The Nation Newspaper Gaffe: A Case NOT to EXPLOIT Children

Photo Credit: Barbados Today

Photo Credit: Barbados Today

The Fourth Estate plays a critical role to the proper functioning of a democracy, it must. Providing citizens with information which equips them to make the best decisions and at the same time act as a watchdog targeting those who act as gatekeepers of authority and influence in our society. Any attempt to sanitize, filter, manipulate information which it feeds to the public must be rejected as a fourth estate reneging on its obligation. The consequence is a compromised democracy.

In Barbados the media [fourth estate] is heavily self-censored. With the exception of a couple media practitioners there is a lack of respect for the profession by the decisionmakers and general public. It is fair to suggest that media workers demonstrate a lack of respect for themselves if we are to judge their inability to promote a vibrant union or association. The Barbados Association of Journalists (BAJ) does not even have an official website or Facebook presence in 2013 such is the inadequacy of how media workers see themselves.

Related Link: Statement issued by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ag) Crime, Lionel M. Thompson

One of the tenets of a working Fourth Estate is the right to  leverage freedom of expression. However, while accepting that media must have the right to report freely on matters of public interest there are certain universal norms which respected media outlets observe. The requirement of a society to defend public morals and therefore the need to filter OBSCENITY.   There is DEFAMATION of course and a host of others based on jurisdiction. The one of interest to BU is PORNOGRAPHY and in this instance, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. A simple definition of child pornography is “material that visually depicts sexual conduct by children”.

The arrest of Nation newspaper Publisher Vivian-Anne Gittens, Editor in Chief Roy Morris and Editor Sanka Price in connection with the sex story published on October 26, 2013 has signalled a departure from the norm given the response it has attracted. Many who read the article believed that the Nation had a right to report the matter, where they got it wrong was how it executed.    BU found it surprising how many leading commentators made the point that the Nation newspaper was on good ground to expose the matter and at the same time excuse the graphic presentation of the incident. Win lose or draw a message has been sent to media houses that sensationalizing stories of this nature which involve children will not be tolerated, and this is a good thing.   The time has come to fight back against the decline in standards in every facet of our society. There is one thing which as adults we cannot compromise and that is proving leadership (mentorship) to our children.

It gives BU no joy to see others brought before the Court on such a serious charge BUT enough is enough. BU had the opportunity when we received the link to the sex video to post a more graphic blog, we also had the opportunity to use the Nation’s redacted  image, we did not AND it did not require much deliberation on the part of the BU household. The good from the story is that the sensibilities of Barbadians everywhere have been aroused.  Let us hope it sends a message to the idiots who feel compelled to post all and sundry to social media. To all the schools which are covering up infelicities. To all the parents who are in denial. To the incompetents at the ministry of education who are cheating on their roles as guardians of our education system.

Congratulations to the Police and Director of Public Prosecutions for demonstrating the courage to travel a different path this time around.

185 comments

  • there is also an interesting case where a gay rights activist in jamaica was denied by the Jamaican Constitutional court the right to advertise subject matter dealing with tolerance to gays on TV stations including The public owned Jamaican TV station

    Like

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ simple simon

    I must be your family since, according to AC , only your family gives you stars.

    Among your many salient points you mention “children of privilege” and the ease with which the holier than thou crew would have bypassed the sexing if it had been effected by one of such ilk.

    Therein lies the crux of this matter.

    Two unknowns, offspring of plebeians, fooping in a class, videod by two other underlings and facebooked.

    Enter Sanka Same Key Price, scion of the BLP, pervert number two at the Nation, to comment on the thrustings of a plebeian

    If the wrong had been committed by “people with societal value” it would not have made its way into our visual arena and these promoters of anarchy, newspaper persons that are a law to themselves would not have been before the court.

    Furthermore I put it to you that if (1) the CoP was still Dottin the DPP would have done nothing and (2) if the BLP were in power no one would hve had the balls to arrest the Vivianne et al.

    I guess that my desire to get a pick at the Nation is now scuttled forever causing when Vivianne get lock up dem going bring in a Trinidadian to run tings me dem may not like my disregard fuh de Nation crew dem

    Like

  • I have asked if this matter is sub judice. Already these postings have given the accused a line of defence since the matter is likely to go to a jury trial.
    It will be near impossible to find a jury who had not read any of these postings, given the popularity of BU.
    Discussing the wider issues is fine, but discussion the Nation and its report would not be tolerated in most jurisdictions.
    It is the job of the DPP and attorney general to issue a public warning.

    Like

  • St George's Dragon

    Where are the police going to stop. They have arrested and charged the two boys who took the video and the Nation three.
    What about everyone who circulated the video on Facebook etc? What about charging the girl in the incident with underage sex with the boy.
    Stupidity.

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    Please name “some jurisidictions” where the discussion on a blog, where all views are represented, of a public statement of a senior police officer regarding a matter of public concern to journalists and the general public would be regarded as contempt.

    Like

  • @ Robert Ross
    Your question is too confused. But it is prima facie contempt for the media to discuss the details of an alleged offence once people have been charged in England and Wales.
    This is particularly so if there is any likelihood of a jury trial. It can be a defence if the case will be before a judge or district judge (magistrate) since in theory they are too objective to be influenced by the press.
    The press does not have any special freedom that puts it above the law.
    The press is part of our democracy or it is nothing. With media power comes responsibility..
    I know Barbadian lawyers think they are the most knowledgeable in the world and I do not want to disabuse them of this. But the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
    As the French will say, it is better that nine guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted.

    Like

  • are-we-there-yet?

    Robert Ross; I would like to join your call for Hal Austin to name some jurisdictions and indeed to expand further on his comments above, as It would be of great interest to those of us who as laypersons commented on various aspects of this topic, to be advised of the aspects in the BU discussion on this matter that could reasonably be deemed sub judice by an energized force.

    Comments from Yourself, David (who seems to have some legal underpinnings in many of his posts), Amused and Caswell would also be very welcome re. clarifying this matter until, as Hal suggests, the DPP and AG issues a warning.

    Like

  • are-we-there-yet?

    Hal Austin; I did not see your post above until after I posted mine.
    Thanks. Your last post clarifies the matter somewhat.

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    In your role of humourless puritan I think you’d better stick to what you do best – War and Peace on Fridays. Now just answer the question and name “some jurisdictions”. You have named one – well unless you think “England and Wales” are two – and then given the standard, simple definition of contempt which does you no good. Then look at what you have just written. You jump from press freedom, to the presumption of innocence, to ‘the law is above you’. In short, you are all over the place complete with cheap jibe. But then I guess your posts are usually like that though I have given up reading them – I find them a contempt of my eyes.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Hal Austin | November 17, 2013 at 5:59 PM |
    “But it is prima facie contempt for the media to discuss the details of an alleged offence once people have been charged in England and Wales.
    This is particularly so if there is any likelihood of a jury trial.”

    You are quite right to point out the standards that prevail in the UK and ought to prevail in similar jurisdictions in matters like these where the rule of law is paramount.
    But you would add more credence to your moral stance if you were to also point out what would happen in the London Metropolitan Police Force if there was evidence of threats being made against the life of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Like

  • Dear Dr. George brathwaithe

    commonsense will tell you that i can interpret what u write.

    i was making the point that the article from jamaica introdce the ppolitcal element even thof it was contained in the same response to u, bt then again i am not surprise at u, as a drowing man will catch at a straw.

    Like

  • Miller

    No. It is not good enough to suggest a very simple definition of contempt without relating law to fact. The working concept is case specific which is why I posed the question in the way I did. This has nothing to do with different standards.

    Like

  • BTW I don’t know where H Austin gets the idea that the one innocent man maxim stems from France. Maybe the French will say it, just as a Brazilian may say it. The maxim has been variously expressed as anything up to 1000 guilty men. Its origin lies in Genesis where Abraham argues with God about saving the righteous in Sodom. It is to be found in terms of the presumption of innocence in Justinian’s Digest, through Jewish jurisprudents, to Fortescue and, in its most modern form, in Blackstone”s Commentaries. The French inquisitorial system rooted n the civil law has been watered down and, yes, their system now accepts the presumption of innocence. But as to origin – no.

    Like

  • Ross why u keep poking hal in theye so..man it seems like somebody gave u a bag of sour candy and u gobbled them up at one sitting.u real sour in trute ..hal first asked a relevant question to which there was no reply. then u come along wearing your presumed lawyer hat to answer the question posed by hal with a question and hal fell into the trap…fuh god sake stay away from sour candy u lemon head

    Like

  • Ross u just a ” prick” and a lawyer only by your imagination. point ac to where in Hal comment he indicates “innocent until proven guilty” was an orginal comment or hallmark of the FRENCH. u are just another caswell out of your league looking for acceptance. a third grade lawyer maybe

    Like

  • AC

    Oh dear…..but one of your better performances I think since it demonstrates your powers of comprehension to be nil.

    Like

  • ONLY IN BARBADOS!

    Where else in this world could sane educated people take a simple case of some wutless children caught in their own stupidity and mold it into charges against persons who EXPOSED the wutlessness.

    What exactly is the charge against a NEWSPAPER publishing the TRUTH about an illegal incident occurring in a public school in BROAD daylight?…and incident that EXISTS. In the public domain…?

    What the Hell!!

    Simple minded Simon…..why don’t you stay with things that you actually understand?..
    What the hell is sacrosanct about 14 year-olds?
    Who gave them a free pass to do shiite and not pay the price?
    ….are they immune from AIDS?
    …are they immune from unwanted pregnancy?
    …when they drop out of school and become parros who the hell will provide for them- when they end up in the same Nation begging for a house and food for their children?
    LOTTA damn shiite talk bout here….

    Bushie is ANTI- NATION! …because they undermine this country with their ONE-CARIBBEAN agenda, and the bushman will join any rational move to charge, arrest, and prosecute Mrs Gittens, Morris and PARTICULARLY Hoyte in that regard…..but THIS particular issue IS NOT IT.
    This is a matter of SCHOOLS not functioning effectively and THAT fact being properly highlighted by a newspaper.

    Rather that take steps to HIDE UP these failings by going after the messengers, we should be seeking out the brass bowls who we PAY to make education work…..and who have been failing now for YEARS.

    No doubt Simple Simon is a teacher in such a school.
    No doubt she is well aware that NO EFFORTS are made to supervise these children effectively.
    She probably knows that cell phones may be used next to show HOW LITTLE teachers do for our money…
    How they hide in the staff room – (when they do turn up for work) …and how openly FED UP and UNCARING most are…..

    THESE are the issues to be addressed…not damn school boys with a cell phone camera….

    If two idiots decide to have sex in public and Bushie happens to video tape the event (as happens routinely at Kadooment and many so called fetes with their so-called dancing) how the hell can Bushie be accused of porn?
    When the case comes up will the DPP present this evidence to the court? …or would THAT constitute porn…?
    Steupssss
    Brass bowls….

    Porn is when someone CONSTRUES to create, record or distribute such material for erotic / profit purposes….
    This was a public service…..probably the best damn thing the Nation ever did…..!

    Like

  • @Bush Tea “No doubt Simple Simon is a teacher in such a school.”

    Dear Bushie: You don’t know a brass bowl about Dr. Simple Simon.

    Like

  • See there u go with your side winding ignorant response.. that only a third rate lawyer would use as a cover which is a sure sign of weakness and incompetence . then instead of answering the questions u proceed to undermine what little credibility u have in stock with another ignorant and childish attack. what a jerk.

    Like

  • @BUSH TEA…………………HEE! HEE! and u can have my topsy brass bowl.

    Like

  • @Bush Tea “What the hell is sacrosanct about 14 year-olds?”

    The law of Barbados (not me, although I agree with the law) says that a person younger than 18 is a child. And children, even naughty children (I wouldn’t call them wutless/worthless) deserve special protection under the law, and I agree with that too.

    I you are one of those old men who needs to view the sexual activity of children to make you feel alive, then you have a problem, and there are plenty of psychiatrists around that will work with you to solve the problem.

    What the Nation did was NOT a public service, and old fools who say so should be ashamed of themselves.

    I believe that when the Nation published/distributed distributed this material it can be construed to be for erotic / profit purposes.

    The Nation is a business and like any business part of the reason for their existence is profit.

    A newspaper just does not put itself together. Editors sit down at an editorial table every single day and make EDITORIAL DECISIONS (senior editors are paid so well because they are expected to make WISE decisions) as to what goes in the paper and what stays out. That decision making process includes what is news and what is not BUT also what will sell newspapers and advertising and what might keep sales flat.

    So yes all newspapers are motivated by what’s news AS WELL AS BY WHAT SELLS (PROFIT)

    Like

  • @ Simple Simon
    The biggest idiot that Bushie has EVER encountered had multiple doctorates ….. In engineering……

    Like

  • @bush tea u deserve the licks uh getting u ole “peeping tom” …….Oh before i fuhget. share the topsy wid uh commander and xxhief caswell cause it contains both wunna egos which is the same size of MT rush moore.

    Like

  • I ain’t touching this case until a verdict. However, I asked …….What about the case with the senior police? What about the little boy under twelve gyrating between a grown lady? Why did CBC refuse to mention the police act? I await these cases.

    Like

  • Ever heard about PRIORITIES simple?

    The PROBLEM is that our schools are dysfunctional. …a MESS!
    The problem is that the authorities have been COVERING -UP.
    The problem is that this will cost us BILLIONS of wasted dollars and very likely – a few LOST generations.

    Your petty squabbles and concerns about some shiite-law, contrived by some set of brass bowls to impress simple folks like you PALES in comparison.

    When catastrophe is on the horizon one DOES NOT focus on protecting the feelings of misguided miscreants…..or even of grown up simpletons…

    Like

  • “Sir/ balance u have access to the internet use it wisely. First hand evidence is mostly important in discussing these issues. do your own research”
    had a feeling you were only bluffing and had no cases to cite

    Like

  • @Bush Tea “What the hell is sacrosanct about 14 year-olds?”

    I might as easily ask what is so special about marriage…and yet the law privileges marriage. If Bushie should close his eyes tonight, the law permits Mrs. Bushie certain privileges and these privileges hold whether or not Mrs. Bushie was a good wife, whether or not she ever cooked or cleaned or washed for Bushie, whether or not she bore him any children, whether or not she ever held a paid job. In fact the law in Barbados would take MY National Insurance contributions and pay the widowed Mrs. Bushie a pension for the rest of her life even if she has never made a single contribution to the NIS, or raised a child.

    So just as Bushie asks “What the hell is sacrosanct about 14 year olds?”

    I can ask “What the hell is sacrosanct about marriage?” and why does NIS pay pensions to widows, even to widows who have never held a paid job or raised a single child?.

    Why does the state privilege marriage, what is sacrosanct about marriage?

    The law privileges marriage because marriage is important. Bad wives enjoy the same legal privileges as good wives

    The law privileges childhood because childhood is important. “Wutless” children are legally entitled to the same legal protections as “good” children

    Like

  • @BUSH TEA…………………………what a genius ..name calling and small talk. man u are such a genius .i really got to hand it to u though. nobody but a bush tea could use the phrase “brass bowl ” in such a descriptive manner as well as execute it on members of the BU family in such a dictatorial fashion. the king must be shaken in his grave.

    Like

  • @ac November 17, 2013 at 12:53 PM ” Have You noticed that expect for YOU and may be a few members of YOUR family who throws in one or two stars as compliments no one responds to your comments ”

    Dear ac that is because there can be no reasonable response to an elegantly reasoned, elegantly written blog post.

    And tobesides ac I don’t come here looking for stars or followers…if I wanted followers I would go over to Twitter.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  • BTW what happen to ROBERT THE “moss” ross. gone ran and hide. now i see uh left Hal alone noow ur behind has been attacked come here pretending to play lawyer and what a lousy job of acting. TV lawyers do a better job. maybe u can acquire some of their skills and apply them to uh little makebelief lawyering ..goof ball what a waste.

    Like

  • Good NITE DAVID………………..

    Like

  • @ Simple Simon | November 17, 2013 at 9:34 PM |
    *************
    That post is SO illogical and such nonsense as to be approaching genius…….
    Bushie says that a law that seeks to protect teens who are doing shiite which can KILL them with aids, numerous other STDs, and cripple their futures with poverty is MISGUIDED…..
    And SIMPLE counters that if this is so, then the laws of marriage must also be shiite….. ??! :!

    …”Bushie going and sleep hear…!?

    BTW
    Hush do! ac…..

    Like

  • simple simon uh so sweet i take everything back that i said about U as a sign of good measure. i reluctantly retrieve my topsy brass bowl and hand it to U, take care, keep u the good work chopping and slicing BUSH TEA apart ,Nite NITE

    Like

  • AC

    Gone? Not a bit of it. I was just watching you over-act. I leave the shadow to you.

    Bush tea

    I have to agree with SS that no-one is ‘wutless’ and certainly not children – and not even ac, the ‘let’s pretend I am somebody even the village idiot’ figment of someone’s fevered imagination.

    Like

  • There was no logical reason for the Nation to print the photo.

    A written report of the incident is all that was required for people of average intelligence to understand.

    I hope the two children are getting the requisite counseling.

    Like

  • “There was no logical reason for the Nation to print the photo.”

    Do you believe just a simple report could have captured dramatically the attention of the public like the photo did?

    “A written report of the incident is all that was required for people of average intelligence to understand.

    I hope the two children are getting the requisite counseling.”

    Were you able to recognize the two children who you suggest are in need of requisite counselling from the photograph?

    Like

  • @ Robert Ross

    I am familiar with Barbadian logic, answering a question with a question and digressing from substantive issues to deal with minor points that are presumed to be central to the argument.
    Let me take you back to the real issue: that of an issue being sub judice, which is the rule in every jurisdiction that has the roots of its law in the common law system. It is about a fair trial.
    The thinking behind it is one of common sense: influencing a jury. As to the doctrine of ten guilty men going free than one innocent man being found guilty, glad you have pointed out it came from the Bible. Presumably the French too are Christians.
    As to press freedom: I have never put so-called press freedom above the rule of law; it is thew one thing that my colleagues in the National Union of Journalists will tell you I am a stickler for.
    The press must be part of our democracy, or it is nothing. When we give people like Rupert Murdoch the ‘freedom of the press’ what is the end result: page three nudes, the freedom to break the law?
    As someone who edits a paper I make sure that nothing goes in my paper without my approval – that is called editing – as I have a legal responsibility for thew paper’s content, including advertisements.

    Like

  • H Austin

    So THAT is what you object to…page 3 nudes? Then I have it right. You are simply a humourless puritan who doesn’t like the idea of the Nation having any sort of defence. Oh – and do shut up about Barbadian logic – are you the new Colonial master – denying your roots and dick-tating from the City? Arrogant fellow. Gee H AUSTIN – the fella who thinks he’s Socrates.

    “The French too are Christians”…. yet again, oh do shut up you silly man.

    Like

  • Back to U Ross then u get up in here trying to cat spraddle me when i indicated to YOUR other half stan pipe lawyer Caswell that anyone knowing of criminal ativity or in posession should be reported to the RBPF. Yet U are a sworn OFFICER OF THE COURT. nuh Wunda the court is dreadlock cause so call lawyers like u go before judges unaware and unprepared forcing the legal system to be stagnant forever. Not even to mention the clients whose pockets are drained financialy because of piss poor lawyers like U

    Like

  • ac

    You are a figment of someone’s imagination in boxers. Now get off stage and bring on the organ grinder.

    Like

  • @ Hal
    Your position on the treatment of sub judice matters is outdated and flawed.
    That position has been used in Barbados to COVER UP all kinds of dirt and to protect the guilty.
    When shit happened, the principals ran to a lawyer who filed a “case” and effectively shut down all discussion for 10 to 20 years.
    All some crook had to do was “go to court”…. there would then be only hidden whispers on that matter and life would continue for 15 years or so after which the matter would be dismissed – or at most, have legal fees assigned….

    WELL THOSE DAYS ARE DONE……THANKS to the social media, the NEW mass communication reality.

    Like cellphones in schools, this new reality is unstoppable, so we had better learn to adjust….and FAST…

    Like

  • @ Balance

    You wrote and I quote “Do you believe just a simple report could have captured dramatically the attention of the public like the photo did?”

    So if one were to extrapolate on your comment it would follow that to get the attention of readers it would be best to have pictures of say the slashed throat of the woman killed a few weeks back or the bullet ridden body of the shop owner at Salters?

    Notwithstanding the writing style of Sanka Price, the article, without pictures, would have been effective enough which underscores Simple Simon’s point regarding the fact that if these were children of privilege their pictures would not have made it the the Nation in such glaring colour

    @Hal Austin

    Sometimes you do come over as a sanctimonious prick and like Mr Ross went to pains to point out your observations re the sub judice issue seem to highlight your love for things Britanica. Now when your British newspapers were tapping people’s phone lines and the matter was before the police I guess that this law of the civilized denizens of the Rule Britannica that you love so much, kicked in, didn’t they? Nitwit.

    @RBPF

    TOO FAR EAST IS WEST

    The issue of the Nation publishing the pictures with the faces masked out accompanied by the erotic writings of the ingrunt Sanka resulted in your first arrests, which will come to naught in the Bulbados courts

    Charging the children who published the video on FB will flitter in the wind and fail but, if I understand what the outcome is intended to be, you wish to preemptively warn other Balans of doing this

    I think that you are using this as PR to show that now Dottin has gone there is a new kid in town, so congrats on that count.

    I wiil wait and see what you do about your officer shaking his doggie on the internet though

    @AC

    Please stay away from big people talk.

    It is better to keep one’s mouth closed and be thought of as a fool that to open one s mouth and to be known inconclusively to be one

    Like

  • Balance in order for U to understand the legal ramifications and the Internationally rules and guidlines that regulates and defines “child por” again i suggest that u do a google of CHILD PORN LAWS. it is not sufficient to apply barbados laws . Again u must understand that Barbados has signed on to UNESCO laws which includes laws dealing with Child porn some of which includes images or simulation of children engaging in sexual activity it is irrevelant wether the faces are shown or not.

    Like

  • Pieceof

    Mind we do routinely put pics, taken in church, of the bodies of the dead in newspapers and seem to think nothing of it. Is it a reflection of sorrow or simply an obsession with death as the two kids ‘wukking up’ is a reflection of fun – misplaced fun? If so, death is OK but not life??? I am speaking generally of course.

    Like

  • @piece of de ROCK………………..Thank u for ur ignorant advice.it is most welcomed in my pit toilet…..

    Like

  • OLE man PDR u think u so smart cause u ninety two ,old fart the world has move on beyond pitching marbles to technology. now stuff them marbles in uh back pocket and join the world for progress and forward thinking. uh not got much time left. just don.t try taking uh frustrations out on ac cause uh not gonna win. Stuespse….

    Like

  • @ Robert Ross
    I refuse to believe that you are a lawyer, since your intellectual impulses are far from those of any lawyer I know.
    The case in point: five people have been charged with alleged offences relating to the publication of a photograph in the Nation newspaper.
    Until there is a full hearing we would not know the prosecution case, but the case is now sub judice, a rule put in place to protect thew innocent.
    I know it is the preserve of barrack room lawyers to pronounce on a case before it is tried.
    I suggest that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Do not prejudice the case against the accused.
    However, Mr Ross and a string of brain dead idiots have come in the forum turning what is a proper defence of the law in to a personal attack on me – as if I will go away and cry.
    It confirms everything I have known about rum shop debaters, a people who abandon common sense in order to be offensive from behind their masks of cowardice.
    This offensive nonsense often includes putting up sdtraw men and knocking thwm down – that I somehow believe everything British is best, or words to that effect.,
    May I suggest that instead of writing such putrid nonsense that you and your mates go away and spend more time critically reading and thinking about new ideas instead of remembering things by rote, often incorrectly.

    Like

  • H Austin

    “Mr Ross and a string of brain dead idiots…”

    Fella, you can’t help yourself can you?

    Like

  • @PDR …….Wont be surprised if U and ROSS are one of the same giving off that smelly aire of importance and wanting so much for others to see u the same way. fuh one ac not impressed by ones wishes hopes or desires of status or influencecause peeps like u are mostly phonies and hyocrites and hate when others expose uh weakness. Now go get a real life and stop thinking u better than others or smarter. ole man

    Like

  • @ Robert Ross

    It is not rocket science: if five people are accused of a serious offence which could lead to their imprisonment, then the civilised thing to do is to back off and allow the law to take its course, in other words, let them have a fair trial.
    But if you, an alleged lawyer, prefer to blurt out your idiotic reasoning as a substitute for justice, it says a lot about your understanding of the concept of rule of law and a fair trial.
    I suggest instead of concentrating on passing exams, you spend more time learning about the theory of law, how these concepts shore up a democratic society.
    Also tame your barking dogs.

    Like

  • Don.t pay ROSS and PDR no mind they are card carrying members and board of directors of “THE BACKROOMS and smoke filled rooms of the discarded ELITE.. influenced by money and prestige. mad as HELL when others contradict or challenge there point of view. think that they are exceptional and woe to those who suggest or disagree with they way of thinking. jus another set of bull shiters with tired and outdated brain cells

    Like

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ AC

    The boardroom awaits the ole fogey that I am but I will pause from these more meaningful things and talk of you.

    Note that I did not say to.

    In the classic “knock on any door” with Humphrey bogart Nick Romano the youth bogart defends says these words

    “Live fast, die you and make a beautiful corpse”

    I see interwoven in your response a hatred for the process of aging and the aged consistent with the new ethos which we old fogeys have bred for were it not the phenomena of our own making how else could it be that youth like you could exist and we did not abort you in utero with your kind?

    BT refers to you kindly as brass bowls but I, the elder, without his upbringing, and incapable of grafting the holiness of the wife, can only call you waste foops

    Which idiot, incapable of seeing the future, would decry the state of becoming old unless being both cretinous AND / OR uneducated.

    In your case AC DC (assuredly cretinous, definitely c*** curse word removed) you MUST BE BOTH

    Like

  • So the 16 year old got put on curfew in lieu of Dodds!!

    Does this mean the court has already determined the video he took meets the criteria for which it is empowered by law to punish?

    From where did the Nation get it’s picture?

    If it is from the 16 year old they are toast!!

    … or should be if common law rules.

    Looks like they might have to appeal!!

    Like

  • @ R Ross
    No one is wufless?…certainly not children…????!
    ***********
    You meking sport right RR?
    You never was a teacher?
    You probably got one or two little sweethearts for children and think that all so?
    ….or you like Wickham and ain’t gone none….?

    Well listen to Bushie…..
    There are LOTS of great children out there….but there ALSO are some wicked, wutless “so and so’s” too – so don’t fool yourself…
    …some of them would eat you alive…. 🙂

    Like

  • @Hal

    Thanks for your advice, BU as part of the Fifth Estate will have to challenge the status quo from time, the buck stops with BU.

    Like

  • @@PDR age is not a about number but the abilty as one grows old to have the capabilty to endorse and move ahead not being stuck to nostalgic ideas like crazy glue what that involves is tolerance not what most old foggies used to decry . frown and isolate those with opposite opinions. as for my hatered of the elderly couldn.t be further from the truth but its those like u who have a mindset that is rigid and uncompromising and excludes all others , and a boosey attitude which is a “turn off”to all.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ pieceuhderockyeahright | November 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM |
    “Live fast, die you and make a beautiful corpse”

    As a little boy I remember one of my uncles saying this to be his motto which he lived up to. He was indeed a most handsome dude who lived a fast life and died young; not as young or in circumstances like James Dean but electrifying enough to make dozens of women weep over his coffin wailing at the fallen Adonis.

    The motto might have found popularity among the young of the racy roaring 1920’s with the phrase genuinely attributed to a real liberated woman of our BU “Island gal” predisposition and dramatized in the 1921 play “These Wild Young People” by J. M. O’Connor as reproduced below:

    “Cyrillo. What do you consider wild?
    Patricia. Oh, to play around and be petted a lot, smoke in public and all that. I read in a paper once about a man who got a divorce from his wife on the strangest grounds. She said she couldn’t be bothered with a husband, intended to lead a fast life, die young, and be a beautiful corpse. I think that’s a fascinating philosophy. It’s my program.”

    You see PDRYR, there is nothing new under the Sun. Yet we have the brazenness of the Serpent to condemn the youth of today.
    If only I had adopted my Uncle’s philosophy I would today be in paradise with 7 vestal virgins for every week of the Solar month. LOL!!!

    PDRYR, do you know how I can get hold of that 1949 movie “Knock on Any Door’ starring the great Bogart? This movie was based on the novel by the naturally gifted Black American writer Willard Motley.

    Like

  • H Austin

    On Legal Theory

    OK big boy…shall we go with Austin, Hart, Hohfeld, Kelsen,, etc etc …name your poison? What happened to the grundnorm in Madzimbamuto? Are cases decided as policy decisions or by the law’s own informal logic? If the latter, what is it? Is law about orders backed by threats or obligation? What of s.9, Wills Act? What can Wittgenstein tell us about legal reasoning?

    I will give you just this little tad of respect…

    It is piffling to say, as you do, ‘this is contempt’ and give a very simplistic account – ‘O’ level stuff. You have to explain how it is in relation to what is given of the facts, To do that you have to formulate a question – which I did. Then you have to look at the sorts of things that have been accounted contempt and see whether the question suggests a positive or negative answer and why.

    OK an example. If a man puts his hand in your empty pocket intending to steal, is that an attempt to steal in law? How does it help to give a simple definition that an attempt is an act that is more than merely preparatory? Or – if I intend to burn down the Nation building and buy a box of matches for this purpose?

    Or again how does the simple definition of the actus reus of theft, an unauthorized appropriation, help is decide whether it’s theft to take goods off a shelf in a supermarket intending not to pay for them. Does it make any difference if the goods are put in your pocket or the wire basket?

    Or again……

    Bush Tea

    I said in a post recently that I found the lawyers’ expression that an argument is “without merit” demeaning. Nothing is entirely without merit, not even H Austin. The more so with children who, for one reason or another, know no better.

    Like

  • It is passing strange that the only minister to come out is the one who play he is the most powerful among the bunch of incompetent idiots…………..the one and only clown…Donville Inniss telling Jamaica to butt out of Barbados’ business. Hey minister, me thinks you doth protest too much.

    You have confirmed by your mouthings what most people have been thinking and saying…….these arrests are political. You can say all you want, we know that you all have put your people in place to do what the DLP wants. We are now only waiting for the time when you all are going to tell the police to crack heads and shoot some people!

    As Tennyson Joseph said in a column a few weeks ago that politicians need to remember that politics is a revolving door. The DLP will do well to learn this and that they would be allowed to buy votes again and so will not always be in power!

    Like

  • John

    Bail set at $10,000 wasn’t it – $5,000 more than the Nation accused? And off to Dodds if he answers back. Have they all gone mad?

    Like

  • @Prodigal Son

    Do you understand the implications of you last comment?

    Like

  • Look u again ROSS still haven,t answered the original question poised by hal but have detour and twisted your way out usings detractions and legal mindfields for hal to fall into. Dirty DAWG.

    Like

  • HA! HA! prodigal my wayward child… Thev dirty Rag has now Found it self in the legal grips of INTERNATIONaL LAW.

    Like

  • Miller

    We have similar tastes. I get my stuff from Amazon or ebay. Yesterday I watched Robert Donat in ‘The Winslow Boy’. Well, you will know the story I expect. Robert Donat as Sir Robert Moreton cross examines a hand writing expert. In particular, he asks the expert why his views on the handwriting in an earlier case were rejected by the jury in that case. He answers “Because they were all idiots” – and blew it. I invite you to compare H Austin’s references to “brain dead idiots” and my “barking dogs”.
    Which causes me to say that I am looking for ‘Spanish Fiesta’ with Toumanova.

    Like

  • ac

    For Christ’s sake just get off stage. You’re just an old man in knickers.

    Like

  • PDRYR, do you know how I can get hold of that 1949 movie “Knock on Any Door’ starring the great Bogart? This movie was based on the novel by the naturally gifted Black American writer Willard Motley.

    —————–
    Hey ! so happens that it is showing this week

    Like

  • robert ross | November 18, 2013 at 1:40 PM |

    John

    Bail set at $10,000 wasn’t it – $5,000 more than the Nation accused? And off to Dodds if he answers back. Have they all gone mad?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If it is the same material everybody published then I would have to conclude the folks from the Nation are enjoying special treatment.

    Maybe the Nation should pay some of the $15,000 it saved towards a lawyer to appeal the boy’s sentence.

    I am sure the three would sleep a lot easier!!

    Like

  • are-we-there-yet?

    John;
    Could you explain how from what appears at face value to have been a $10,000 bail you have arrived at the boy being convicted and charged $10,000 and that an appeal to the boy’s sentence is in the offing. Or perhaps it is just that I missed something, or rather a lot, in the latest developments.

    Like

  • I am just saying that if the folks at the Nation work to get the boy off, when their turn comes they may not have to face Dodds!!

    …. assuming both the boy and them have published the same material.

    I understood from Ross the Boy’s bail was set at $10,000!!

    If my understanding is wrong, then I am wrong in my comments.

    See what you can find out!!

    Try the Gleaner link ….. “The boys were released on BDS$10,000 bail and placed on a 7:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew.”

    Ahhhh … so it looks as though the court is being consistent with bail for everybody.

    So if it remains consistent, Anne Gittens, Roy Morris and Sanka Price will also be placed on curfew ….. except that they are big able adults!!!

    If they could appeal the boys’ sentence now and are successful then perhaps they might sleep easier as their turn comes around to face the music.

    Like

  • @ Hal Austin
    The kind of illogic robert ross spouts is inconsistent with any aquaintance with the number of jurists he rattled off to you . Dont pay him any mind . If he had legal work to look after he wont be able to spend so much time on these blogs .He said he is a lawyer so you must believe him while having some sympathy for his clients.

    Like

  • @not amused .absloutely correct. the most ROSS gets to practicing law is when he gets here on BU and wrangles with others and spout his theories and intrepretaion of LaW. most likely than not he bought his certification on LINE

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Prodigal Son | November 18, 2013 at 1:37 PM |
    “It is passing strange that the only minister to come out is the one who play he is the most powerful among the bunch of incompetent idiots…………..the one and only clown…Donville Inniss telling Jamaica to butt out of Barbados’ business. Hey minister, me thinks you doth protest too much.”

    The Porn Don is a man on a mission. He fully understands that the DLP is on its way out into the wilderness for another long, longer time next time around.
    He wants to become PM someday but does not wish to spend 15 years or so as the LOTO man; not with his personal wealth.

    His only chance of becoming PM in a hurry is to depose the stupidly irrelevant incumbent whom he treats with scant respect, if any.
    He probably knows the current holder shelf life in less than another year before a call for a palace coup is on the cards once again with him wishing and hoping he will be the one the other DLP members would hang their hopes on to last to 2018.
    “DLP” now stands for Barbados’s ‘Destructive Lying Puppets’.

    Like

  • I totally agree with you, miller. Donville is certainly on a mission. My sense is that the PM has no real power………….he wants to be PM so he has to let them do as they very much like. How else do you explain the thug still messing up our country?

    I saw the thug on TV tonight talking nonsense that the BLP wants to get power at all cost even tearing down Barbados. He cannot get the country manage so to cover his incompetence, the Destructive Lying Puppets resort to their talking point that the BLP tearing down Barbados…………….they lie so much that they dont know that they are lying. Barbados has a junk rating yet this idiot would go to the world market floating two bonds at the same time and then had to withdraw them. Was it the BLP who told the people with money not to subscribe to the bond issue? It was their sheer incompetence and arrogance that made them think that people would still buy the bonds even with a junk rating!

    Damn idiots!

    Like

  • Ah……I see the organ grinder made a brief appearance – in a thong poor thing – and then talked to himself.

    Like

  • Bush Tea

    After a hard day in the office dealing with three clients who wanted protection orders (one an H Austin), two bail applications (both unsuccessful but then look who the magistrate was), swotting up a gaggle of jurists from my out-of-date copy, writing an essay for my third online degree, and an enormous number of time wasters in the skirting boards of my life, I fell to watching my evening ‘fix’ over dinner.

    There I learned of this new game called ‘knockout’ in the US, a favourite, apparently, of black kids. The idea is that you randomly throw a punch at a passer-by and the game is won if you knock the person out When I saw this, forgive me, I thought of our exchange on here – and smiled. I am sure you can guess why – yes, at pavement level you do have a point.

    It then occurred to me that life on BU was a bit like my day at the office and a bit like knockout – which is why I always try to leave not-too-late and with a knuckle duster on my right hand when I do. Pop by the office tomorrow if you can. We’ll share a pot of honest-to- gutsy side-street tea if you do. It’s getting less and less easy to find but it’s so much better than the pretentious wind-bag fizzy stuff.

    Like

  • @ Miller the Anunnaki

    You can find that classic at

    http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=knock+on+any+door&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.TRS0&_nkw=knock+on+any+door&_sacat=11232

    I will ask the grandson if there are any websites where it is viewable online as a rental of course.

    @AC

    “where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise”

    Like

  • @ Ross

    It is correct to say that nothing changes under the sun.

    I give you “Knockout in deeper gangland style”.

    Circa 1985, New York City.

    Pass a car and they flick their headlights at you and you flick yours, they circled, came back and killed you!!

    Yes, very little changes under the sun.

    Like

  • It was the Anunnaki who spoke of the constancy of life under this sun and not Ross.

    I retract the inference and direct my echolalia to its true author

    Like

  • Pieceof

    Whoever the Preacher was the message is the same. But thankyou.

    Like

  • @ Ross
    Skippa, since you and Amused came to an “understanding” and stopped cussing and abusing each other – things have not been the same on BU.
    It is somewhat frustrating for Bushie….
    You are beginning to make sense, turning a Bushman’s world up sided down… 🙂
    Well let us ignore the invitation to visit to your office for tea…..Bushie is still suspicious of the Ross/Amused/Wickham association, ….but if you are conceding that some (thankfully small numbers) of our youth are essentially EVIL INCARNATE, and fully deserving of being described as “wutless” (which BTW is a Bajan term with very specific meaning that has nothing to do with WORTH) ….then you are on the right track.

    There are SOME persons (including youth) who REQUIRE extreme measures to be applied in the interest of the collective well-being.
    This is why ANY IDIOT who seeks to draw arbitrary limits to what the state (or a parent) should be allowed to apply in addressing any SPECIFIC situation has to be simple minded.

    Bushie has been around too long to be so gullible. There ARE persons among us who, in their own, and the wider society’s interest, would be better to NOT have been born, or to have that ‘mistake’ addressed as soon as possible…..

    This is the HARSH reality of organizational dynamics in a complex 21st century world…… 🙂

    Like

  • Bush Tea

    On the issue of what to do……Do we exorcise them or simply teach them cricket?

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ pieceuhderockyeahright!!! | November 19, 2013 at 5:28 AM |
    “You can find that classic at …”

    Thanks, ole Wise One!
    Maybe “YIFI” could have it ready for downloading “FOC.” 1949 to 2013 = 64: Cannot wait another 6 years for the copyright to run out.

    If the Christians could aid and abet in the pirating their own Gospel Music
    why can’t a ‘born-again’ sinner follow suit? LOL!!

    Like

  • A judge dealing with welfare issues relating to two children who were aged four and seven when their parents and grandmother were shot dead while on holiday in the French Alps 14 months ago has praised journalists for their “responsible and sensitive” reporting.

    Reporters had “respected” the welfare of Zainab and Zeena Al-Hilli, said Mr Justice Baker in a written ruling following hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

    He said: “I would like to thank the press and broadcasting and media for the responsible and sensitive way in which they have respected the court’s orders and the girls’ welfare in the way they have reported this matter.

    “It is good to see the family courts and the media working together to ensure that the right to freedom of expression, and the right of the girls to private and family life, are both respected.”

    The girls’ father Saad, mother Ikbal, Mrs Al-Hilli’s mother Suhaila al-Allaf and French cyclist Sylvain Mollier were shot dead by a gunman on a remote mountain road near Annecy in September 2012.

    Zainab, then seven, was badly hurt and Zeena, then four, escaped without injury after apparently hiding behind her mother’s skirt.

    The girls and their parents had lived in Claygate, Surrey.

    Mr Justice Baker has said the girls can be named in media reports but he has ruled that any detail of their whereabouts must remain secret.

    He made comments about the media in a ruling in which he said he had made orders appointing two relatives as the girls’ “special guardians”.

    In July, Mr Justice Baker had ruled that, despite objections from police, journalists could attend a private High Court hearing where care arrangements for the two sisters were discussed.

    He said reporters could be present at the hearing in the Family Division of the High Court even though reporting restrictions designed to protect the girls prevented any coverage of the proceedings.

    Mr Justice Baker dismissed an application by Surrey Police for journalists to be excluded after The Sunday Times newspaper argued that there was a “strong public interest” in the “bracing effect” of the press being present.

    Police had argued that exclusion of the press was necessary for the “safety and protection” of the girls and their carers and said the presence of journalists would impede or impair justice.

    They said the girls’ lives could be at risk and argued that the presence of journalists at the High Court hearing would increase that risk.

    Senior officers also said there was a risk that “leakage” from the hearing might jeopardise the investigation into the killings and any trial in France.

    Times Newspapers – publisher of The Sunday Times – said police had failed to provide evidence to “merit the exceptional step of excluding the press from the hearing”.

    Mr Justice Baker refused to grant the police application for press exclusion.

    The judge said the circumstances in which journalists should be excluded from attending family court proceedings was an “important issue” – whether or not reporting was allowed.

    “Although the rights of the media do not extend to a right to report …
    it must not be thought that they are any less important,” he said.

    “Open justice has two components – the right to attend as well as the right to report – and the fact that the second is subject to legal restriction does not undermine the importance of the first.

    “On the contrary, it could be argued that what has been called the ‘watchdog’ role of the press (acknowledged and endorsed by the courts on many occasions) is even more important where the right to report is restricted.

    “As watchdog, the press scrutinises not merely the decisions reached by the courts but also the process by which they are reached.”
    by Taboola
    YOU MIGHT LIKE

    Like

  • Steupssss @ Hal
    Apples and limes!

    Were the press similarly obligated to respect the welfare of the young idiot who shot up the school in the USA recently?
    ….or of the animals who firebombed the store in Bridgetown…killing innocent shoppers…?

    The ONLY general rule tha can apply across the board when it comes to inter-personal relationships is ” Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
    ..extrapolated logically, ….it means that the state is entitled to do unto miscreants as they were prepared to do to others.

    Perhaps wunna can see now why “an eye for an eye” is not materially different from ” do unto others…”

    @ R R
    “Do we exorcise them or simply teach them cricket?”
    ************
    Clearly, based on the current India experience, the cricket approach ain’t working…. 🙂
    …looks like we need the exorcist…..

    Like

  • The nation could have at least blurr out the photos.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s