I just cannot fathom how a nation that prides itself on its intelligence can actually support the idiotic wish by some who should know better that a convicted drug dealer, who has not been publicly repentant of his offence, nor, as far as I can tell, provided the authorities with an intelligence about his contacts, if she had done the run before, who were his main contact in Colombia and the US, to live and work in Britain.
What jobs is he going to do, apart from obviously making contact with his local drug dealing contacts? What message is this sending to young men and women about the abuse of drugs?
The nonsense about keeping him in semi-private confinement as ‘tax efficient’ is economic irrelevant.
The man should be deported back to the US, Colombia or Cuba. He arrived on a Colombian passport and that should be his destination. If Colombia fails to accept then we should call in the ambassador and read the riot act to him.
He is a convicted drug dealer who was caught trying to corrupt our youth. That is a major offence.
Is the support for him anything to do with his coffee coloured skin?

So once you go to jail then you are marked for Life? Well, why doesn’t Barbados become Islamist and like Saudi Arabia we just kill convicted drug dealers? Then the taxpayers have no worries except for a coffin? Mr Austin this is not the first time I experienced your myopia, as to what skills Garcia possesses, if you took the time to read original statements the man is an excellent artist not only can he sell paintings but he can teach art as well. If Cuba nor USA will receive him and he served his sentence then it is Barbados’ gambit, unwilling or otherwise, to see to the man’s rights to make a living where he’s at… Why should make tax dollars pay for him to be in a “holding facility” when he can be provided a chance to earn his keep? His passport can be renewed every 3 months, which means he’s on his toes at all times!

As to BU’s posit on Cultural Industries Vs. Bar Association? Well, I never intended for Andrew to be viewed in that light – I see it as Plus not a Minus, then he can advise Cultural Stakeholders how best to ensure any amendments are made in their favour. The world is expanding via Social Media & Technology, so much so many people no longer have jobs or vacation but exist in a created milieu known as Weisure (read that on CNN) which is a portmanteau of work/leisure, what was seen as conflict of interests in many case may now have to be revisited.

After all, I ran a blog and converted to a website while a publicist both for Govt and Private Sector on separate occasions? It’s still running…

@ Amused

On the immigration issue…..I agree totally…..but this I know you’ll either ignore or take as a personal attack.

@RR. I do not take it as a personal attack and since you yourself commented on BU on the difficulties you as an attorney had experienced with the immigration department, I am hardly surprised that you agree.

However, I do disagree with you on the subject of Hal whose mind has never been, is not and never will be, small.

@ Amused

You remembered. Aww. That is sooo sweet. Thankyou.

Ladies and Gentlemen

Feel free to visit the Bar Association website. It list nothing of significance by way of accomplishments.

About Garcia: like Amused BU is sympathetic to his plight however the need by some to denigrate the image of Barbados over what is a challenge for government exposes the disingenuous of some. Their willingness to jump to the ’cause’ of cases which will garner international publicity makes BU very suspicious. The Africans who were deposited in Barbados comes to mind.

@ David (again)

What would you expect him to achieve as Bar President? If you tell us it will give us a yardstick to measure him by.

The reference to the BA website is a total fudge – and no substitute for answers. Oh dear.

Here is a Big Interview which Pilgrim gave to the Nation when he took up the office some time ago:

THE BIG INTERVIEW: Frank and fair

HE IS NO stranger to the public. The new president of the Barbados Bar Association has worn many hats, including being an actor and, in recent times, a television personality.

In his first interview since taking up the top position, Andrew Pilgrim talks to Associate Managing Editor Tim Slinger about his vision for the legal body. He also comments on the bad apples in the fraternity and gives his opinion on the current controversial issue about the appointment of Barbados’ next Chief Justice.

Q: You are the new president of the Barbados Bar Association. What are some of the items on the front burner?

Pilgrim: I hope I will be able to bring a level of frankness and openness to the post and that my gregarious nature will also help to bring a level of friendship within the Bar and a friendship with the public that will hopefully foster a better image for the Bar and better relations at the Bar. And one of the big things we want is to make justice as accessible and as swiftly available as possible.

A lot of people have concerns about whether the courts really function or not. We want to be meeting with the powers that be as much as possible and trying to find ways to facilitate making justice seem available and make the system work as much as possible. Inasmuch as lawyers can contribute to that and make that happen, we want to do that.

Q: Do you see your radical approach and no-nonsense attitude getting in the way of fostering or improving relationships with the association?

Pilgrim: Hopefully, I will be able to bring that no-nonsense approach towards anything the Bar has interest in, hopefully in a positive way. In the sense that, you know, sometimes being a radical one can be marginalized as being a maverick or being somebody who is a loose cannon. I do not want that messageto come across.

I want the message to come across that we are no-nonsense and that there are a lot of issues . . . the public has with the Bar, and lots of issues the Bar has with the court. We want to be able to meet those squarely and head on and deal with them.

Over the years, all the presidents have tried to tackle these issues and there has been success and I can’t re-invent the wheel. I can’t try to do things that people have found impossible, but I am hoping my style will help to assist in getting things done and making real progress.

Q: As a criminal lawyer over the years, I am sure there are some issues you would like to place on the front burner. Can you tell us about some of them?

Pilgrim: I think that not only as a criminal lawyer but as a lawyer in general. People have often had a lot to say about the Registry and how it works and the many delays. Many people will also focus on issues that I will consider important like parking at the Registry or the security system. Those things may be important but it cannot be as important as a fellow’s right to get a hearing in the court. It cannot be as important as the question of delay.

A fellow wants to sue for $10 000 and it’s taking him five years to get it, and then he finds difficulty collecting his money after he gets a judgement five years after. It probably would be better if he said let me write off this debt. People have to feel that the courts work.

They also have to feel like this person is doing something wrong, I can go to the courts and get something right. This wrong can be righted in the court, and those things have to happen in a timely fashion, if not they may as well not happen.

Q: One of the issues over the years with the profession is the many charges of misappropriation of clients’ funds by some lawyers. How do you plan to deal with this matter?

Pilgrim: Well, I think the former president Mr Leslie Haynes has focused on the amendment of the Legal Profession Bill in a big way and I want to carry that.

But I also want to encourage a level of transparency amongst lawyers and have disciplinary proceedings carried out and allow the public to know. We are not going to hide anything. The Bar has a duty to its members but at the same time if members run afoul of the law, we don’t want anybody to have this feeling that we are protecting them and shielding them from the law.

If a “fellah” thieving, let the court deal with it as it sees fit. Let the Disciplinary Committee deal with it as it sees fit. If there is a problem with a doctor [who] does a bad operation [it’s] very hard to find other doctors to say it was bad. Give these people some money and let them go their way, for example, and, by the same token, people have always felt that lawyers will band together to protect each other.

And in a small society, that is difficult because quite often we will know each other or went to school with each other. But wrong is wrong and right is right. People need to feel that the man on the street is getting the same treatment as the lawyer and that the lawyers themselves are not going to do things to make that look any different.

Q: One the things that has always been echoed in the system is that you have an interest in politics. In fact, you are associated with one particular party and at one stage there were rumours that you were planning to contest [a seat]. Were you ever interested in politics? Do you have an interest in politics?

Pilgrim: When I was a little bit younger, or maybe a lot younger, I was very interested in politics, keen on it not only for the possibilities of contributions that one could make but also politics, like the law, is a theatre and my love for the theatre informs my association and affection for both of those things.

The idea of being able to talk on a platform, I think that is something that I would look forward to because I think I have the oratorical skills for it.

I know I can write because you know you might think you can translate one thing into another and you would think, oh, that is something I should be able to do and I have always felt that the way that party politics plays out in Barbados, those skills will be very useful.

But more and more over the years, I have come to the view that political meetings in Barbados – which is where that particular skill is most evident – are generally stand-up comedy and that is what they are. And while I think I am a good stand-up comedian, I think I have shown that as a tent MC, I think that unfortunately our politics is reduced to a level now of stand-up comedy.

I always go every time there is an election or by-election. I go to both sides’ meetings and I listen to both sides to hear what is being said and, really, it seems that the most significant contributions are the most funny ones.

And there is still that sense in Barbados that politics is frivolous and it is a great divider. I don’t want to be part of anything frivolous and I don’t want to part of a great divider. So I made up my mind sometime ago that I will attempt to stay out of it and try to work on things that I can do that I can help people on both sides.

The other thing is that politics has always affected our decision-making where it should not. By the same token now, speaking for myself, while I have issues with the limitations of the law as it relates to chief justice, it looks funny when you do something like what we are doing now.

Talking about politics, therefore, I want to retain my neutrality. I want to be able to say to Owen Arthur, you doing nonsense; to Mia Mottley, you doing nonsense; Freundel Stuart, you doing nonsense; Adriel Brathwaite, you doing nonsense; because Barbados is so polarized that the moment that people start to think Pilgrim like he is a Dee – ’cause I think one time there was a rumor that I was running in St Joseph, then there was a rumor one time, I was running in the City, for different parties.

Once in Barbados you accept a political hat, everything you say after that is coloured by that.

Whereas I hope that if I say that the selection process for judges is being abused by both parties, I want people to say, well, Pilgrim talking sense, and I believe him because he is a man that got sense. I don’t want people to say we believe him because he is a Bee or a Dee or we don’t believe him because he is a Dee or we don’t believe him because he is Bee.

Q: Do you feel the judiciary should be distanced from politics across the board?

Pilgrim: If at anytime I am appointed to sit in judgement on a people, that is a massive responsibility. If you sit in that position and you feel in any way obliged to somebody for giving you that pick, you know, let me put it in basic language, there is a real danger. If you feel in your mind that I get this pick because the PM send me here and then there is an action against the PM – because you get actions against the governments, against prime ministers – will a party in that cause feel, ‘look, I don’t have a chance ‘cause this man is the PM’s boy’? That is the danger we must always be fighting.

We do not want to surrender our society to the extent that a politician can blackball a fellow, as they used to say, and then that fellow gone through the eddoes. We must feel that when you go in front a court, if you head got on locks, if you is a baldhead, if you is a Bee, if you is a Dee, if you is a Cee, that you are going to get a fair shake . . . .

Q: As the new president of the Bar Association, what would you want to suggest as a fair deal for the selection process in terms of judges? What do you think would be accepted as fair deal?

Pilgrim: What you need is to distance the appointment as much as possible from the political directorate. So you really need a body that is chaired by a person who does not rely on the PM or the AG to appoint them and appointees who are there and who hold their power regardless of the change of government to make those decisions. You want that decision to be transparent and distant from the Cabinet or the prime minister.

Q: You, throughout your career, have had some bumps and thumps. I remember one time you had a clash with a judge, and then you took a trip away from everything. Tell me about that in terms of what were the benefits of it, and was it a chance to do some introspection?

Pilgrim: First off, the trip was not a plan to escape because the conflict with the judges, I think, came largely sometime around 2002 or maybe even before that. Then, in 2005, I started preparing to make that move. Having said that, the trip to Africa a whole year without working at all other than any work I did was volunteer work on projects in Africa, nothing at all pertaining to law or pertaining to looking for income.

So I didn’t have to study one case for that entire year. I didn’t have anything on my mind except how to function as a human being with other human beings. That was my focus and to be with my wife. That was my only focus in that entire year.

So I think I benefited tremendously from it and it helped me to learn to be more diplomatic and yet more forceful. And one of the things I got out of it was getting to see what I regard as my homeland because I don’t regard England or America where we are kind of programmed to feel that these places are very important. So from that point of view, it was a very beautiful trip.

Q: Finally, the Andrew Pilgrim we knew of ten, 15 years ago, the Andrew Pilgrim now, is there a difference?

Pilgrim: His hair is a lot whiter, but other than that, I would like to think essentially the same person. I hope that I will still retain my forceful nature and my belief in standing up for things that are right. I hope that those things will remain with me right through.

NationNews.com © Nation Publishing Co. Limited 2012

“We have to wonder to what degree Pilgrim’s extracurricular activities have compromised his role as President of the Bar Association.”

now you will understand why i will continue to be regarded as pedantic whatever it means because i do not intend to allow comments such as the above to go unnoticed and unchallenged.

The impact or non-impact of the Minister Of Education’s prominent position in the Barbados Football Association vis a vis his Ministerial duties has been the subject of widespread public discussion and never once has this topic which should be more a public concern than Mr Pilgrim’s extracurricula activities been made a talking point by BU.
Why Mr Pilgrim and not Mr Jones?

@balance

Continue to be pedantic, next time do a search of BU before releasing hot air.

This present numbing of legal discourse of Andrew Pilgrim and Raoul Garcia is reminiscent of another time another lawyer but same old Barbados…………
Alair Shepherd was hell bent as a defense lawyer to (And this is my presumption) reveal the numerous loopholes in the system by defending obvious guilty criminals and using the inadequateness of the prosecuting teams .He was extremely successful most of the time (As has been Andrew Pilgrim).
It is unforgivenly sad that such capacity for the knowledge of Legality should be used to the detriment of the true reality of Honesty,Integrity and Innocence.

@Robert Ross

I’m sure most of us are with you. Once David uses the “pedantic” word you should know he’s in a corner.
********

Perhaps you should heed David’s advice to “Balance” and do a search on BU to locate the criticism of the Minister of Education vis-à-vis his role as President of the Barbados Football Association before you join forces with anyone

@Sargeant

You know what they say, you can never please all of the people all of the time.

@balance

ALL of your queries can be answered by searching BU. Appreciate that time does not allow for BU to respond to any and everything under the Sun. Use the search window!

I agree that this post is a mis-mash.

On the subject of Garcia. Keeping him in confinement is against accepted humanitarian conventions, he has srved his time.

Either deport him by whatever means necessary (parachute drop back into Cuba?) or ensure that he can contribute to society i.e. as Ian Bourne says, get a job.

Dont the Police monitor things anyway????

On the Pilgrim issue, not sure why this ‘two master ‘ thing is being espoused?

Does anyone complain that under both administration the best bosom buddy and heavily invedted businessmen were heads of the state owned news agency?

Why is that never a concern? CBC has always been politically controlled and it is disgusting.

As for his extracurricular activities, why not? Cultural industry is a current money earner and future growth industry.

It is not like he is the promoter of mud-wrestling for women or some such questionable activity.

Strange outlook. But then, here is one example where the young are doing things their way, which some now have to get their heads around. We want change but want it ‘our way’?

The only issue is whether he can and is fftively managing his role as the Bar Assoc President.

No other.

@Crusoe

We should keep our eye on the most important factor, PERFORMANCE. Can we say that since Pilgrim has taken the job there has been improvement from his association? All other arguments are peripheral. If Pilgrim believes he is getting push back from any of the stakeholders in the process he needs to make it known. As usual however the Bar Association and others close ranks and keep their shortcomings inhouse. The PUBLIC, the one affected by it all, is chastised when we question.

The ball is in Pilgrim’s Court to report on his tenure so far if not he becomes part of the problem.

Remind everyone what is your problem with Redjet again. The first time read it conveyed no sense.

David to be fair to Pilgrim, all Lawyers in Barbados are complicit in the malaise that affects the system.

It is not easy to change a system which serves to enrich a large number of the members of the Bar.

What we need is leadership from the senior members of the Bar.

Then again buying a condo in Toronto or a house in Miami might take precedence over contributing to the reform of the legal system.

David, I do not see Andrew’s acting affecting his performance as attorney or President. He cannot achieve anything on his own. If you say that he is doing nothing – you will have to prove that

I believe that the CJ is in discussions but has done nothing as yet in certain areas pending discussions.

What Andrew started maybe completed by the next President – what you should call for is what he has started. That research should have been done before posting this one.

Brief said ‘People’s (those believing that Garcia should be given home and job and citizenship) you make laugh!!!’

——-

So, where exactly are you going to deport him to, with no one willing to take him (hence my reference to parachute drop).

Ignorant to laugh, when you do not understand the situation. And, yes, to keep someone confined without justification is against international treaties to which Barbados has signed.

However, it may be firtunate, as in Barbados he may get a hostile environment and no job, hence, maybe better that the taxpayers pay for his keep and leisure ad infititum.

Crusoe help me here …

Garcia came in on Colombian passport, resided in USA and was born in Cuba:

If he is pending deportation, would it not be to one of these countries two of which said ‘no’ already? Can we not be awaiting on paper work for acceptance to another country? Isn’t this being sought after – seeking another country that will take him? Therefore he can be held whilst paper work is in process whilst we search for a benevolent country to accept him.

I cannot in good faith and as human support or even consider a parachute Crusoe. That is gruesome and a death sentence for a free man.

@Brief,

Technically he is a ‘free man’ and we have no right to hold him. We also know where he belongs.

Why should we assume that sending back where he belongs is a ‘death sentence’? That is where he belongs, they refuse to accept him officially, that is wrong, they can therefore have him unofficially.

Imagine us telling the US that we are not taking back deportees?

However, I am not a lawyer., so I will watch the expert paper chasers deal with it.

@ David

You really are chasing a ghost. You say AP is underperforming. Then show how that is the case. The fact is, you can’t – or you would.

AGAIN – the BA under AP’s leadership put a document for reform before the CJ more than six months ago. Has he acted on it? If not, why not?

Actually, has the CJ introduced any reforms at all? He has spoken about raising the retirement age for judges – but then he’s done a lot of speaking. But has he actually done anything? Has he actually delivered a serious judgment yet? One – in the gun case – was promised (was it in January?) for June. Has that actually been delivered – just ONE judgment??? In six months? Gee – he really does move like a meteor. Yes? Oh, and of course at this moment he’s talking to AP about Bannister’s out-of-action Court. You speak of AP underperforming. Get real David and scrutinise your darling. That might just prove worthwhile.

Read the blogs here. Not one person – not one – has identified where AP has fallen short; OK – good for you – you are not alone.

@rr.

Interesting. I am not a lawyer, but commonsense would dictate agreement with your interpretation, with the only exception being if and where the detention was for reasons of national security, which has not been stipulated.

The reality is that we are in a pickle and the Government needs to demand that a country of origin take him, otherwise the default measure is residence here under common terms of a citizen.

To keep him incarcerated in unacceptable and surely against international conventions.