Highway Robbery

Submitted by islandgal246

Chris Sinckler, Minister of Finance

Can anyone tell me why the Minister of Finance has to personally approve of road tax refunds? Has he so little to do that he has that added to his duties? Why do we have personnel employed at the Rates and Taxes department? Are there any senior personnel there to perform this task? Is it that NO ONE is TRUSTED in that department?

I heard the Minister on Brasstacks a few days ago explaining to a caller about road tax refunds and why they had to stop them because hey were inundated with applications for refunds. They do not have the staff to allocate for this so the public will have to be screwed. He admitted that they do refund in certain cases only if the vehicle was written off and he just approved of two refunds last week. Whoopee TWO refunds! The caller went on to suggest instead of refunding why not do transfers and was quickly cut off.

We the public will allow this to continue happen unless we all protest infront the department and the office of the Minister. This is truly Highway robbery and an injustice to the people of Barbados.

0 thoughts on “Highway Robbery


  1. road tax for what is my question.with pot holes and roads built wrong from the on set.
    do these politicians have shares in tire and front end repair shops/.
    got to be.Road tax for what.
    still trying to find out where the pot hole equipment donated by Canada some years ago went??????????????
    any body seen this machine???????
    i saw it years ago once look like it was working real good as i observed it.
    since then i have never sen again.!!!!!!!!!!!


  2. Islandgal246

    Welcome to the real world of Barbados governance. There is so little for ministers to do that they have to take over the roles of public officers. And with the largest Cabinet in the history of this country, these guys are falling over themselves to find something to do to keep busy for an eight hour day. Many of these ministers have taken over the roles of even senior clerks and personnel officers. I know of one case where the minister even decided which vehicle would be assigned to individual messengers.

    You would laugh at what the Cabinet is called upon to approve. I remember years ago the Cabinet had to approve the names given to police horses.

    A cabinet of eight ministers is more than adequate for Barbados but unfortunately, the PM feels that it is his duty to find work for some of his MPs, some of whom could not pay their rent before being elected to the House.


    • @Caswell

      What is that you ended your contribution to Brasstacks today which forced the producer to cut?


    • David

      I did not know that they cut me off. They did it yesterday as well because the Minister was really bluffing and could not stand up to someone in possession of the facts. Gabriel Tackle is absolutely correct in her assessment of Sinckler. His responses could not stand up to scrutiny?


  3. I was not impressed with anything Chris Sinckler said on Brasstacks yesterday.He came across as a big bluffer.Neither am I impressed with the moderator Wickham.All this is a strategy of self serving gimmickry and given Wickham’s naked and blatant bias,it seems to me that he is trying to help Sinckler to get out of the sorry mess he has created to destroy the middle class of this country.Sinckler is completely out of his depth.Imagine a big unable minister has to approve nay nay refunds.Good lord!Verla DePeiza today on radio and tonight on DLPTV is similar gimmickry.She is trying to gain more exposure on prime time TV as she is fighting a losing battle in Ch Ch W.


  4. There are some people who are so brilliant and know so much about every thing under the sun that clearly they should be leading the country. Now clearly Chris SInckler is the biggest idiot to ever hold a ministry in Barbados. He net too bright, never really learnt anything at school particularly. They should keep him far away from the ministry of finance or government period. Actually I am very impressed with Caswell Franklin’s vast knowledge on virtually every subject especially to do with government. I am very surprised that he did not make it to the level of PS in the public service, or even head of the Union cause the people who run these things don’t really know what they doing anyhow. I feel that Caswell should run for political office or at least be invited to join a Cabinet to help some of these foolish ministers who don’t know what they are doing. Cause I could almost feel Sinckler shaking in he boots when Caswell went on the air for he. He could hardly talk and must have been happy when Wickham got Caswell off the line. Anyway we were all thankful that he called back today to make his very important point and break up Sinckler idiot that he is……according to Caswell.

    finally I agree that it’s a very stupid thing to have a minister of finance approving a refund of road tax, but if the refund process was discontinued who else in the system can grant that refund if not the minister of finance. Can a PS or CTO waive a tax or grant a refund on a tax? Does the law allow them to do that?


  5. This “robbery” is but one in a lonnnnnnng list of atrocities been released on an unsuspecting public…BIGGER STILL …is fuel and bottle gas prices..now all a sudden going down……BANOC ….selling back to BL&P home dug fuel oil at skyrocketing markups…….double pensions for Judges and Ministers empl after 1975…but none for we…..Islangal…you want me go on or am I hogging ?


  6. i think i was the only one who was thinking how stupid it sound saying you approve two, when we know daily if not anything else, cars are written off. but once again it goes to should these people don’t have a clue what they are saying and or doing.


  7. @caswell and gabriel
    Sinckler seldom stands up to scrutiny.

    out of curiousity, what was your contribution about Caswell?


    • Observing

      The minister was dealing with two matters that attracted my attention. Firstly, it was the allowances that were taxed and I pointed out that there were two types of fixed travelling allowance: one that is paid as a perk of office, and should be taxable; and the other which is paid as a reimbursement to officers who use their vehicles to do the Government’s work. Those officers include postmen and court marshals. Their allowance is not taxable. Even though that was already the law, Government went to the Parliament and amended the Income Tax Act to say that the type of allowance that is paid to marshals is not taxable. Nonetheless, they continue to tax the marshals and not the postmen.

      Secondly, he dealt with the matter of the reduction on the government pension. In that case he was clearly out of his depth or he was seeking to mislead. When the moderator realised that I had the Minister in trouble, he quite clumsily got me off the air and gave the minister free reign to mislead the public.


  8. It is too cumbersome to give back road tax refunds to a few hundred persons a year but when a caller suggested that persons should be allowed to pay their road tax in instalments the minister said it was a good idea and they will look at it. If a few refunds is cumbersome, thousands of road taxes in instalments would be what?
    Don’t get me wrong I am in support of persons being given the opportunity of paying road tax in at least two tranches but it just shows that the minister does not think before he speaks.


    • @Watching

      Why would the minister have said no in an election year probably? One has to separate fact from fiction.


  9. How come cabinet ministers always got time to be on the radio? Especially yesterday when de house meets on Tuesdays fancy dat nah!
    Is kellman heading the Ministry of Talk? Some people cant even buy a piece of meat fuh true. DEY TALKING A RIDDLE OF …..
    Wuking de mouts harder than de brains. Nonsense wunnuh getting fish to eat, wuh fishing agreement .
    Getting paid to talk bare crap.


  10. @David

    You missed my point if the minister is stating that giving back a few hundred refunds is difficult and cumbersome administratively when you allow persons to pay in tranches administratively it will become a nightmare using his yard stick. But then again with Mr Sinckler one has to read his words very carefully , since he always has to retract or give an amendment. he does not
    seem to get anything right the first time.


  11. @ David

    Minister Sinckler is trying his level best to make the PM and by extension the DLP look incompetent.

    Time drawing nigh for Sinckler neck to get POP.


    • I hate to appear to be defending Sinckler, but you don’t have to do anything to make the Government look incompetent: they don’t need any help, Sinckler’s efforts are just icing on the cake.


  12. A Martian reading some of the comments would be tempted to ask how come Sinckler is second in the recent CADRES poll if he is believed to be so incompetent?


  13. @Caswell

    Are you suggesting that buyers should beware…lol.

    Actually Sinckler is intelligent enough to grow in to the job whether you like him or not he possesses a trait which endears him to a large segment of the electorate. Often times this is a politicians most valuable quality.


    • David

      The trait that endeared him to a large section of the electorate is that of being seen as a rabble rouser. People like a fiery speaker but he generates more heat than light.


  14. @Caswell
    Thanks. I”ll look for the transcript. Persons can’t defend things that they don’t know fully about. Those are two issues you have ventilated at length. Kudos. Bushie like he was right. 🙂

    @David
    Chris is a bluffer…and a transparent bluffer at that. He “succeeds” in his Ministry by skillfully combining the text given to him by the technocrats to read with political pot shots and posturing. AS you said, marketing. (some of) the people love it. The more intelligent among us see right through it.


  15. David, look you can’t realize that Caswell has a personal dislike for Sinckler. It obvious even to the most dis-interested person. Why, is anybody’s guess. What some of us do know is that Caswell faced down Sinckler of the UDC restructuring process early in the life of this current government and lost. He threatened a big strike that got no more than 12 people as the workers refused to join him on the protest line. He went into UDC and abused the Same Sinckler viciously and it was recorded by one of the employees and played back at a meeting with the Union leadership much to their embarrassment. He promised all of affected workers that Sinckler and the Board could not touch them and that there interpretation of the law was incorrect. He insisted that his interpretation of the law on the statutory board’s pension act was correct and that the government had to pay them all of their money (gratuity and pension) right away if they were abolishing there posts. The minister, the board, the Solicitor General’s office and yes the CCJ all said that that was not so and that while those who qualified for pension and gratuity were entitled to get it, it could only be paid at retirement age. Of course all of these person’s none of whom knows more law than Caswell, were in his view wrong and he with his superior intellect and knowledge of the law would prevail. He even wrote the governor general complaining that Sinckler and UDC were breaking the law and that the GG should give him an audience to prove this point. This was done even in spite of the fact that the CCJ had only recently before the matter at UDC, issued a judgement upholding the Barbados High Court view that such pension could only be paid at Sixty-five or such other retirement age as the rules will permit. I believe that was the case involving the former Chief Licensing Officer. Caswell declared all of these courts to be idiots, the minister a clown and the board a pack of duds. He gave the workers at UDC the assurance that he was right and even blog right here on BU that the people at the CCJ did not know what they were doing.

    As it turns out, the restructuring was done, the jobs were abolished, a new structure put in place, the workers paid their separation packages minus pension and gratuity and life has moved on.

    Caswell promised to sue the government on their behalf but the case has not been filed yet. In the meantime he was put out the Union, ask to leave one credit union under less that commendable circumstances and is carrying on this vendetta against Chris Sinckler. So you see David there is nothing that Sinckler could or would ever do to please Caswell. He went up against the minister and lost. He mislead those workers and they soon came to realize it and that is why the intended strike failed.

    You see arrogance and boastfulness gets you nowhere. Caswell is full of it. He knows more law than the lawyers, more economics than the economists and more everything than everybody. And when he cannot get his own way he gets nasty and uses these spaces, of course spurred on by the partisan political types on the blog to light into those he despises. Poor Sinckler just happens to be his object of attention.

    But you David raised a very interesting point which the anti-Sinckler people on this blog should observe and remember. It is that despite all of the nasty things they say about Sinckler and how much idiot he is, his political stock still rises. In spite of the fact that he imposed higher VAT and taxed allowances and increase energy prices plus other things, people in Barbados still like him. Now that must tell you something and it can’t only be that he is an aggressive speaker or is marketed well. People are not foolish. Obama speaks well and is heavily marketed but his approval ratings are dropping. Sinckler’s are growing and have done so in every poll since 2008.

    And try all they might the young man’s detractors cannot get their criticism to stick on him and pull him down. It is just not working but yet on a daily basis Caswell and his friends are on this blog trying to make him look like the biggest idiot to hold ministerial office.

    Finally I remember only too well when in 2010 Sinckler discontinued the allowances for credit union savings. There was a Hugh hue and cry and he was accused of putting a nail in the coffin of the credit union. Caswell, yes Caswell was one in the forefront predicting that it would be the start of the demise of the credit union as people would have no more incentive to save in credit union . He called Sinckler the biggest idiot to ever become minister of finance. Well it would be useful to ask any of the major or minor credit unions what has happened to the savings rates in the last 18 months. Let us see if the had had less savings or more since the allowance was removed. And how many have actually gone out of business to date.

    You see people like other people to do what they want, see things how they see them and think how they think. Once you do not do so you are an idiot, dont know what u are doing, out of your depth and on it goes.

    Thank God we have people like Sinckler who is not afraid to stand up for his beliefs and say what he believes to be correct even if it rubs some people the wrong way.


  16. @Dear John

    You paint a compelling case to show up Caswell as having a ‘beef’ with Minister Sinckler. It is sure to provoke a response.

    Barbadians have always known what they want in a political leader and Sinckler has been fingered along with Inniss from the young DLP turks. The next general election will be interesting for a number of reasons not least the leadership issue on the DLP side.


    • David

      If what that idiot said were true, I would could be accused of having a beef with Sinckler. I never went to a meeting at Urban and abused the minister or anyone else. When that allegation surfaced, the chairman of the board who was present at all meetings with me told the General Secretary that it was a lie. He even said that I was helpful. If you have any doubts, Mr. Estwick a former permanent secretary and the then deputy chairman could confirm my account.

      At meetings with the workers, I told them that they would lose any case at first instance and at the Court of Appeal since the CCJ has already ruled on a similar matter and that the decision could only be reversed by them. Dennis Clarke took over the matter from me and promised the workers that he would take the matter to court. He never did. I had no such authority.

      As to going up against Sinckler and losing, the minister can confirm that we have never met in my capacity as a trade unionist to discuss anything.

      David, don’t you see the problem here whenever I hit the nail on the head, the politicians on both sides unleash their mindless drones to attack me in the hope that I would run away. Sorry to say, that tactic won’t work on me so bring on your slander. It only proves the point that these people are only suited to be in the gutter, but you will not get me there with them. I am reminded of a quote I saw years ago that guides me in times like these:

      “Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig loves it”.


    • @Caswell

      People who are open with their views are easy targets, we know this to be true. People who are anti-establishment moreso.

      Accept that the politicians maybe offended by the way you operate. It must be said though that to some of us who are looking on it ‘appears’ you have a beef with Sinckler. Just an impression 🙂


  17. “People are not foolish. Obama speaks well and is heavily marketed but his approval ratings are dropping. Sinckler’s are growing and have done so in every poll since 2008.”

    @David Johnny……you hitting the bottle too early in the morning man. Only a drunkard could be saying what you saying about the Sneaker.


  18. @ David
    “A Martian reading some of the comments would be tempted to ask how come Sinckler is second in the recent CADRES poll if he is believed to be so incompetent?”

    Simple, we like mediocrity and fluff…popular moderators included.
    Every year Sinckler has to make major ‘corrections’ to his Budget and Estimates’ policies–every year!
    In this year’s Budget, after his BIG $30,000 threshold announcement got debunked by the Opposition, he rushed to change it to $35,000 claiming it was a typo. Wunna believe that? All through the document talks about $30,000, not to mention not one of the other 19 members on the gov’t side corrected him. Don’t forget Sinckler said that the Budget is discussed with the entire Cabinet if not parliamentary group.You really think the desperate Dems would let $30,000 be repeated knowing it is $35,000?


  19. @enuff

    Is the politician (MoF) responsible for the financial statement at that granular level? What is the role of the Director of Finance, PS and other civil servants involved?


  20. David,
    I think you should not side so quickly with the new bloggers on BU who come on to destroy people’s character. I see it happening too often and most of the time they are bold faced DLP hacks.

    It is no secret that Peter Wickham has an agenda to get Chris Sinckler the leadership of the DLP just as he helped the dead king to wrestle the leadership away from Clyde Mascoll. For what other reason would he bring on Sinckler on a Tuesday when Parliament was in session and was debating a money resolution at that?

    A caller called in and told questioned why Sinckler spent an hour on the programme when he should be in the house…… peter Wickham went ballistic on the old man.

    I agree with “observing”, Sinckler is a bluffer, he is out of his depths in Finance, another bad decision the dead king made on his dying bed. Can you imagine that DT was dying, the DLP alone knew this but every time he was brought back into the island, an idiot like the PM we now saddled with handed back the leadership to him even though he knew DT was in no shape to lead a country and now we have ended up with the biggest idiot ever to be MOF because even from his grave DT rules the DLP.


    • @Prodoigal

      Your caution is noted but it is important that Caswell be aware that if he has low hanging fruit he opens up himself.


    • David

      I am not worried by the attacks, it would be a different matter if they had any semblance of truth and I had something to hide or be ashamed of. My fruits may be hanging low but I have a pit bull guarding them.

      They will never be able to say that I told a lie on BU or anywhere else. If I got caught doing so, I would be ashamed. Their nonsense does not bother me in the least. Let them find a target that cares about them. I don’t.


  21. sinckler is popular because fundell is not ah strong leader, so sinkler is who does be de one carrying de fight forward for the D’s and is ah more social person than fundell


  22. @ Caswell

    Correction to your post:

    They often say that you ‘lie’ they have never proven it. So they can say that you ‘lie’ but ‘never be able to’ prove it.


    • Brief

      Thanks for your correction. I never set out to mislead like the partisan bloggers. I try to educate and enlighten.


  23. @ Protagoras | July 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM |

    Who was the piggy in the middle? Was it PW or DT? Or Did LP give them piggyback rides?


  24. @ David
    No civil servant determines government’s tax policy. Furthermore, Sinckler said it was a typo. What does a typo mean? If the civvies prepared the budget at the ‘granular’ level where did they get the $30,000 from? Did Sinckler not read the Budget before reading it in Parliament? Not buying it….lol


    • @enuff

      Not challenging you on the policy part. Isn’t it the technocrats who are suppose to determine if the policies can work?


  25. @ Enuff | July 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM |

    I want to agree with you that it was NOT a typo error. That $30,000.00 figure was mentioned on more than one occasion. It was even initially referred to as “Assessable” Income and not as “Taxable Income”. The original labeling of Assessable Income would have meant that only the first $5,800.00 of taxable income would suffer tax at 17.5% instead of 20%- a mere 2.5 % savings.
    It is only when the tax expert lobby representing their own interest as higher income earners realized that the tax concession was a mere pittance in the MoF’s attempt to curry electoral favour with this swathe of employees. By moving the taxable threshold from $24,200.00 to $35,000.00 (and not $30,000.00) and reducing the rate of tax from 20% and 35% to 17.5% a much larger tax concession as an electoral peace offering was made to these voters who were peeved for having their travel & entertainment allowances taxed at the marginal rate of $35%.

    Unless the technocrats advising the Minister do not understand the fiscal effects and impact the difference between $30,000.00 and $35,000.00 at a 50% (35% to 17.5%) reduction in the higher rate would have on the approved Estimates then one can only conclude that this was a shift in fiscal policy resulting from strong lobbying in an environment when every vote counts even if some of them are CLICO policyholders.

    The Minister initially indicated that the first proposed concession based on the $30,000.00 scenario would result in a 2.5% or so downward adjustment to the overall budget of each ministry and department and including transfers to statutory agencies in order to stay in line with the government medium term fiscal strategies.

    One wonders if similar directives have been reissued to reflect these additional tax concessions announced by the MoF in his winding speech and opportunity to make amendments and corrections before the budgetary statement and proposals were accepted by the lower chamber.


    • Miller

      The is a fundamental misunderstanding of the budget process which even extends to MPs. I am therefore not surprised when you referred to making amendments in the winding up speech.

      Firstly, the Budget is not debated. When the Minister of Finance announces a tax in a budgetary proposal it becomes the law immediately for four months. There is no requirement to pass a budget. The Budget is not debated and passed: what really happens is that a member of the House proposes a resolution congratulating the Government on its handling of the economy and that resolution is debated and passed.

      The minister cannot legally change any tax that was imposed in a budget during the winding up of the “Budget” debate. Having announced the tax in the Budget, it immediately becomes the law of the land. If you want to change that law the Government would have to let the law expire or pass a subsequent amendment. WHAT THE MINISTER IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO LAW, he cannot change the tax in the manner that he did.


  26. @ Enuff | July 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM |

    @ David
    No civil servant determines government’s tax policy. Furthermore, Sinckler said it was a typo. What does a typo mean? If the civvies prepared the budget at the ‘granular’ level where did they get the $30,000 from? Did Sinckler not read the Budget before reading it in Parliament? Not buying it….lol……………………………..

    Chris Sinckler likes to fool the public that he is so brilliant. Let me tell you this one, enuff to prove what you are saying.

    I was at a function recently before the Minister had to go off to sign some big deal. I was standing in a group when someone asked the Minister if he was all prepared and if he had his speech ready. The Minister in his usual pompous style, answered….. “speech, I have not even looked at that yet but I will get up around 2 or 3 o’clock and put something together”. I looked around and standing in a group nearby was the PS, you could not miss the utter astonishment on the PS’ face. Now you and I know that Ministers do not write those important speeches, so you done know that Sinckler was lying through his teeth.

    Impressive my eye, he is the biggest bluffer that there ever was. But then again, he learnt his politics from the dead king!


  27. @ Prodigal Son | July 12, 2012 at 10:54 PM |
    “Impressive my eye, he is the biggest bluffer that there ever was. But then again, he learnt his politics from the dead king!”

    You mean to say that he is the refined “educated” version of Leroy P?
    You don’t think that that big ride once assigned to CLICO Leroy was made available to heavy duty Chris just so? A lot of back scratching and jumping might have taken place to plug that back end deal. The sharing of the flowing expensive pink champagne at the Bajan version of a day at the Ascot races is indicative of the social and other intercourse that tie the hands of a garrison boy to his roots and ambition of poor boys making it big at the expense of his fellow black brothers.

    Now here is a man who publicly says his ultimate ambition is to join the priesthood and that he has no interest whatsoever in becoming PM. His words and actions are at cross purposes. But then again the transition from minister of government to minister of the church is just one of the size of the pay cheque depending on the congregation. Both must have the gift of the gab and must be prepared to fool the people with white lies and myths.


  28. To all the Chris Sinckler haters on this blog the question must be asked, if this man is such a complete dud, is all fluff and no substance, how it is that you have wasted three days and a whole lot of time discussing him or rather abusing him. I thought that people are totally ignore. Yuh don’t waste a whole thread talking about somebody that don’t matter. Hmmmm! And a question for Caswell the legal expert, if as you say that tax changes become law immediately as they are announce can such only be restricted to when the minister speaks in a budget. Does the provisional collection of taxes limit such announcements by the minister to the presentation of a budget? And if that is not the case, as I know it is, what law would be broken if the minister were ti come next Tuesday in parliament and say as of today Tuesday july ….. I wish to announce that all salaries should be tax free. Wouldn’t that override what he said to weeks ago. And if that is the case why would the minister be breaking the law if in the very same sitting he made and adjustment to a tax change he made two days before.


    • David John

      I am truly sorry that I have incurred your wrath but I see where the problem is: you don’t read and understand.

      Under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, the minister can impose a tax by whatever name called but he has no authority, using the same legislation to reduce a tax. To do so he would have to employ the usual legislative process.


  29. @ David john | July 13, 2012 at 7:42 AM |
    “…. if this man is such a complete dud, is all fluff and no substance, how it is that you have wasted three days and a whole lot of time discussing him or rather abusing him. I thought that people are totally ignore.”

    Dear John, it was not BU bloggers that spent weeks plotting and conniving with the eager DLP eleven or however many.
    It was not bloggers who spent time drafting a letter called the “epistle from the eager eleven”.
    It wasn’t bloggers who leaked the same letter to the Nation of all newspapers.
    Neither was it any blogger who had to eat humble pie and admit to the country that he was the big brains behind the potential leadership coup.

    Should we believe him when he publicly acclaimed his total lack of ambition of becoming PM? If he has no political ambition why is he running again? To be what kind of minister in Stuart’s administration? Honesty dictates he resigns and follow through with his much publicised ambition of becoming a priest and administering in holy orders not one in a government where Stuart is well in charge and at large. If he follows his heart and stays true to his word then we would not spend time discussing and abusing but in full praise of his integrity and honest and for being a man loyal to his word even if not to his present boss.


  30. Listen to Minister Sinckler on Brasstacks with Wickham:

    Though we promised in our Manifesto to change the legislation to allow two pensions to remain we can’t because it would be financially impossible and also discriminatory.
    How equitable is the NHC free units policy? Did he not also confirm what we have been arguing all along: that the DLP manifesto was all pie in the sky promises?

    Yuh hear fluff, that is fluff.


  31. Perhaps the Ministry of Transport could tell us why the road tax for some particular SUV’s is as high as $1600, while some owners of the same type of vehicles are paying as little as $375. Certainly the difference between registering that type of vehicle as Private, as opposed to Commercial,cannot not be that wide.
    Veh #1 :Tare 2020 Kgs Gros 2700 Kgs –Road TAX $375.00
    Veh #2 :Tare 1020 Kgs Gros 2030 Kgs…Road TAX $375.00
    Veh #3:Tare 1950 kgs Gros 0 Kgs…..Road Tax $1600.00


  32. sine you blp haranatans love polls so much . this one for you “Every body LoVES chris. the man has shown plenty of maturity over the four years in office and took the high road in delivering a realistic budget nt one on political opportunism . so go ahead keep harping about one of the best loved of our soil. chris sinckler the man to beat !


  33. Another DLP lie to the Barbadian public. Another trick like the 100 days promises. Donville Inniss announces a new hospital to be built at Kingsland.

    A few days after he made the initial announcement last October, a very senior person in the Ministry said that he did not know how the Minister could make the announcement. He said not a meeting was held, not a quantity surveyor consulted, not an architect consulted, not a location identified. Not a word from the minister since October but low and behold today with an election pending, he finds a tentative site!

    Bajans, do not buy the DLP lies again!


    • Enuff

      It is not a case of madness. The first question is who currently owns the 20 acres required. I would risk to bet it will be someone, probably a DEM,who has been trying to offload the land for a long time but could not attract a buyer with the exorbitant price being asked. You must remember that CLICO is not there to finance the next campaign and the fellows need money.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.