Because the case get dismissed don’ mean that he ain’ guilty”

    So Barbados is France?

    Everyone including you BAFBFP and Smooth Chocolate is innocent until proven guilty even if you incriminate yourself.

    Just like you are not guilty of having a white chick and a crop ova chick until they tell me you is da man.

    BU is so much fun.

  19. @Hants

    I attended the Ball and had a wonderful time, it is by far the social event on the calendar for the Barbados community in TO and there were over 700 folks in attendance which is quite a feat for any Bajan affair. When you get 700 people the majority of whom are Bajans to shell out $200 bucks a pop (there were some Corporate tables) there better be a good product throw in Peter Edey and Krosfyah which means the food and the Entertainment was top notch (although I thought last year’s ambiance was better)

    About my audience with the PM hmmnnn since he is a guest and spent Friday extolling the virtues of Barbados to the Toronto Board of Trade I couldn’t in good conscience try to throw any cold water on this by asking him about the merits or otherwise of Bajan lawyers besides the PM is already on record as to saying that the fees of the lawyers are justified ( well you wouldn’t expect him to say anything else would you?)

    So I welcomed him to TO once again ( his predecessor also came here a few times unlike OSA who in 14 years probably only came about twice guess we don’t have the pubs like London) and wished him well ( Now you don’t expect me to say exactly what I said do you?)

    Here is an extract from the Toronto Board of Trade website

    Prime Minister of Barbados, Freundel Stuart
    • Doing Business With Barbados: Cultivating a Strong Partnership
    Join Freundel Stuart, Prime Minister of Barbados as he discusses why Barbados is the ideal partner for Canadian business.
    – Learn why almost 10% of all Canadian direct investment abroad goes to, or through, Barbados
    – Discover the benefits to doing business in Barbados, from double taxation agreements to bilateral investment treaties
    – Discover why the Barbados has one of the world’s most ‘sound banking systems’, ranking 11th our of 142 global countries (Global Competitiveness Report)
    Supporting Sponsorship: Mansfield Communications, Scotiabank, Cole Engineering

  20. Sargeant I am glad you and my fellow Bajanadians had a good time.

    To besides I can’t afford de $200. I got to save muh money to pay de Lawyers in Babadus.

  21. R Ross

    There was a former British MP who coined the phrase which has become universal “when you are in a hole stop digging”

    This is not about Garcia et al but if you are having a fight with Amused or David or whomever about the former CJ or the current CJ or the Legal Establishment on BU why take it to BFP with the post(s)? That was the gist of my post either fight for your cause here or put up the white flag and say “no mas”.

    Being a member of the “herd” may not be a bad thing you have to pick your spots, if you are the prey it is best to be a member of the herd as you have a better chance of survival, if you are the predator there is no such compunction.

  22. @Hants

    About the $400: I need an excuse to wear my penguin suit (Tuxedo) and de wife got a new frock besides you can’t take with you. I have seen people who refuse to enjoy any of their hard earned income, never take a cruise or holiday away from home but vacation in their backyard. When they finally kick de bucket the children go through their inheritance like water through a sieve.

    Many people enjoyed themselves at the Ball and I am not taking tales from school but I even saw the PM “shaking a leg”.

    I am not against the lawyer fees per se but it is the service after they pocket your money that gives you “goadies”. Plus all the add ons $5.00 for a photocopy, how much for a phone call again?

  23. Why should BU or any other Bajan treat David Simmons or any other person with deference in the age of the internet? Because of some archaic libel or slander laws that should have been long repealed? Or is it because his ilk are part of the dominant social class? We reserves our natural right to say anything we want about David Simmons or anybody else, in cyberspace. If they don’t like it let them organize their ‘big brother society’ and other thought control countermeasures.These laws that are for the protection of Simmons and the other members of the ‘realm’ in Barbados can only make sense in an environment where the ‘official’ or dominate social narrative can be maintained. They are finding it increasing difficult to maintain corporate media’s monopoly of a bankrupted narrative. We are happy to inform those who must control the people from behind the curtain of this illegal devise that they days are numbered. The internet has made the libel and slander laws of Barbados quaint. Of course, they are those who will want to the living working for the dead even if that means that the queen of England could fire any prime minister or government of Barbados, still.

  24. Sargeant wrote “never take a cruise or holiday away from home but vacation in their backyard.”

    Talking about me again.

  25. @ David

    You simply get worse.

    @ Sarjeant

    Take what to BFP with what posts? IF you refer to the comments posted here what I said was that I felt someone from BU was sabotaging their posts. It was a question of style. The next thing is that Nemesis or whoever blogs that David is DB. Then Amused chimes up on BU and pastes what I said on the first ‘Tales’ post – though he professes never to go on BFP. Then this email from DB appears here. Now work it out for yourself.

  26. What I can’t quite fathom is BU’s attitude to the DB post. It struck me as an honest attempt to make the point that he was not David and that if there was a suggestion that BU (or BFP) had defamed DS he was not privy to it. I do not quite understand David’s aggressive response to that.

    IF BU has defamed DS I cannot imagine him issuing a writ in any event. For Serjeant – I have consistently argued my viewpoint on this here and, yes, I do think that BU people have been guilty of very dirty tricks and have said so – and, yes, I do think they have exhibited ‘malice’. My reference to it was simply to point out to Amused that his point about ‘fair comment’ was subject to proof of malice. And that is correct whatever the difficulty in proving it.

    What DB does say is that for a very long time, as he was told, people have identified him as ‘David’. He also says that he has been identified as the power behind both BFP and BU – which I find very odd – though I’m not doubting that it’s been said. After all, I am also Lemuel and we argue against each other. But this is why I would have expected DB to issue his post for BFP too and, of course, because this is where he was allegedly identified

    For the rest, I am rather inclined to agree with Smoothchoc – it really doesn’t matter who David is; but what is abundantly clear is that someone thinks it matters and someone is getting very agitated about it.

  27. @ Sargeant
    “So I welcomed him to TO once again ( his predecessor also came here a few times unlike OSA who in 14 years probably only came about twice guess we don’t have the pubs like London) and wished him well ( Now you don’t expect me to say exactly what I said do you?)”……………………………………….

    Poor you, the hatred and disrespect you have for Owen Arthur will soon kill you, dont you know it is a terrible thing to build up so much hate in your heart? Owen Arthur is going to be your nemesis, just like David Thompson. Have no fear, this maybe Fruendel’s first and only trip to see the DLP yardfowls in Toronto and Ottawa at the taxpayers’ expense. When the good people of Barbados kick him and the Dems to the curve shortly, you and the Dems up there will have to pay to bring him up to wine and dine with you.


  28. @ BAF

    I know that we don’t always agree. EG, in the absence of the evidence I take the view that DB is not guilty of any offence. And I would want to know why the complainant withdrew her complaint. But I also understand where you’re coming from and have some sympathy with it. And, of course, we might disagree about the colours on your T shirts.

    BTW were you banned from BFP? LOL

    But for the rest – as ever – well, you know…

  29. @Prodigal Son

    Well of all the people to talk about hate, who writes about the “Dead King” at every waking moment? Have you ever commented on any subject other politics on this blog? Whether you write as Prodigal Son or Apollo 13 it is ad nauseum the same.

    If one explores the myriad topics that come up on BU they would find that your only comments are in the political realm, did the gratuity run out?

    In your parochial world everything is black and white so if someone doesn’t sing the praises of your favourite politician that means that they hate them, you should probably get out more and discover it is possible to be critical of someone without hating them, hating them doesn’t do one any good and what will they do with that hate? .

    I don’t know whether the Dems invited Stuart or not but the Committee which runs the Ball has supporters from both Parties and if OSA gets back in he would be invited too, but as I said there are no pubs in TO like the ones in London.

  30. The problem we have with you robert is your incessant curiosity to discover the identity of David. Something BU has done from inception is to guard the identities of our commenters and contributors. We value the reciprosity which has been extended for the most part over the years.

    Secondly you requested BU to list the issues we have with the Court. Are you serious? Do a search of BU and the many issues are there for those who want to know. If that fails BU has posted the views of commenters even when they differ from the household, you have that avenue.

    BU is not a court room and the the antics borrowed from that space will not impress here.

  31. @ David

    And the problem I have with you is the three-faced David. As such, as I said above, I don’t really care who David is. But If David becomes ‘X’ in all but name what hope is there for impartial discussion, for truth searching? Or is there only one truth…David X’s ‘truth’.?

    Now it is very simple. IF BU has problems with, say, the administration of justice as a whole, then, yes, say so. You speak, in your immediate response, of the ‘court’ whatever that is – but I assume you mean the courts. Fine – say so. Again, and this is the immediate matter you are referring to, if you say the ‘judiciary’, then say so. But in each of these cases you must come clean and say precisely what the problems are. Otherwise you are generalising and presenting that as ‘fact’.; and that is mere sleight of hand.You see, you may have a point for all I know. But unless you say precisely what it is how can one tell? It is like saying , as some do, ‘all lawyers are thieves’ and expect that to be taken as a universal truth by everyone else.

    To ask that you do this is not to borrow the antics of the court room; still less is it from a desire to impress. Impress whom? No, either you believe in the pursuit of truth or you don’t. And to borrow the language recently exchanged with Mock, that entails investigation. You simply can’t fudge that in the way you’ve been doing and remain credible, though I do agree that that may be the ‘populist’ thing to do.

    I have no problem, as I’ve said, with the ‘tales’ – not serious ones anyway. My problem is with the assumptions which remain unproven. The modest thing I started on BFP was an attempt to get away from that – to look closely at particular cases, actual cases, to see where the root of delay originates – totally impartially: let’s call it ’empirical research’. Anonlegal mentioned one in the ‘Tales’ and, if you read what I responded, you will see that I had met exactly the problem he pinpointed on that very day and which I still intend to log.

    Now: I have taken a lot of trouble to respond to you, and I have written quite dispassionately, and so I hope you will give me the same consideration. If not: too bad. And do please remember, I am not at all phased by numbers or ‘gangs’.

  32. @robert

    You don’t worry who David it, BU is happy with our model.

    If you want BU to list or detail our position on the Court do a search of BU. You may have the last word.

  33. @David. I am sick to the back teeth with RR. His persistent stupidity is mind-numbing and arrogant attempts to dismiss long-time contributors to BU is, frankly, insulting. Just who the hell does this arrogant, stupid little shit think he is to dismiss Pat.

    I told him that he had exposed himself and his identity through his shuffling between BFP and BU and giving away too much information in his mindless desire to “out” others. Did he listen? Course not. Idiots never do. But I know now exactly who this idiot is. And a bigger idiot you could not hope to find.

    RR is an attorney-at-law who unsuccessfully (mercifully) ran in the last General Elections. I will not name him and I will have no comment if anyone else does name him – such is the courtesy and discretion of every member of the BU Family. A courtesy and discretion that RR would do well to emulate. And RR, please do not even attempt to tell me that I have the wrong person, because I do not and I know exactly who you are. The legal profession will be fascinated to know that it is one of their own that finds no problems with the courts and judiciary.

    Here, you come on to BU pretending that you are not an attorney (which was probably a good idea as it would excuse your ignorance of law) and that you are not politically inclined. But we now find that you ARE an attorney who is probably trying to reduce the legal profession to your level of competence so that some other idiot will make you a judge, then God help us. Also, you have (according to you) no political agenda, and that led you to run (and may again) for election to Parliament – we can but pray that the electorate in the constituency upon which you hope to foist yourself, realises what a total horses ass you are and refuses you again. And you talk about a Hydra? You are the Hydra, Red, and least every head is that of a jackass. Get lost.

  34. @Amused

    why did it take you so long to recognize that rr is an attorney and have a political agenda or preference, that was clear to me form the time he and i did not see eye to eye when i challenged him on an issue.

    I would suggest to you ignore him, but it is not for you to out his identity as you have said he has done so himself. Concentrate on discussing the issues as you see fit and be as objective as possible, for we all have a political bias, while some have this bias with the objective of sucking sweets when their party come ino to power, Again forget RR.

  35. Amused writes as though he is leading a cause … WTF! David you are caught in a nonsense piss fight where it appears that only one or two persons are doing the pissing. Come on man, this BU Mafia (BUM) has outdone itself on this Ross guy. It appeared to be in good fun at first, it is NOT anymore. You MUST moderate and put an end to this senseless mud slinging. Amused is NO senior ’bout hey, or did you promote when our backs were turned …?

  36. @BAFBFP

    The BU family has always been able to work out issues in the past WITHOUT censure from BU. We are sure you can appreciate our position.

    Truth be told the BU household does not appreciate the malicious way robert goes to another blog and deposit comments which are not complimentary, then he marches to BU expecting to be treated well. Guess what, the BU household is human.

  37. Guess what David I believe that I too is a human, and my response to what is reputed to have taken place would be to “Laff and Laff and Laff”. Man we is adults. It don’ mek na sense baring so much in public all de time … Life real short … or is it that you David luv lil’ controversy, even if it is at the expense of a new member, after all controversy does mek people tongues wag nag… But that is being human too I suppose …

    Yah wrong pun this one man … real wrong

  38. BU welcomes your comments: comments on the site do not always reflect the views of BU. For more information checkout our Comments Policy at the top of the page. If you see an error report it, include a link to the story.

  39. @ Amused

    You’re simply a twirp, a not-very-bright twirp. You are a slippery, mendacious sycophant who made a stupid mistake in lifting from BFP. You were flushed out – landed.

    Now if you read the BFP post on my ‘answer’ to the tales you will see how I am described. I am not a practising attorney and I have no office. I am certainly not a politico. And I am not a liar. I can understand why you find it difficult to believe that.

    Now go rook another punter for $400 plus an hour. But if you want to name me as this lawyer/politico feel free to do so. It could prove amusing. But no, you won’t do that will you – it is just one of your little spins and David will make it part of the folklore.

  40. @BAFBFP

    Nobody – new or old – is going to derail what we are trying to do. We knew when we attack the judiciary it would generate flack and we are prepared for it.

    Now BAF tell the BU family honestly, do you thing a question posed by robert for BU to detail our position concerning the judiciary bears any serious response?

    Do you think a person who comments on BFP without showing the same angst – a blog which has pilloried Sir David – does not merit a short fuse by BU?

    He is free to comment but from where we (BU household) sit we have the right to take certain decisions. Almost every post he is about who is David. Have we not passed this way in the five years?

    Anyway, moving on.

  41. @ Blogger

    OK OK you’re right. And Amused. It’s a fair cop. I am an attorney. I have an office in Roebuck St. I am a covert politician. Actually I was once tipped for the Senate and there was talk about my being A-G. I have friends in high places, see.

    I hate David Simmons – but that’s a closely guarded secret. I hate him beause he didn’t promote me to the ‘Inner Bar’. So this was the deal. David got me to agree to be the fall guy in the various Simmons’ posts – to become the man who everyone loved to hate because I would pretend to be an honest man. See, if there was a scapegoat he reckoned that everyone here wouldn’t see what was going on and who I was and why he had become ‘Marstonified’. See, we all knew David didn’t have much going for him on it so the idea was to let me divert the flack – and increase blog length in the process. Clever – yes?

    But then you and Amused came along and spoilt the plan. Gee you two are smart fellas. I take my hat off to you. Well I guess David and me gonna have to go back to the drawing board and find another little twister. So keep your antennae working and try and work out what it will be. OK?

  42. @ David

    Look: the games’ up old friend. Amused an Blogger got us in their sights. Should we meet?

  43. @Blogger 2012. Thanks for your caution, but it is needless. I would never dream of outing any blogger and hereby I ask David, if he agrees, to put in place a filter on Red’s true name so that at least on BU his name may not be revealed and I will write David privately giving him the name.

    Already this morning I have received several “do you know that…….” calls from members of the legal fraternity telling me who Red is, so this seems prudent so that BU does not follow the lamentable example of that other blog. I have been most surprised and disbelieving when this information was given to me. And shall remain so. So, I am by no means the only person to whom Red has totally exposed HIMSELF. Unlike you, I was not sure at all Red was an attorney, due to the paucity of his knowledge and his denial of the true state of the justice system and the reasons for it (this must have given you doubts too, Blogger). Indeed, I hoped he was not an attorney. That he has political aspirations was evident through his insistence on trying to “out” people while himself seeking to hide behind a moniker – that sort of total hypocrisy is, unfortunately, prevalent in Bajan politicians who, with few exceptions, seem to hold themselves to no standards of either ethics or respect for the rights of others whatever.

    Given Red’s insistence on “outing” people, it might be assumed that anyone is within their rights to “out” him. But I will never lower myself to his scummy standards. And, while not presuming to speak for BU, I doubt it will either.

    At long last, this country has a news outlet that airs issues of national importance and concern without political bias. And along comes some wannabe politician to try to hijack and divert things? Well he can, donkey like, walk, trot, gallop or fly away into the sunset. Idiot.

    As for my billing fees, since I experienced no lack of work, it can only be assumed that people find me worth it and just because Red is not able to get people to pay him the same, that is HIS damned problem, not mine. The old adage is you get what you pay for.

  44. @ David

    Yes good move…keep saying every post he on about David and keep saying ‘as we always said’. No-one will read what you always said so it won’t matter. BTW I’ve asked BFP to post somethin on DS so I can do the same there. There’s no charge to you this time. OK? Don worry, Dave. No-one aint gonna derail you. Jus keep spinnin the spin. That’s my advice anyways.

  45. Dave

    Yeah that’s the way to deal with BAF. Be careful though – he can read. When he comes back an says I asked how the judiciary was frustratin Marston better tell he that particulars is beneath you. I think you played that one before. Tell BAF he a pedant. That’s my advice anyways. No charge.

  46. @ David
    What’s up? Listen this guy RR seems to be a regular “brassbowl”. I thought so from the moment I saw him commenting re the “Garcia saga” on the sister blog. According to BAFBFP he just seems to be in a “pissing distance contest” or “my dick is bigger than your dick contest”. So he just needs ignoring. Same advice to you too “Amused” re RR.

  47. @ David & Amused.
    So. . . .Wunna is tink I’s pull out fuh Aussieland downunda or wuh? I still hey cumfuhtable as eva. I bin WATCHIN” on an’ OBSERVIN’ all de time. I ain’t nuh Bee or Dee but wunna can bet I will B-ee prepared when de time cums!

    Yeah, David when one gets to this age one has to be thankful for every blessing the the good Lord sees fit to bestow on oneself. I have conditioned my mind to accept that ‘”de ol’ aches & pains” will be there till the roll is called up yonder so just enjoy what time is left here. So with that in mind I look for a bit of humour in everything and try to accept the things I cannot change. I enjoy reading your blogs especially when “Amused”, “Bush Tea” and “Micro Mock Engineer are having their “discussions”. 🙂 And, don’t let’s forget the Doc (GP) for one moment as well as that ol’ gem Bonny from whom we haven’t heard for ages.

    • @Hoodie

      Based on GP’s last comment he is busy working in St. Lucia. Bonny, oh well…let remember her as she was until.

  48. I really miss Bonny and the convertable bike and the good laughs. And when she and Islandgal get together to go after a body, nuff sport.

  49. De Hood

    Man you got me all wrong … BIG TIME. You right man you get real ol’.


    The fact that Ross has a different opinion on the Courts and his view of Simmonds is a bit at variance with yours is something that I find to be very informative. The fact that I compliment Amused from time to time does NOT mean that I am a fan of his at all at all … and I did only too glad when Ross come roun’ and started throwing some spanners in some ah he spokes. Now Ross touch a lot of nerves and that for me is a good thing but the vitriol that you have exhibited towards this new campaigner is something that I have been for years trying to extract from you with NO effect … It is something that I am not accustomed to witnessing from you. You have entertained some REAL idiots ’bout hey in the past, including me, and to be honest Ross don’ deserve this …

    Maybe you gettin’ ol’ too, my brotha …!

  50. @ BAF

    Look at it this way……the more geriatrics they dig up to attack RR the more they got to hide. (But Dave told me to say that so they can dig up more an deflect and deflect and deflect – no charge Dave).

  51. Man Ross stick around I got your back … Oppose these people even if you don’ mean it … I ain’ see so much brandishin’ and gnashin’ and snarlin’ in a long long time …! HA HA HA …

Leave a comment, join the discussion.