well! well ! WELL! good gooly counselor not only did david editoral was misleading but the ghost writer of that first letter which i knew was not the original spare no time in demonising the BSTU and trying to set them up as a bunch of losers . stupsee the ghost writer is as much a fraud as the same people who they are calling . how does one put themselves into such an uncompromising position and take some other fool along with them for the ride. like they say a ‘Sucker is born every minute. and in this case i hate to think who was suckered punch,look david if i were you i would let these people fight their own battles

@Amused

Yes via Twitter.

Ah ac, dear ac. As Pat said, you were far more interesting when you were at Cave Hill, before you became the alter ego for Mona Robinson and that Frost man and the head of the Neblett Lashley Old Hen Fan Club (or are you Neblett Lashley herself – surely not – I mean, even you wouldn’t be so crass as to describe yourself as a distinguished lady………or would you? BUT, what I don’t understand is that you clearly had the letter – may even have been the author of the letter (and that has to be considered) and yet, instead of providing a copy of the letter by way of rebuttal to BU, chose instead to simply refer to the parts of it that might serve your agenda, in the hopes that the actual letter would not see the light of day. No praise from you to David for having obtained and provided a copy to the people financing this $600K+ fiasco? Got a problem with transparency? Never mind – so does the Government and Opposition. But we will reform them – and you – no matter what it takes.

@Amused (or maybe David) because you seem to be one and the same nowadays…”:Maybe now that David has posted “The Letter”, we will hear from the so-called “Fourth Estate”. Or will they now claim that it is “sub judice” and bleat in a decaffeinated way about them being “held to a higher standard”

Oh yeah!!!!…If you are so good, why don’t you post under your own name you amusing person (joker)

@amused “What manner of lawyer is entitled to wear silk in Barbados again?”

Not you amused, not you.

I wonder why you don’t wear silk?

David

I commend you for making the letter available to BU readers. However I am really at a lost as to how it can be asserted that the BSTU demanded that Broomes be sent on leave or face IMMEDIATE strike action.

Let us revert to the words of the earlier “report”. The inflammatory (in my opinion) passage of the earlier report is as follows:

“Finally, Mona Robinson and the BSTU demands that Broomes be sent on immediate statutory or other leave, failing which the BSTU members of the Alexandra school will consider strike action at once.”

I invite any reasonable reader to show me where in the actual letter such a DEMAND is made and further where a consequent THREAT TO STRIKE is also made should the Ministry (presumably) not accede to this “DEMAND”.

Notwithstanding legal or other training or the oft claimed diminution of the standards of the use of English, words do have detailed cataloged meanings which militate against a self serving interpretation done in the pursuit of an opaque agenda.

@Ping Pong

You are free to interpret the letter how you want.

Why does a union make demands if it will not act?

In this case the BSTU/AX matter has reached a position where the BSTU will be satisfied with nothing less than Broomes’ separation.

The letter confirmed it.

Why would the BSTU after a hastily convened meeting at the MOE write such an aggressive letter?

Connect the dots.

@David “Connect the dots”…or 2+2=5

david

Why does a union make demands if it will not act?

what are the demands the letter asked for clarification in respect to the meeting called by king before the beginning of school and clearly gives recommendations as to mr. brommes role or nonrole at alexander nothing about demands or strike action. is it illegal to ask questions of clarification or to give ones input into a matter that affects an organisation and if the outcome might not bepf best interest of those their are representing is it wrong to state there case openly to there employers afterall it was a meeting dealing with school matters and broomes is part and parcel of the matters that involves AX. look david you are on your own. but remember accountabilty and integrity is also knocking on your door people are watching and observing.

@ac

By the way BU is very comfortable standing alone.

@Ping Pong

Let us hope this is the case but from where we sit it is doubtful.

@Sargeant

You too are entitle to your opinion, we shall see.

To clarify BU asked why Hal Gollop was not cced.

david i read the last paragraph and it does not include strike actions it specifies recommendations on request , where is the strike action. David you are on your own.

The language is very clear, even if the MOE answers the questions posed the BSTU added the caveat that Broomes should be sent on leave. BU is free draw the conclusion we have given what has led us to where we are.

Instead of grasping the import of this letter many of you have opted to fight BU on whether strike action was threatened.

Deal with ALL the issues raised which should also be of concern.

Of course the pro-Broomes faction would not want to do so because of a myopic fixation with Broomes.

This matter is bigger than Broomes, if Broomes was an ass, his bosses were bigger asses.

it seems with broomes everthing comes in pairs .next on the agenda would be that broomes having a a twin nothing in this saga seems out of the question another tale of two letters

TIME for a Revolution
WHERE are the Freedom Fighters ?
CAN we expect an appearance from Sydney Burnett-Alleyne ? (One of the first men to have an hypenated name—)

JUST ASKING

BTW–What nonsense was SINCKLER talking on the Television News tonite.??
DAH is News ?
Man CBC Let me down
Pure Propaganda
IS this what News come -to -SPECULATION AND LIES,
CBC should now ask for an excuse and shut to f-()–k down

….Just until 21 Sep.

@ac
tis better to be silent and ignorant (of the facts) than to speak and prove it.

@simple simon
you continue to do a commendable job of distraction, diversion and amplification of non points to avert focus from the real point which you never address. Mission accomplished…in some worlds that is. Maybe not as simple as some may think 🙂

@ping pong
“However I am really at a lost as to how it can be asserted that the BSTU demanded that Broomes be sent on leave or face IMMEDIATE strike action.”

I retract my statements elsewhere and admit that you are right. David… uh can’t help ya with this one.

@reginald
my my. Just imagine where people who have used their real names in this “fair and just” society where “all ideas contend and victimisation doesn’t exist” have ended up. Can I assume that your real name is genuine or are you only about “wealth for all”

@david
why would the CEO feel a need to poke his nose into this when his nose is what helped cause it in the first place?

@all
The BSTU has assumed a position of industrial relation thuggery, which isn’t too bad when exercised properly, quietly and effectively. Alas, they have not.

Just observing.

this post and letter speaks so much to the incompetency and ineptitude of Mr. King it isn’t funny. Reform and change doesn’t need to start “on the ground.”

oh, and then the jackass union cc’ed everybody and their grandmother this letter, even though it is abundantly clear that Laurie wanted a “hush hush” stop gap arrangement to “keep the peace.” Don’t these people understand quiet diplomacy??

“sent on special leave…..” – this is where the part about a charge/allegation and an ongoing investigation is conveniently omitted.

what was it they said years ago about the “blind leading the blind?” sigh.

just observing.

@ David (not BU)
….but suppose as a result of the COI, significant improvements are made to the education system?
Suppose teacher appraisals were to be actually applied and slackers were dismissed?
Suppose goals were established and performance monitored and published…

🙂 ….Suppose ain’t got no no’s….LOL

A bushman can dream can’t he….?

…imagine a whole where we could only speak the truth…hmmmm

CLARITY, CLEAR THINKING AND CONCLUSIONS
We all have agendas that is why we are on the BLOGS, perhaps a change of government, services improved, a better society, even to get others to shut up, the list is endless. No one can be on a moral high ground and accuse others of having an agenda.

Page (1) of the alleged letter, the proposals to BSTU alleged to have been made by the Chief Education Officer were not outlined so we cannot draw sensible conclusions and it would be unwise to speculate further, that page is best left alone.

Page (2)
Note 7.:. . . . “Has either the Board of Management or any public officer, including the person currently employed as Principal of the Alexandra School, agreed to temporarily or otherwise, to delegate, waive or to subordinate in any way any of their powers, authority, obligations and responsibilities to the above mentioned committee in the execution of its duties? if so please specify the details”. . . . .

FINAL paragraph the “alleged” letter:

“The Union takes this opportunity to state, notwithstanding any answers you may offer to the above questions, its view that there should be an exercise of the statutory authority to send Mr. Jeffery Broomes, Principal of the Alexandra School, on leave with immediate effect without loss of any entiltlments. If Mr. Broomes is entitled to a terms leave than that type of leave should be applied. If he is not so entitled, then he should be sent on special leave as provided for in General Orders.”

Conclusions
One could argue that the BSTU did not state “categorically” they would go on strike if Mr. Broomes was not removed from Alexandra School. However, there was strike action because he was not “separated” before the COI was set up.
”
The Union (BSTU) has set out “their” position as it now stands, of course this is before the report of the COI but the emphasis and the repeated use of SHOULD in the final paragraph leaves no doubt as to their thinking.

Do note that they (BSTU) also write . . . . “notwithstanding any answers you may offer to the above questions, its view that there should be an exercise in the statutory authority to send Mr. Jeffery Broomes, Principal of the Alexandra School, on leave with immediate effect”. . . .

The letter cannot be seen in “isolation” as previous events has brought us to this position, to my mind the meaning is clear. . . but there is a caveat, the Commission of Inquiry has not yet reported. Positions can be held until the last moment.

) the refusal of Amaida Greaves to teach for a long period of time;
It is noted that Mrs Greaves was hounded and pilloried by all and sundry on BU FOR NOT TEACHING FOR A YEAR as charged by Mr Broomes. Since this allegation has proven to be false, we now hear it is a long period of time.

@Yardbroom

Sound analysis, the kind we need more of in the public space.

Be assured that BU will do our little bit to shine light on this matter, a matter which has been ongoing since 2002 and which epitomizes the rot which has taken hold in our education system. If we have an agenda it is for a better education system. Those who read and you know who you are yes we have our sources and we are watching.

Time to crush some heads. We need to stop the foolishness, for the sake of the children. We (taxpayers) want to know why the secret meeting and why did it provoke the tone of response from the BSTU.

Balance your last two postings have been noted —just to remind you that the NUPW (Dennis Clarke and Walter Maloney also put some lashes on Mrs,Greaves)was on of those organisations who supported drinking buddy Broomes, by the way i see there has been some talk about white colar crime in the Nation paper today –my question is has the President of the NUPW (Walter Maloney )repaid the funds he used to put gas in his car with the Union credit card when he is paid a monthly teavelling allowance –but even if he has paid it back -it is fraud –so we see where our so call leaders are settling bad example for the youth of this nation —we wonder if he has repaid the oversees phone bill $6000.