← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Personally I think the Speaker should do the right and honourable thing (pending the decision of the committee of privileges) and vacate the chair of Speaker. Morality and dignity should not have to be forced, negotiated and the subject of legal gymnastics – Grace Fuller

The Michael Carrington saga has shifted a gear.

Last week when Speaker of the House recused himself from the Chair to allow Deputy Speaker Mara Thompson to refer his matter  – Speaker of the House Michael Carrington MUST Go! –  to the moribund Committee of Privileges, there was high expectation the sordid matter of Griffiths Vs. Carrington was being ‘processed’ in a dignified manner by the highest Court in the land.  To the surprise of many Carrington presented himself today to carryon business as usual in the House on the pretext that he is still the Speaker of the House. Carrington’s decision aroused the passion of the perennially taciturn Prime Minister who in a passionate defence of the Speaker, on the floor of what was once an august chamber, questioned how a personal matter was being used to bar the Speaker from doing his job.

Obviously the decision by the Prime Minister to support Speaker Carrington is politically motivated. He continues to lead a weak government with a 2-seat majority which leaves no wiggle room to flex the muscle of the office of Prime Minister, an office Barbadians have come to regard as primus inter pares, until now. Seven years in office and what we have is a deeply polarized country which has forced national priories to be forgotten.

Surely any 7 year old knows that individuals who hold an office of public trust must be sensitive to activities undertaken in a  private capacity which may injure the office and is therefore open to censure based on the breath of the breech.  Employees of most organizations are aware if codes of conduct are contravened there is a consequence one has to endure.

If we accept the House of Assemble is the highest court in the land responsible for enacting laws and shaping government policies. Further, if we accept a key responsibility of Speaker is to maintain the integrity of parliament then one is left to surmise the decision by Carrington to fight for his job supports the growing view that Barbados has become a banana republic or in Bajan vernacular, poorakey.

How on this earth and anywhere in the galaxy a Speaker of a House of Assembly in the Commonwealth – acting in a private capacity as lawyer has to be ordered by a High Court to pay $200,000.0 plus to a wheel chair bound client withheld for 2 years, and he has the effrontery to defend his right to preside over the highest court in the land. To compound the problem, the prime minister and other members of parliament see the matter through politically tinted lenses while ignoring what is obviously wrong by the loosest value set.

Then there is the wider issue of governance. The Opposition correctly ‘walked out’ of parliament to demonstrate opposition to the decision by the Speaker – which sides with public opinion –  but the government continued to crunch out laws in our system of democracy. What flavour of democracy can this be?

The BU household weeps for our once proud little country.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

207 responses to “Speaker Michael Carrington Saga: Day When Morality Drained From the House of Assembly”


  1. @Miller

    Rome was not built in a day. If you check the picture gallery note Bryan is featured.


  2. @ DeeWord
    shiite fella, is it your role on BU to be consistently wrong…?

    How can it be the same where there are just ALLEGATIONS against public figures, as compared to COURT decisions taken after due process?
    If Tom used to beat women why did they not take him to court or press charges? How do you know that these women were upset by his actions? How do you know the allegations were true?

    The truth is that if a righteous microscope is placed on ANY of us, our asses will be found wanting…..THIS CANNOT BE THE MEASURE of public morality…… wuh Bushie would have been locked up months now – just for the bushman’s THOUGHTS about Islandgal…. 🙂

    If citizens themselves were morally upright, then they would NOT accept shiite and would pursue corrective action in the COURTS ..which they would ENSURE to be as just and fair as is legally possible.
    The measure of PUBLIC morality should then be the courts.

    But BECAUSE we are brass bowls, and just as morally corrupt as the damn politicians, we REFUSE to take action against shiite, allowing corruption to proliferate…. and resulting in unrighteousness becoming endemic…..
    …with all the UNAVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES ….from bulling to a complete breakdown in social and economic stability.

    BUT as BBE promised…..
    ” If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then (AND ONLY THEN) will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

    But wunna feel that wunna mek wunna selves and can do as wunna like….


  3. @David January 21, 2015 at 11:30 AM #…Let us agree we should be expressing outrage at everything immoral. Are you saying we should not express outrage at this Carrington matter?——

    Au contraire, sir. I feel the outrage and agree the speaker’s actions make him look as a charlatan.

    Carrington’s act is very egregious as he was in a trusted professional position and violated that trust. He is lacking integrity and brings the entire respect of his position in disrepute as your bloggers have eloquently said.

    I am imploring your commenters to bring this same A game outrage to others who act as immorally.

    Our society (political class) is replete with such behaviour; very few get this far to the courts.

    Call to action across the board was my little rant.


  4. These idiots are so immersed in their ignorance, and in trying to exhibit a misguided knowledge and interpretation of jurisprudence, the consortium have, in actuality, demonstrated they do not know the DIFFERENCE between a CIVIL LAW SUIT and a CRIMINAL LAW SUIT.

    Shiite buckets, although his act was one of dishonesty and tantamount to stealing, Carrington was not charged with a criminal offence, and as such, his case before the court was not a CRIMINAL MATTER. Therefore, there was NO reason for Justice Cornelius to have found him guilty or not of theft.

    Instead, a CIVIL SUIT was brought against Carrington [defendant], whereby his former client [plaintiff] SUED him for the money he was due. Based on the evidence presented before the court, Justice Cornelius subsequently ruled in favour of the plaintiff, thereby ordering the dishonest lawyer to repay the sum with-held in addition to legal cost arising there from, within a stipulated time period

    Hence, the comment, i.e. “The case (as is) in is presented stage as per judge’s order did not present a guilt of Theft as accountability to the defendant”, is totally irrelevant, and is only a stupid attempt to vary from the real fact that Michael Carrington is just another dishonest lawyer.


  5. @Bush Tea January 21, 2015 at 11:46 AM #…shiite fella, is it your role on BU to be consistently wrong…?…How can it be the same where there are just ALLEGATIONS ————

    As you have said at various times: Bushie is always right, so I think it stands to reason that I am wrong.

    I believe my comments were carefully enough explained.

    Never disputed the power of the adjudicated court ruling.

    But according to you apparently only in Barbados the court of public opinion -with valid evidence on ubiquitous social media site- cannot bring down a politician or whomever.

    No prob, sir. Let’s move on

    Oh, btw thanks for the new role: on BU to be consistently wrong


  6. LOL@ DeeWord re consistently wrong…
    ….it is an important role 🙂

    The weight of public opinion CAN “bring down a politician or whomever…..”
    How do you think Jesus ended up crucified? …by facts in a court?
    How do you think Reagan was elected president?

    THAT IS THE PROBLEM
    It is a double edged sword….best left out of such battles.

    Public opinion ain’t worth what Paddy shot at….


  7. i used to respect Michael Carrington but now i realized that he is just like so many crooked lawyers in Barbados a THIEF and the gall of the PM to make such an idiot statement supporting why he should not remove him thieving self from the chair surpasses all reasoning


  8. Can we have a comment from Donville in reaction to the PM’s statement on the matter? Are we to assume the groups have lined up behind their leader?

    JAs

  9. pieceuhderockyeahright Avatar
    pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ David [BU]

    Kudos for “Lawyers in the News”

    You is a next fellow wid balls ( the rest who the ole man remember at this moment being Mr. Franklyn, Miller the Annunaki, Artaxerxes, Exclaimer) and Gabriel but she is a female and dem gots pudendas

    Now de ole man got an observation and two suggestions

    De layout of dat section “too sprawling” causing when de ole man eyesight get accustomed to the normal two column layout of BU den whaplax I got to twist me head to read right cross de page bout dem lawyers dem

    suggestion number one

    Divide up Lawyers in de News and add “Jesus t’accuse” I just rhyming fuh de article like Serrant-like reports dat really ent news but is more situational reporting if you get de old man drift

    Suggestion number Two

    Doan go out nah place late at night, doan answer no knocks at you door when you ent invite nobody to you house late, doan eat no cookies dat peeple who you ent know suddenly cooking fuh you, when you lef a drink at a table or bar DOAN GO BACK TO UM and see if you can get a bullet proof jacket becausing if peeple know who you is, if you had enemies among de politicians (and ignoramuses like AC and Donkey) you jes mek ten times as many by creating this “Keep dem Lied Lawyers Honest” cyber corner

    Keep up the good work

  10. pieceuhderockyeahright Avatar
    pieceuhderockyeahright

    De IPad always correcting me

    It is “je t’accuse” as in I accuse you per Madame Defarge


  11. Bush shite u need to stop misinforming and misleading the BU court it is an unethical practice formulated out of high political practices to sway
    No where in the court order does it states any actions on/of/by the defendant to be dishonest.
    An accountabily relevant to the defendant actions should be drawn conclusively without taint or blemish
    Anyother proffers are tantamount to speculation and perception which comes very close to defamation if needed by defendant in seeking remedy to defend his name

    Btw bush shite a resolution was just drawn and passed in the B U Parliament withall members of the House ( myself including) voting that You should become the Next PM of Barbados givenn your eloquence and stellar contributions relative to havng all the necessary and quick fixes for the economy


  12. @ Pinkie January 21, 2015 at 1:59 PM #

    “I used to respect Michael Carrington but now I realized that he is just like so many crooked lawyers in Barbados a THIEF and the gall of the PM to make such an idiot statement supporting why he should not remove him thieving self from the chair surpasses all reasoning…..”

    And judging from the comments being made by the DLP yard-fowls on BU, they are basically saying, since Carrington was not found guilty of theft, he has not committed any wrong doing by with-holding his client’s funds.

    What else do you expect Freundel Stuart to say? Obviously, in trying to defend Carrington’s actions, he will probably hold fast to his love of the classics and wax philosophical [as he usually does], while telling Barbadians their reactions to the Carrington debacle reminds him of William Shakespeare’s comedic play “Much ado about nothing.”


  13. Agree with you PUDRTR about the format. The other suggestion …


  14. In spite of all the nonsense AC is spewing,it cannot be denied that nobody,repeat nobody in their right mind,having read Madame Justice Cornelius’s judgement would entrust one blind cent to the care of carrington ever again and if anyone did,that person might be committed to Jenkinsville forthwith.
    It’s left to be seen come first week of February if the decision of the court is satisfied.


  15. Wonder if he has any other clients that might be in a similar predicament to Mr. Griffith?


  16. @Nostradamus

    Hmphhhhh!!


  17. David as an aside.

    As I glanced on the Lawyers Link the Phillip Nicholls’ one caught my attention. On the steps of the old court house building I see at least three fellas who seem to be in support of their friend, and in the back ground the one I presume who was his lawyer. If I am not wrong all these fellas school right there in Roebuck St.

    Then in the one following, I see Simmons and he school at that Waterford place or was he in St. John- not sure on him.

    The point is that your previous comment about ‘old school ties’ and ‘fraternities’ seems so apropos.

    The law profession is made up of the well schooled, some of Bim’s brightest and best etc so at the end of the day it is sad and unfortunate to see how avarice, ego and wanton materialism leads some of them to such circumstances.

    And because some of those ties cut across politics and other loyalties it can become all one sick game!

    Keep up the good work. Excellent start to ‘BU Law Review’.

    And oh, whatever ties you have please ensure you keep them well greased and fluid and use them well for your benefit and safety.

    Because Pieces’ comments are well said. When a man’s ill gotten gains are imperiled he can become very mean spirited.


  18. I know I’m wasting my time, but I’ve never, ever seen such blatant display of ignorance as demonstrated by the “arm-chair lawyer” of the consortium.

    I refer BU to a response from the demons relative to the August “Lisa Marshall – Retrenched Worker from the Transport Board” article posted on BU”:

    “ac September 1, 2014 at 2:03 PM #: a thief demanding her fair share,,,,enough to make dog stomach sick,,but the BLP yardfowls seem to be O,k, with that not a picking teet about this criminality,,,,”

    In this case, Lisa Marshall was not terminated as a result of theft, neither did the Transport Board sought legal redress by having her formally charged with theft and subsequently brought before the court to answer a criminal law suit, nor was there a civil law suit filed against her whereby the TB sued her to recover any money which she would have allegedly taken.

    There was NO COURT CASE or ANY RULING by a judge/magistrate that identified Lisa as a thief, yet she was being portrayed as one. The Legion was on BU displaying their support for “Douglas’” article, which not only sought to tarnish Lisa’s reputation, but to an extent which would make it somewhat difficult for her gaining future employment.

    If we use the same yard-stick the DLP used to measure Lisa, …….. memos were issued asking her to explain cash shortages, to which she responded. The police, court [civil or criminal] or termination was not involved, but according to them, she “with-held money entrusted to her by the TB”, so, in their opinion she is a thief.

    Yet, Carrington with-held his former client’s $208,900 for a period of over 2 years and failed to respond to correspondence from both the client and attorneys acting on his [client] behalf, asking him [Carrington] for settlement. Then the client had to seek assistance from the court to have his matter settled.

    And these hypocrites using all types of [il]legal jargon to justify that, under similar circumstances of with-holding money, in Carrington’s case, it would be defamatory to call him a thief.

    Now, if there is one individual whose actions, as implied by the demons, were “tantamount to speculation and perception which comes very close to defamation if needed by defendant in seeking remedy to defend his [her] name”, that person would be Lisa Marshall.


  19. yes you are wasting your time sir with your consistent meanderings to include evidence unrelated to Carringtion .How does another issue of irrelavance negates or make way for compromise is beyond ridiculous


  20. Artaxerxes January 21, 2015 at 2:39 PM #

    “And judging from the comments being made by the DLP yard-fowls on BU, they are basically saying, since Carrington was not found guilty of theft, he has not committed any wrong doing by with-holding his client’s funds.

    What else do you expect Freundel Stuart to say? Obviously, in trying to defend Carrington’s actions, he will probably hold fast to his love of the classics and wax philosophical [as he usually does], while telling Barbadians their reactions to the Carrington debacle reminds him of William Shakespeare’s comedic play “Much ado about nothing.”
    ………………………………………..

    Artaxerxes,

    I have been wondering why Mr Griffiths decided to sue Michael Carrington instead of going to the police.

    I wonder if Mr Griffiths thought that the Police would not take him seriously.

    I wonder if Mr Griffiths and his lawyer having seen what is happening in the Police Force today thought they would not get anywhere.

    I just wonder, wonder, wonder!


  21. Prodigal,
    Have it ever occured to you that Mr. Griffith and Mr. Carrington were tight buddies?

    That said…..it gave Mr. Carrington no right to treat Mr. Griffith the way he did.

    Then why Mr. Griffith allow the matter to drift for 14 years despite legal intervention by his lrgal team…..who are prominent BLPites?

    So Mr. Carrington was allowed to face the electorate twice (2008 and 2013) without a wimp from the Attorneys in George Walton Payne law firm…..nothing drop off a truck!

    Yet Dale Marshall and Mia Mottley…..are frequent patrons at Carrington’s Karibu restaurant……spending upwards to $ 600.00 a night individually.

    Think of these things……Prodigal!

    The political class ain’t easy!

    But on reflection if Prodigal had a similar issue with Miller……I can see Prodigal allowing the matter to run for 14 years…..because he and Miller are buddies.

    Griffith and Carrington……were in the same boat!

    You catch my drift?

    B


  22. That may be true, Legion. However, you have been predictive in “your consistent meandering responses”, whereby you have been using a mixture of generalized, incoherent statements, [which more often than not, are “beyond ridiculous”], believing them to be based on an interpretation of the law, all in a failed effort to defend the thief, Carrington.

    Obviously, the political blind-folds of the DLP have made it extremely impossible for you to read anything beyond the DLP’s web-site. As such, one who is completely devoid of any intellectual prowess, such as you all, will not see any relevance to Carrington’s case or the juxtaposition between the two scenarios. Even “Physical Deficit” Ince or Dennis Kellman would have read between the lines.

    It’s a real pity that, despite you are many, there is not one among you who has a modicum of intelligence, as the lack thereof is clearly exhibited in ALL your contributions [e.g., your inability to spell, punctuate properly or compose a coherent].
    And to think all you may have benefited from the free secondary education that you so love to associate with Barrow and the DLP.

    “ Cafetão” is the Portuguese for PIMP, hence “A C”


  23. @ Prodigal Son January 21, 2015 at 4:50 PM #

    I wondered about that myself, Prodigal.

    Prodigal, if you are to believe Fractured BLP that Griffiths and Carrington were buddies, I guess Carrington either took advantage of the friendship, or they were not as friendly as he originally thought.

    Perhaps Griffiths allowed the matter to drift for 14 years in the same manner Denis Lowe allowed the issue of Richard Byer charging CBL $766,855.24 drifted for over 2 years.


  24. Wait Fractured

    Still coming here conjuring up fractured stories to aid your buddy in the Lower House?
    You don’t get tired doa?….playing you sorry on the one side, yet bolting out lies bout Mia and Dale on the other…..Girl give it rest do. Wait can’t you see how people reading BU and polling in here?Does that not tell you all something Senator?


  25. Onions,

    I know you cannot stand the truth at most times!

    And talking…….bout polls…stay away from that subject because all your previous predictions have been dead wrong!

    Carrington will pay his debt with the help of Bees and Dees. That is just the way it is!

    Like IT…..or….Lump IT!

    Onions……!


  26. The fact is a will was probated which involves siblings, the money is not Griffiths to use and Carrington would have know this having custody of documents and other information.


  27. A man told me that he was at Kendal Plantation today for the unveiling of the Yarico statue, when an MP registered car pulled up and out stepped Bussa , he stood up and was ready to take off when he noticed that it was not Bussa, but PM Stuart.


  28. Artaxerxes

    I was with some friends today and the anger has shifted from Carrington to Fumble.

    No one there could believe that a man who is supposed to be a Prime Minister could be seem as upholding a crooked lawyer especially in the light of so many people who have had bitter experiences with lawyers…………he is seen as condoning Carrington’s thieving.

    The conclusion among everyone was that Fumble is a hypocrite, they felt that if the BLP was the government and Carrington was a Bee, by now Carrington would have had to resign and the government would be on its way out. That speaks volumes on the way people perceive how the DLP play their politics.

    Yes, we get it that he was not charged criminally…but the damn man has been exposed as a thief and a crook. How could Carrington really think that he can continue to sit in that esteemed place and preside over it with MP’s having to refer to him as “your honour”.

    To top it all off, this man is a Queen’s Counsel! He has no shame to show his face in public. The ignorant “Brek Up Dem” pointing out that Carrington and Griffiths were friends only makes it look even worse……..any decent person who is really a friend and values their friends would never try to swindle them.

    Never, ask for help first!


  29. HA! HA! onions POLLS what Polls , dat dirty low down trick din.t work last time here on BU.. the BLP was the first man out and last man in… Loosen up Bro, dem polls don’t mean a thing if they ain.t got the swing,,,

    artexeres cracking the whip ever so often with your low blows at ac cannot alter or change the judicial process by which all are entitled under barbados constitution, one of a Innocence until proven guilty as CHARGED ,
    Now go back to the drawing board and do the legal research as to the legal term and meaning of the word Charge.


  30. @old onion bags January 21, 2015 at 5:55 PM #

    Wait Fractured

    Still coming here conjuring up fractured stories to aid your buddy in the Lower House?
    You don’t get tired doa?….playing you sorry on the one side, yet bolting out lies bout Mia and Dale on the other…..Girl give it rest do…
    …………………………………………………………………………….

    Onions,

    Why bother to answer the “Brek Up Dem”…………you know that that is the way the DLP plays its politics. Politics is a blood sport for them.

    To come on BU and put lies that MAM and Dale Marshall will bail out the thief will make people doubt the BLP and class all MP’s as thieves and deceivers.

    That is the DLP’s modus operandi! Ignore the ignoramus!


  31. Fractured

    But wait…Like you doan understand D whole of Barbados want Carri to HURRY UP and pay Griffiths….but that is only part of it….the other is his fiduciary duty and respect to the office of Speaker that he has allowed to be tarnished ….As to my electioneering and predictiveness…ah still come close..LOL


  32. Artaxerxes

    While we are here talking about the swindler, with little notice the Clown of Parliament spewed some nonsense as usual in the House yesterday and many would not have heard.

    I heard Kellman saying that Barbadians have 9 billion dollars sitting in banks and they have got to do something about that. He said money sitting in banks is not investments. Now this is frightening.

    When he speaks, as ignorant as he sounds, we need to pay attention as he likes to say he is a member of cabinet and therefore he knows what is going on and can speak on any matter……………….though never on anything to do with his portfolio.

    The mere fact that he could mention that Barbadians have billions sitting in banks means that there must have been some discussion on taxing people’s savings.

    My fellow Barbadians, it is time to look at these morally bankrupt people called the government closely. They are desperate and a desperate man will do anything! That would cause a run on the banks and people will then resort to hiding money at home!


  33. Fractured

    Ps: I predicted that you did gine LOSS……(murda)…Got that one right doah doah…


  34. OH Buss mah gut!!
    Yuh all talkin bout Law and legality.
    Dis an Dat.
    Yuh ent livin on de rock man yuh in space.
    BAHBAHDUS en LAW.
    NAIR THE TWAIN SHALL MEET.


  35. The “arm chair lawyers” of the consortium have been misleading you, but then again, as demonstrated by your contributions, you are in a constant state of being misled.

    Firstly, perhaps you should consult with the real lawyers in the DLP so as to avail yourself with the requisite knowledge to determine the difference between a CIVIL SUIT and a CRIMINAL SUIT.

    Secondly, as I have been trying in vain to inform you, Carrington WAS NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENCE and as such, his case before the court was not one of a CRIMINAL nature, but a CIVIL matter. Therefore, he could not be found guilty or not guilty of a criminal offence. What is so hard for you all to understand about that?

    So you applying “the judicial process by which all are entitled under Barbados constitution, one of innocence until proven guilty as CHARGED”, to this scenario, is indicative that you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the law as it relates to Carrington’s case, and you are continuing to “mix-up” the two different suits.

    “Now go back to the drawing board and do the legal research as to the legal terms and meaning of the words” criminal suit and civil suit.


  36. @ Prodigal Son January 21, 2015 at 6:33 PM #

    “When he speaks, as ignorant as he sounds…..”

    Prodigal, your comment above is spot on about Kellman.


  37. This is not about whether its a civil or criminal matter, its about the fact that it is unbecoming of a QC and more so, the Speaker of Parliament to have had a judgement entered against him in a court that impugns his reputation (money matters being the worst kind) in land in which he hold one of the highest offices.

    This is why we are going backward, because we make excuses of ‘cud dear’ and ‘give he a break’.Anywhere else and his ass would be on the pavement, if not by resignation by his colleagues.


  38. Give it a rest Artax
    …mean you even READ ac’s comments?
    As Sunny Sunshine Shine so lucidly explained, AC is nothing but a female rabbit – and as such, best suited for one particular kind of usage.
    ….an THAT ain’t bout no lotta long talk…..

    Seems that she is no good at THAT rabbit stuff either, no wonder the man left for greener pastures in Arizona….


  39. Glad that you have come to such a realization of what the judges order indicate although u are content to pursue another path of indifference and to suggest! contrary to that of the judges order using tainted language to insinuate corresponding with well sensational comments hence playing to an audience of your peers,
    What ever the chair you have placed ac in, let me be as clear as the driven snow that my limited knoweldge on things legal are based on law and not what i believe! wishes! or desire to be an outcome,,maybe ! maybe one day in the not too distant future you might want some one of lowly esteem sitting on your behalf in that arm chair.

    peace Bro

    Got alot of work to catch up on,
    take care


  40. From Wiki ‘From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ”The term speaker is a title often given to the presiding officer (chair) of a deliberative assembly, especially a legislative body. The speaker’s official role is to moderate debate, make rulings on procedure, announce the results of votes, and the like. The speaker decides who may speak and has the powers to discipline members who break the procedures of the house. ****The speaker often also represents the body in person, as the voice of the body in ceremonial and some other situations. ****

    i.e. The Speaker, and ALL he stands for, represents the ‘voice of the body’ i.e. the Voice of Parliament.

    As the lawyers oft to quote, ‘Res Ipsa Loquitor”.

    THIS is where we are.


  41. @Crusoe

    It is a private matter according to the Prime Minister so as you suggest is out of the question.


  42. @Bushie ”no wonder the man left for greener pastures in Arizona….”

    Oh boy, that is a nasty rising ball, that!


  43. Biologically and as Georgie Porgie would confirm,it would have to be redder pastures


  44. Caswell, I do agree with some of the things that you mentioned, but, the Jack Warner matter, with the FIFA, Scandal, prompted the media an the public to called for his resignation, as minister of defense,after he had resigned as president of Concacaf and vice president of FIFA, he tender his resignation to the pm.an later run as an independent an won back the seat.


  45. Wow……Barbadians now see how this Carrington story have shown how the Bees are divided.

    Imagine 13 BLP members in Parliament
    ..the Nation newspaper for 21 jan 2015 on page 3 ‘Hold your ground” story says 8 opposition members walked out…..
    Missing were Glynne Clarke, Kerry Symmonds, Dwight Sutherland, George Payne and Dale Marshall

    Note the last 2 persons were lawyers for Mr. Griffith.

    Karibu Connecttion!

    Mia Mottley on the front page of the same paper with her “Loss Souls” according to Owen Arthur……is even more pathetic

    And pictures do not lie. Bare SHOiTE! !!

    Bees united..


  46. @Gabriel January 21, 2015 at 10:59 AM ” we need to amend that Act and replace it with another which excludes the lumpen proletariat.Only those with Personal and Real Property should determine the outcome of our Parliament”

    Of course this would mean that decent hard working labourers and maids like our parents who never worked for enough to buy land or gather up savings would again be denied the vote.

    While every crooked lawyer who has stolen property and cash from his clients, some of them fairly poor would still have the vote.

    Explain to me real, real slow so that even a simpleton can understand how your suggestion would make things better.


  47. BU is full of extremists its a shame more persons with moderate views don’t contribute to the discourse. Ninety seven percent push the BLP line .Prodigal, miller , artexass , old onion bags (didn’t he die?) etc with their clones see the world thru strictly BLP blinders. They see only doom and gloom and Barbados’ imminent collapse mind you they have held this view since 2008 almost 7 years ago. The island is still here the sky hasn’t fallen and most people enjoyed today’s balmy relaxing EWB holiday .

    AC sees only the Dems she sticks up for them through thick and thin. She is a lone wolf in a den of hungry impatient red lions. You may not agree with her every time but you must respect her tenacity. Bush Tea and Casweel are anarchists they don’t agree with any philosophy or any party. They propose no particular form of government. Following their teachings can only lead to disaster. For Bush Tea whether you D or B you are a brass bowl. Its a recipe for chaos and anarchy. The no taxes PDC still hawks post cards and beads behind Cave Shepherd but although he would lose his deposit he would get more votes than Bush Tea or Caswell if they all contested elections.

    Carrington is a shocking disgrace, he is a scoundrel who should be kicked out of the House. We must however follow rules and orders or there will be what Bush Tea seems to want, anarchy. He is not as yet charged criminally and he’s been given 28 days to pay back the man’s money he misappropriated. The electorate must ensure next time he never enters the House again. Until then let the House process to deal with him if there is one go forward. One though does not advocate the voters who sent Carrington to the House replace him with Atherley because he is another man of the cloth who like many lawyers falls short of acceptable standards. The Dees and Bees should send two new candidates to run down in Westbury.

    Now that is what is meant when one talks about more moderate discourse. Trying to see it from all sides.


  48. “funds received and withheld over two years ago from the sale of a property as well as various bank deposits.”


  49. Why are we surprised that our Prime MInister wants us to believe that the Carrington matter is a private matter?

    Isn’t this our same Prime Minister Freundel Stuart who said of of Leroy Parris of CLICO infamy “the man is not a leper, he is my friend”

    I say birds of a feather flock together.


  50. Basically what the PM is saying is that if a QC in Barbados keeps your money for 14 years that is OK. IGNORING clients & not answering correspondence etc is a norm for local lawyers. They have elevated tardiness to an absolute science.
    This ingrained behaviour will be hard to change as these crooks are seldom challenged.

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading