264 responses to “The Michael Carrington Watch–Governance Crisis”

1. 

   Hamilton Hill

   January 30, 2015 at 7:55 am

   
   

   That should have been byelection.

   Loading…
2. 

   DeeWord

   January 30, 2015 at 8:01 am

   
   

   @ pieceuhderockyeahright January 30, 2015 at 6:33 AM…I dont know you nor Mr. Caswell but, from what I see, fallible as all human frames are, and, with all the inveterate faults we all are cursed with as men, wunna is two mens de ole man wud vote for in a heartbeat.————

   Pieces, I do love your humorous post and this one though not so intended certainly gave me a good laugh when you touched on me and elective politics. I’ll leave that to Caswell. He has the knowledge, knows the lay of the land and definitely appears to be morally and ethically centered. Just needs the motivation to go into that level if he thinks he can do more than from his current position.

   I dabbled in that at the play politics level when I was studying at college and ran for President of the Student Gov’t. Thought I covered all the bases well back then but I got my ticket punched ‘defeated’ and that was it for my in elective politics.

   I didn’t (and still don’t ) have Davey’s charm or fortitude to turn a first defeat (s) into the platform of future victory. That was my one and dun!

   Now let me try to give serious responses to your other queries (humorous though I know you intended them).

   The best example of good rep to me is Ed Hinkson. The man always seemed honest, personable and kept his ego in check (not so sure now but back then he did). He genuinely seemed keen to interact with the people around him and was very down to earth. Now, obviously it’s not always possible to have a solid insight into your representative but that is the mould the average representative should fit, whether B, D or Ind.

   And yes absolutely there are many capable, honest men and particularly women who would fit that bill. I have at least one family member who I think has the qualities; and that is simply to say there are everywhere.

   Also consider though that significant contributions can be made just as well from outside that elective bubble.

   But as you know it takes motivation and perhaps most important a good mentor to get young or indeed not so young into the hurly-burly of elective politics.

   You gotta get properly prepared to hear (all of a sudden) that your mother was a student at Nelson St Girls School and did some of her internship at the Bush Hill Offices of Messrs Cream and Hooker. It takes a strong minded person to want to deal with that type of asinine, simplistic behavior. But they are out there.

   And re the writings, I appreciate the comments. I think yourself and some others do a great job so if my tid-bits add to that then I am pleased. As I said in another thread it’s certainly excellent therapy to rant here: for everyone.

   Loading…
3. 

   Artaxerxes

   January 30, 2015 at 8:15 am

   
   

   @ pieceuhderockyeahright January 30, 2015 at 6:33 AM #

   The consortium keeps talking about “facts”, but in actuality they have been trying to distort the real facts in an attempt to defend Michael Carrington.

   The FACTS are, Michael Carrington with-held Griffiths’ property and $208,900. Carrington ignored the numerous requests by Griffiths and his lawyer for settlement. Griffiths decided use Carrington and filed a civil suit against him. Based on the evidence received, Justice Cornelius ruled in favour of Griffiths and ordered Carrington to repay the sum owed within 28 days.

   Carrington did not appeal the judgment and has eventually repaid Griffiths what was due to him.

   Justice Cornelius ruled in favour of the plaintiff because the defendant could not give any reasonable explanation as to why he with-held the plaintiff’s property. Therefore, we can conclude that Carrington is just another dishonest lawyer.

   Loading…
4. 

   Bush Tea

   January 30, 2015 at 8:23 am

   
   

   Yuh mean you gone back to your wrong ways DeeWord?
   shiite man, you was doing so well…

   Pieceuhderock is right…. You DO have what it takes to be a good leader.
   You are logical, reasonable, a thinker, and most importantly, you don’t take yourself too seriously.
   Unlike certain bloggers who feel that they know every shiite, ( 🙂 )you are wont to be wrong on (regular) occasion – which in important to keep you human and open to other ideas…

   Why do you think Bushie choose to pick on you and try to raise your ire….?
   You are clearly leadership material.

   If we were a truly enlightened and forward-thinking society (in other words, if Sir Cave and the other education gurus were doing their jobs,) people like yourself, Walter, Sargeant and Lawson would be recognized as the kind of overseas assets to be repatriated to address the current morass we have in leadership.

   Just as Barrow looked overseas for talented BAJAN assets to fill needed gaps ….as opposed to the current brass bowls (starting with Arthur who put a chicken feed man to oversee Insurance – leading to the CLICO mess) who give important jobs to the AC-types and expect to get sensible results.

   As to the process of selection, only confirmed and baptized brass bowl rabbits(f) would persist with the stupid-assed system we have had since the 1950’s…. of gutter level people cussing each other and cracking jokes in their bid for political power….

   …see BU’s 10-point plan for a MATURE, INTELLIGENT methodology….

   Loading…
5. 

   Donna

   January 30, 2015 at 8:34 am

   
   

   That would be the advice of a proper attorney. I believe there are still a few left. The fact that the Speaker did not contest and has handed over the money rather than hiring an attorney speaks volumes to those of us who are neither yard fowls nor birdbrains. We could see through the smokescreen that would have us think that there was more to this case and that the Speaker would be better served by hiring a lawyer. These were stalling tactics while the money was being raised, I think. The fact remains that the Speaker had to be ordered by the Court to hand over his client’s funds and this speaks to the character of the man He is now banking on the hope that once the monies are paid Barbadians will move on. But he will just be the poster boy for the lobbyists for change. This time we are demanding a change in legal framework within which attorneys operate. There is still work to be done . Let us say “I am Mr. Griffiths” and start ‘the march’ against this financial terrorism and towards justice for all clients whose monies are still being withheld.

   Loading…
6. 

   old onion bags

   January 30, 2015 at 9:05 am

   
   

   Sources told the WEEKEND NATION yesterday that a banker’s cheque for over $200 000 had been paid on behalf of Carrington to the law firm George Walton Payne and Co., which is representing 78-year-old John Griffiths who last month won a High Court judgment against Carrington. According to reports, the issue, which has sparked national debate, is expected to be finalised after Griffiths’ lawyers fine-tune the outstanding debt including the interest accrued and attorney fees as ordered by the High Court. Justice Jacqueline Cornelius had ordered that Carrington pay Griffiths over $208 900, the balance from the sale of a property which included a banker’s cheque with cash value of over $84 194, the remaining proceeds of an estate which was inherited by Griffiths. timslinger@nationnews.com

   Loading…
7. 

   ac

   January 30, 2015 at 9:25 am

   
   

   As one of the “consortium” of ac,s there was never am attempt to admomish or convict given,while clearly in restrospect and review of the BU judge and jury a guilty verdict of charges not attached to the case was heavily levied/formulated/and concluded in pursuit of justice in the B U court
   Ac however chose to pursue an avenue in quest of justice prefering and leaning heavily on the judge,s order while executing evenhandiness in pursuing the inevitable outcome
   So far and present there seems to be a resolution as prescribed/directed by way of judge,s order and one not drawn upon the conclusions and assumptions of the BU which if had so been done would have stripped /eroded everyone,s right to fair and equal justice.
   The court spoke and according to news report the defendant has concur,now all that remains is for the defendant to set a stage upon he can clear his name hopefully resulting in handing the detractord and BLP yardfowls a heavy plate of crow

   Loading…
8. 

   pieceuhderockyeahright

   January 30, 2015 at 9:29 am

   
   

   @ Brother Bush Tea

   You do know that I already thought that you should have been one of the candidates yo’self but you abdicate the throne.

   However hope springs eternal.

   I doan really got much time left heah, as dey say de sand dat in the lower bulb seriously outnumbers the grains in the upper half of the hourglass

   But I would really hope that some serious thought and meaningful effort could be devoted to a structure for a third part, or the manifesto of the Independents so that Barbados could arrive at a place that is respectful of the rights of its citizens and the needs of every Man Jack.

   I cant type too much, I heah in de car driving, being driven dat is, de License peeple you know tek way de license en ting, and me head does get dizzy writing and driving.

   I doan tink I going risk using de Ipad during the Feed My Sheep exercise cause one uh dem fellows might try a ting and teif um PLUS SinckLiar might send a body out by Nelson (statue, not Nelson Street De Word and dem see uh fellow pun he IPad and know dat it is me den Whaplax, I get read out de church.

   @ Dee Word

   “When I was a child I spake as a child, but when I became a man, I put away all childish things”

   So you get beat at Student Elections when you was a lad. I guessing that you ent no lad no more.

   What I do know that, given your resilience here, crossing swords with Dragons, atheists, Bush Giants of Men and of course, with lesser beings and denizens of that place whose name I wont call, Legion, that as Bush Tea has said “you got what it takes.

   Give it some serious thought.

   Barbados is ready for a change, it is all over the country, peeple begging for good men and women to come out to the podium.

   Eddy (not to be confused with Eddy Kashun) is a good fellow. Unfortunately he jes get mixed up with the wrong crew. I am going to watch and see if he remains true to the principles that his father instilled in him or if he is going to stumble, stutter and fizzle out, a diamond covered in the pig swill around him

   Loading…
9. 

   Artaxerxes

   January 30, 2015 at 10:22 am

   
   

   Contributors to BU based their conclusions on the court case between Griffiths and Carrington. It is a pity that you did not use similar eloquence when you were articulating your “attempt to admonish or convict” Lisa Marshall.

   It seems as though Justice Cornelius would have to tell you that Michael Carrington is a dishonest man for you to admit that he actually is a dishonest man.

   Loading…
10. 

    Bush Tea

    January 30, 2015 at 11:22 am

    
    

    @ Piece

    @ Brother Bush Tea …You do know that I already thought that you should have been one of the candidates yo’self but you abdicate the throne.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    The truth is that Bushie would be a disaster for a leader bout here…The very last thing we need in our current situation is a Bushman, fully sold and indoctrinated in the ways of BBE, seeking to make sense of our current society in the role as leader…

    Far more effctive to have a caring, committed, brave citizen, wise enough to know of their weaknesses, brave enough to fear no man, and committed enough to ordinary citizens, to stand up for their rights….
    …and we DO have enough of such persons, they just need the motivation to challenge the current shiite-hounds controlling the system.

    @ Caswell
    Like it or not, you have the needed attributes to make a difference for Barbados. Bushie told you already what happened to Jonah when he refused to play a similar role some time ago….KEEP OUT THE SEA HEAR…?? 🙂

    Bushie noticed that Denis Johnson has handed you the KEYS to a guarantee of success whenever the bell next tolls….

    1- A Platform commitment to revoke parliamentary pensions RETROACTIVELY, and give retired politicians pension conditions IDENTICAL to those of senior civil servants.

    2- A Commitment to RETROACTIVELY reimbursing any and all taxes extracted from CREDIT UNIONS. Credit Union funds are the ALREADY TAXED savings of credit union members and should not be taxed again simply because the MoF’s simple mind can only see easy targets.

    3- REVOKE THE SHIITE TAX.

    With these three platform commitments, along with the OBVIOUS transparency and Integrity focus that is inherent in BUP’s structure, AND the system of selection the BEST TALENTS for leadership positions, …..If BUP fails to win any election called, then Bajans would be FULLY DESERVING of any, and all, of the shiite that shall be cast upon them from the BLP/DLP fans….

    Even in defeat you would have done your duty….

    Loading…
11. 

    are-we-there-yet

    January 30, 2015 at 11:24 am

    
    

    I feel Barbados has been desecrated! I feel soiled; I vex!

    I feel that at last we have surely reached the bottom of the cesspool in which politics and the legal profession reside in Barbados.

    There are several indicators that attest to this state of affairs from the Carrington-Griffith’s affair. Let’s list a few:

    There was no measurable outrage when the PM, instead of condemning the action of a speaker who had reportedly withheld substantial client funds held in trust for several years, apparently sought to obfuscate the matter by stressing that the speaker had done nothing wrong as far as his job as speaker is concerned.

    The same PM, who paraded himself as a paragon of virtue, could only see the legal side of the issue and was entirely blind to the morality issues that were so clearly at play to a blind man on a trotting horse.

    The same PM, who had himself exhibited a signal lack of a moral compass in fashioning a campaign against Owen Seymour Arthur on the basis of a well redacted personal letter that OSA had passed to him behind the Speaker’s chair, had used that letter to good effect in flooring OSA in that campaign, with few people declaring that it was a foul play, not the done thing.

    The same PM, who apparently saw nothing wrong in appearing to cast a blind eye to the well publicised actions of his speaker in the Griffiths matter, is being portrayed by those who should know better (in the court of BU politics) as having no option but to do what he has done, because his slim majority does not allow him to do otherwise. That would be the case for a man with a vacuum for a moral compass, not someone with the integrity that we expect of our Prime Minister of the highest integrity.

    The same PM threw his vaunted morality to the winds when he could have taken the moral high road instead by helping the Speaker to find the monies to pay off that debt but also sending a message to him and the General Public that he could not be allowed to go scot free, by demoting him to a Cabinet Post. As it now stands the speaker and others of like mind have apparently been given free rein through the precedent now set, to indulge in such behavior without let or hindrance.

    I am even more vexed about the possible character flaws that this case appeared to have exposed in our former PM, Owen Seymour Arthur. Does politics and association with lawyers and the legally trained mind and methodologies do this to an otherwise upright man?

    Owen needs to take his considerable pensions and retire and also divulge to the public exactly why he has such an evident animus against MAM that appears to be consuming his soul. That is the major penance needed in that case.

    This Carrington-Griffiths case, more than anything else over the last 7 or so years, has exposed the putrid cancer eating away at the body politic in Barbados. And none of them and few of us on BU, appear to see and be willing to do anything about it.

    Let’s see if the opposition, will do anything to keep up the fight against the PM to force him to disallow the current Speaker from being the face of the honourable house in the second oldest parliament in Barbados?

    The others must be laughing at we.

    Loading…
12. 

    millertheanunnaki

    January 30, 2015 at 11:32 am

    
    

    @ ac January 30, 2015 at 9:25 AM
    “The court spoke and according to news report the defendant has concur,now all that remains is for the defendant to set a stage upon he can clear his name hopefully resulting in handing the detractord and BLP yardfowls a heavy plate of crow..”

    Not until Mr. Carrington discloses the source(s) of funds he has managed to accumulate to settle his debt to Mr. Griffiths can he clear his name.
    If he using his own money to pay Mr. Griffiths? If so, we can conclude he ‘misused’ or even ‘misappropriated’ his client’s monies and can be deemed to be a dishonest person, unprofessional in his business conduct and a rogue not fit to hold any public office involving sound and fair judgement, competence and trust.

    On the other hand if he discloses the source(s) of funds he managed to acquire to settle with Mr. Griffiths the questions that need to be asked are:-
    Are these receipts by way of IOU’s (loans) issued by Mr. Carrington and or his law practice to the lender(s)?

    If they are not business loans but “donations” or proceeds from a financial bail out or whip-around among pals would Mr. Carrington be disclosing these amounts in his tax return as assessable income?
    After all neither he nor his law business is a registered charity.

    How did Mr. Carrington treat the original amounts due to Mr. Griffiths and used for purposes other than in the client’s business interests? Did he declare for income tax purposes the amounts taken from the client’s account and ‘transferred’ to his private uses?

    Now if it can be established that Mr. Carrington is in breach of the Income Tax Act or even the Money Laundering Act would you still say he is fit to hold such high public office and everything ought now to be swept under the carpet?

    Loading…
13. 

    millertheanunnaki

    January 30, 2015 at 11:52 am

    
    

    @ are-we-there-yet January 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM

    Excellent post, A-W-T-Y!
    It’s a pity that many on BU can’t see the man Fumble for what he really is.

    From early the miller (and Prodigal Son) saw through the veil of hypocrisy and deceit worn by this falsehood of a man.

    We wonder what those students who were promised continued “free” tertiary education under his watch and the suffering CLICO pensioners would think of him now.

    Now that his broken skeleton of Integrity has fallen out of the closet what next can we expect to emerge? That he is more a ‘beauty’ than the beast Muscle Mary?

    Loading…
14. 

    are-we-there-yet

    January 30, 2015 at 11:53 am

    
    

    Miller;

    The above were my concerns from the time this matter hit the press and I think I alluded to them in brief in a couple of earlier posts. There does not appear to be any likely way that Mr Carrington can squirm out from this in the court of enlightened public opinion. His political classmates who commented on the matter were disingenuous in their well crafted support, to say the less.

    Indeed, once it was established that Carrington did not have sufficient funds to pay the debt in good time within the time frame of being ordered to do so by the judge, there should have been a clear whiff of something being rotten in Denmark.

    Loading…
15. 

    David

    January 30, 2015 at 11:57 am

    
    

    @Are-there-yet

    Brilliant capture of the worries of many.

    Loading…
16. 

    Artaxerxes

    January 30, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    
    

    @ millertheanunnaki January 30, 2015 at 11:32 AM #

    “How did Mr. Carrington treat the original amounts due to Mr. Griffiths and used for purposes other than in the client’s business interests? Did he declare for income tax purposes the amounts taken from the client’s account and ‘transferred’ to his private uses? Now if it can be established that Mr. Carrington is in breach of the Income Tax Act or even the Money Laundering Act would you still say he is fit to hold such high public office and everything ought now to be swept under the carpet?”

    Excellent, Miller, this contribution comes from the top drawer.

    You are correct, Miller and since the $208,900 equates to approximately $17,408.33 per month, it is over the $5,000 per month threshold for VAT.
    If he did indeed treat the amount as income and did not file VAT returns for the periods during which time he with-held the funds, then he is in violation of the VAT Act as well.

    Loading…
17. 

    David

    January 30, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    
    

    Were similar questions not asked about Parris and the gratuity received via a circuitous route?

    On Friday, 30 January 2015, Barbados Underground wrote:

    >

    Loading…
18. 

    ac

    January 30, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    
    

    Miller are you therefore calling for a second court trial of Mr.Carrington based on assumptions and unfounded allegations highlited in a (your)earlier comments.
    Are you willing to provide all the evedience necessary upon which these alllegations can be made?
    Furthermore does the court of public have a legal right to reverse/overturn a judges order to satisfy their outcome.
    Advisingly i submit to you and the other blp yardfowls that (a) the claimaint never brought charges of theft against the defendant on seeking resolution and none of the judges directives assessed such a charge.
    It would therefore be in your best interest to seek factual information rather that political gymnastic with the land of the land a law which separte facts from fiction

    Loading…
19. 

    are-we-there-yet

    January 30, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    
    

    ac;

    What about a vote of censure in the honourable house of BU?

    It would have no legal standing, but it would encapsulate the state of disgust some of us have with the manner in which this matter has been treated by the political class.

    Even I could put some “whereas-es” together later for the “Vote of Censure”.

    Loading…
20. 

    bdosmike

    January 30, 2015 at 3:08 pm

    
    

    I hear much about the ‘raising of funds’ to repay Mr Griffiths. But surely the $210,000 has been sitting on Mr. Carrington’s Clients’ Account for the last 15 years, and there are records to show that the balance on this account has never dipped below that amount. If so, why the need to ‘raise funds’ rather than just cut a cheque?

    Can someone please advise if there is any law or Code of Conduct in Barbados which forbids the use of a lawyers’ clients’ funds for any use or business other than that of the client?

    If the money has been sitting there all this time, or if it has not but there is no law or Code of Conduct against using clients’ funds other than for matters relating to the client, then surely this matter is as good as over.

    If on the other hand, it is against the law or a Code of Conduct to use money on a Clients’ Account other than for the client’s business, and the money has not been there all this time, then surely this matter is far from over.

    Loading…
21. 

    Hants

    January 30, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    
    

    Miller wrote “the amounts taken from the client’s account and ‘transferred’ to his private uses?”

    Is it illegal for a Lawyer to use money from a Client’s account for any reason other than for and on the behalf of the client?

    Those of us who are NOT lawyers would like to have a clear understanding given that Barbados’ laws are “different” from the laws in some of the jurisdictions in which we live.

    Loading…
22. 

    FearPlay

    January 30, 2015 at 3:39 pm

    
    

    Using AC’s logic above, I would not be considered dishonest if I were to go into a supermarket and attempt to leave with a chicken for which I did not tender payment, was confronted by a security guard and invited to return the chicken to the freezer and leave the establishment. Matter of fact, I could repeat that action at any other establishment however often I wished and once not charged, would be considered fit for office. Cool.

    Loading…
23. 

    Bush Tea

    January 30, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    
    

    @ Hants
    Is it illegal for a Lawyer to use money from a Client’s account for any reason other than for and on the behalf of the client?
    ++++++++++++++++++++
    Of course it is not illegal.
    Do you think Bajan lawyers would draft ANY laws to make that most common practice ‘illegal’?
    Why do you think they insist on the pooling of accounts under their control rather than opening joint working accounts for large transactions?

    Study it carefully and see why the opposition is between a rock and a hard place….

    @ Artax
    Man ease it with the lotta sack cloth and ashes do!!
    Look how long Bushie tell wunna bout the endemic brass bowlery bout here…..
    Wuh the PM long ago CHOOSE to side with possibly the biggest thief in local history – rather than with the thousands of poor victims – because the man was no leper….
    …..mean we could not see the leaning…?

    @ David
    Boss, the press bout here are so pissy….
    Imagine the PM announces that “Devaluation is not an option” ….and not a fella ask him respectfully how this pronouncement is different from “free education not being threatened”; Public sector layoffs not being an option; Barrack getting his money; and Four Seasons resuming shortly?

    Based on the PM’s history of credibility he is possibly right to desist from making public pronouncements…

    Loading…
24. 

    DeeWord

    January 30, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    
    

    People, Barbados’ law is based on the English Common Law and moreso certain aspects of law are fundamental across many jurisdictions.

    Why all the rhetorical questions about a lawyer using client funds?

    In which jurisdiction other than the one at Mole Hill, Dudds Valley, United States of Crooks, would there be an acceptable law that allows client funds to be used by a professional unless for the express actions as stipulated between client and professional (whether it be lawyer, architect, engineer or whatever)?

    Is Barbados a Mole Hill or an advanced democracy with many multinational about and around?

    Loading…
25. 

    Prodigal Son

    January 30, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    
    

    Excellent posts……….Are-we-there-yet, Miller and Artaxerxes!

    What are we going to do? Our fair land is being destroyed and we are helpless. How can we correct this plague that has engulfed our fair land?

    Loading…
26. 

    DeeWord

    January 30, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    
    

    Bush Tea January 30, 2015 at 3:48 PM #…Of course it is not illegal.—————-

    So Bushies if in ain’t illegal why the lawyer get his backside haul before the court?

    Not sure I understand why that would happen unless somebody contravene some law or other.

    Just asking now, as I am not a lawyer!

    Loading…
27. 

    millertheanunnaki

    January 30, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    
    

    @ Hants January 30, 2015 at 3:12 PM
    “Is it illegal for a Lawyer to use money from a Client’s account for any reason other than for and on the behalf of the client?”

    Yes, it’s called “FRAUD”.
    The lawyer has a fiduciary duty to his client. The only time a client’s money should be utilized other than for or on the client’s business interest is if it is invested in short-term ‘safe’ deposits to earn interest. The lawyer has a right to deduct a reasonable fee for such administrative services.

    There is a measure of flexibility if the exigencies of circumstance require the lawyer to use these funds in some extenuating situation provided the funds are returned in a reasonably accepted manner and timeframe and with the client’s knowledge and consent. Certainly 2 years are too long in the case of Griffiths vs Carrington.

    Loading…
28. 

    are-we-there-yet

    January 30, 2015 at 4:54 pm

    
    

    B’dosMike; re. your 3:08pm post;

    That is the crux of the matter.

    Perhaps one of the people who post on legal matters like Ross or Amused or Caswell or the UWI Law Lecturer who posts occasionally, could enlighten us on the important questions you raise re. the legal and acceptable ways in which client accounts should be handled and if Barbadian practice accords with written guidelines. Hants had posted some Canadian guidelines earlier which did not elicit responses as far as I’m aware.

    You said “If the money has been sitting there all this time, or if it has not, but there is no law or Code of Conduct against using clients’ funds other than for matters relating to the client, then surely this matter is as good as over.”

    The way that this matter has unfolded leads me to strongly suspect that there is no Law or actionable Code of Conduct for the proper use of client funds “held in trust” for clients in Barbados or, if there are, they have fallen into abeyance over the last several decades. I think you are therefore on good grounds suggesting that, if so, this matter is as good as over.

    But should we be forever saddled with such a demonstrably iniquitous system?

    My concern is that the current matter should be used to the extent possible by civil society to advocate for the cleaning up of the system, not to allow it to fester and metastasize. We must keep our politicians feet to the hot coals.

    We should not allow this matter to expire with nary a whimper.

    Loading…
29. 

    millertheanunnaki

    January 30, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    
    

    @ Bush Tea January 30, 2015 at 3:48 PM
    “Boss, the press bout here are so pissy….
    Imagine the PM announces that “Devaluation is not an option” ….and not a fella ask him respectfully how this pronouncement is different from “free education not being threatened”; Public sector layoffs not being an option; Barrack getting his money; and Four Seasons resuming shortly?
    Based on the PM’s history of credibility he is possibly right to desist from making public pronouncements..”

    You are indeed a man of acute perspicacity that can see beyond the boundary of “brass-bowlery” and to spot perfidiousness at the highest level of perpetration. Didn’t he also make similar protestations and cast-iron pronouncements on Privatization? Yet the BNOC is up for the fearful “P” treatment to be followed by the Bridgetown Port.

    The Bajan Press is certainly made up of a pack of jokers and ass-lickers as long as they get the plate of food and glasses of wine at the highfalutin gatherings.
    Why should the topic of devaluation be brought up in such forum?
    If Barbados in on the road to economic recovery and growth what is the man getting at? What does he want to say to the public?
    Is he rolling the wicket to have that long promised “honest’ conversation with the people?

    Is the Government being pressured by the IMF to make a correctional adjustment to the country’s currency peg as a condition for balance of payment support that will soon be required despite the breathing space offered by the lowering of oil prices and a recovering tourism season?

    I know for sure that there is one man who would not want to make such an announcement of the necessity of the dreaded ‘D’ plague on Bajans. Don’t be surprised if Stinkliar hands over the sick patient to the former pit bull turned Doctor Chihuahua Estwick. The goodly doctor has conducted many diagnoses on the ailing state of the economy. It’s time for him to administer the bitter medicine under the sharp gaze of a sleeping PM.

    Loading…
30. 

    David

    January 30, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    
    

    @Bush Tea

    How about the fact the Prime Minister also lauded the decision by Sagicor to redomiciled strategic and does not negatively impact Barbados, a statement at odds with Minister Kellman …lol.

    On Friday, 30 January 2015, Barbados Underground wrote:

    >

    Loading…
31. 

    Exclaimer

    January 30, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    
    

    I have read all of your posts and can smell the sense of moral outrage amongst you all. The bestiality and immorality of mankind throughout the ages places in question the wisdom of the creator to place mankind on top of the pyramid.

    This expose´ of the crooked Speaker of the House, Michael Carrington, will blow over soon. This story will be placed in the archive vault and forgotten! All that moral outrage would have been spent to no good use. As we now speak there are larger anonymous crimes been committed.

    Moral outrage has and never will be a game changer. I would even argue that moral outrage is the home of the weak and the impotent. Moral outrage is merely a catharsis which brings you temporary relief. Moral outrage on its own will never restructure or change a corrupt political system.

    If you are true patriots and you desire real change you have to convert this moral outrage to revolutionary thoughts. Our old colonial master experienced revolution. At the head of their revolution was the great Oliver Cromwell. The King of England, Charles the first, paid the price and lost his head. The same fate awaited the French and Russian monarchy.

    The USA in their wisdom decided that they were not prepared to pay taxes to the English crown and threw out the British.

    Closer to home in Haiti during the period of the French revolution the Haitians under the leadership of Toussaint L’Ouverture decided that they would fight for their freedom.

    Unless you are prepared to sit at the table called revolution you will find yourself on the outside. The country where your ancestors were brought to as slaves will be extracted from you by stealth; your own people will become strangers in their own land, a la´ Australia.

    Convert your moral outrage to something constructive. Look into those areas where you the Bajan are being marginalised. I would certainly look closely at your coastline and how your rights are been restricted in terms of access to your beaches. For example, take the west coast, I would be looking at punching pathways between those properties situated on the coast that have been designed to block the rights of way for those of you who would like to access your own beaches.

    I would also make a concerted effort in occupying land that is idol (not been worked). I have passed by many a plantation land which has been given over to golf courses, equestrian eventing or simply been used as giant lawns. How could this be possible in a country whose soil was once exploited to the full and in doing so became a cash cow for the crown.

    The above two ideas are just a start. However they may induce and discipline the masses in how to conduct a long term strategy to overturn this rotten, filthy and corrupt political system.

    Loading…
32. 

    Prodigal Son

    January 30, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    
    

    miller,

    I heard the goat when he announced that “Devaluation is not an option” but as usual paid him no mind. I was in my bed and quickly switched the channel as I did not want his face in my hallowed quarters.

    As far as I am concerned, Fumble is a waste of time. It was like, somebody wrote the speech and he only read it………..I cannot even say it was like Latin to him as he seems well versed in Latin.

    These morons have a way of throwing things out there for us to pounce on and then by the slight of the hand, implement them….for example the tax on the barrels and the tax on income and coming soon the tax on deposits in the bank as the clown from St Lucy alluded to.

    One minute these morons are saying……. dont talk about devaluation, it is weakening people’s confidence in Barbados and stopping investors from investing………

    Then out of the blue after the “glowing” latest CBB report where they said that the economy had grown and will grow this year which by the way, only they believe………..the PM brings up the devaluation talk again.

    We can only wonder what’s next as for sure only these morons believe the bullshit they are shoveling. If you listen to exerts from Charlie Skeete on Early Business, the targets set and the growth the governor is projecting is unrealistic!

    Loading…
33. 

    bdosmike

    January 30, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    
    

    @ Are-we-there-yet, “The way that this matter has unfolded leads me to strongly suspect that there is no Law or actionable Code of Conduct for the proper use of client funds “held in trust” for clients in Barbados”.

    Were it not for the flagrant flouting of Laws by Mr Parris which are clearly documented in Court Reports, but have gone both unchallenged and unpunished (so far), I would agree with you. But I get the distinct impression that the presence of Laws and/or Codes of Practice, Conduct or Ethics in Barbados do not necessarily mean they will be enforced upon all.

    I do hope a qualified friend will enlighten us as to the presence or absence of the said Laws, and depending upon the answer, I may wish to ask again what possible circumstances could have led to the need to ‘raise funds’, unless of course that was no more than malicious gossip.

    Loading…
34. 

    millertheanunnaki

    January 30, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    
    

    @ David January 30, 2015 at 5:10 PM

    It seems that ‘diplomatic’ note from Sagicor Miller to the PM has been effective in silencing the ‘sick-nigger-backside’ mouth of Kellman.
    Does he have the unmitigated gall of unashamed stupidity to call again VOB Brasstacks after that public slap down by his boss?

    Loading…
35. 

    Dee Word

    January 30, 2015 at 5:46 pm

    
    

    @ are-we-there-yet January 30, 2015 at 4:54 PM #…the legal and acceptable ways in which client accounts should be handled and if Barbadian practice accords with written guidelines. …You said “If the money has been sitting there all this time, or if it has not, but there is no law or Code of Conduct against using clients’ funds other than for matters relating to the client, then surely this matter is as good as over.”==============

    Are-we, until that moment of legal enlightenment let’s play suppose.

    Suppose you doing work on my behalf and advise me your fees will be 10% of my expected payout. I receive a copy of a letter sent to you saying that my payout of $1000 is ready and has been sent to you two days prior to the date of the letter.

    I wait a week and come to your office expecting to receive the $900. Your secretary advises me that the office guy was sick and no banking was done recently.

    It then takes me12 months before I get the funds because you had a fire at the office and was unable to do any proper work and so on and so forth.

    Can you please explain to me if you are crooked and held onto MY money fraudulently because whether it was in one bank account or not it is clearly a credit due to me and therefore MY money and NOT yours and should have been discharged to me regardless of fire or no fire.

    Just a suppose of course, no lawyer here just every day people.

    Because it seems the blog is holding lawyers onto some extraordinary pedestal that does not apply to every day people so I just wondering if you are a crook in my scenario, you feel you got a valid excuse for the delay or what.

    Btw if the man had the money why in God’s name would he allow himself to be taken to court. Is it that he had missed his sado-mistress and wanted to be flogged!!

    Gotta go…

    Loading…
36. 

    Caswell Franklyn

    January 30, 2015 at 6:11 pm

    
    

    There are rules that regulate how lawyers deal with clients money, the Legal Profession (Accounts), 1973, shown below:

    http://208.109.177.6/en/ShowPdf/1973_107.pdf

    In addition the Legal Profession Code of Ethics, 1988 also speak to handling clients money.

    Rule 70 states:

    An attorney-at-law shall not retain money he received for his clients longer than is absolutely necessary.

    Rule 87 states:

    In pecuniary matters an attorney-at-law shall be most punctual and diligent, he shall never mingle funds of others with his own and he shall at all times be able to refund money he holds for others.

    The link to the code is attached

    http://208.109.177.6/en/ShowPdf/1988_113.pdf

    An attorney-at-law who breaches this code could be disciplined.

    The rules to deal with these types of matters are there but are observed mainly in the breach.

    >

    Loading…
37. 

    are-we-there-yet

    January 30, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    
    

    bdosmike;

    You might be right. There may be laws or codes of ethics relevant to this situation but they would appear to be seldom applied and then not universally. However, the way this story played out suggests that Carrington and the political class generally knew that he would suffer no legal sanctions other than having to eventually pay the man his monies. The legal and political classes would see to that. If it were otherwise the PM would have ensured his early removal from the chair to limit the damage to the DLP, whose survival appears to be the thing closest to the cockles of his heart, if I read him correctly.

    On the question of the persistent rumour of the “raising of funds”. This is Barbados and there is usually fire where one sees smoke. ….and people talk, some because they like to, some because of its cathartic effect. Remember, no less a person than the PM, in extolling the virtues of a fallen arch enemy, told us that in effect the political class here is one monolithic entity not two.

    Loading…
38. 

    are-we-there-yet

    January 30, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    
    

    Dee Word;

    The professional in your hypothetical is a crook. pure and simple.

    Lawyers are usually held to lower standards in Barbados than other professionals, not higher ones.

    But all are not bad. I had a lawyer friend whose client account was scrupulously maintained and audited. It had to be as he dealt with primarily offshore entities.

    Loading…
39. 

    bdosmike

    January 30, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    
    

    Thank you Caswell. So in accordance with Rule 87, there should have been no need to ‘raise funds’ unless, as I have wondered already, that was no more than malicious gossip.

    Loading…
40. 

    bdosmike

    January 30, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    
    

    Are-we-there-yet, “the political class here is one monolithic entity not two” and otherwise, it would seem there are two Barbadoses; one of which is for those who must abide by the Laws of the Land or pay the penalty…..

    Loading…
41. 

    millertheanunnaki

    January 30, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    
    

    @ Caswell Franklyn January 30, 2015 at 6:11 PM

    Thanks, Caswell! It is well known we can depend on you to separate fact from ac’s fiction.

    All those who argued there are no laws or code of ethics or conduct governing the handling of clients’ monies by lawyers need to STFU; and that is directly aimed at ac and supporters like Fractured BLP, et al.
    Bottom line. Michael Carrington is a dishonest thieving so and so who ought to be brought up on disciplinary charges and be forced to demit holding public office either as the Speaker of the HoA or any Cabinet post serving a minister of the Crown.

    Loading…
42. 

    ac

    January 30, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    
    

    FearPlay January 30, 2015 at 3:39 PM #

    Using AC’s logic above, I would not be considered dishonest if I were to go into a supermarket and attempt to leave with a chicken for which I did not tender payment, was confronted by a security guard and invited to return the chicken to the freezer and leave the establishment. Matter of fact, I could repeat that action at any other establishment however often I wished and once not charged, would be considered fit for office. Cool.

    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    don;t get it twisted, you stated in your comment (sceanario) that the chicken was taken from the store . Firstly the moment you remove /take/ or actively engaged in confiscating a person property without their knoweldge /consent /permission or agree upon by the owner it is called “theft” and yes the person upon whom you exercise such liberty / act/ have a right to press charges of theft,
    however in the carrington case this cannot be deemed as theft unless the defendant disregard the legal rights and privileges that are acceptable to the legal profession and which were signed and agreed (to) by the client,
    BTW no one have asked if there is a stature of limitation as to how long a lawyer can keep a client funds without dispersing since most here have been questioning the length of time the claimant funds were held by mr,carrington.

    Loading…
43. 

    David

    January 30, 2015 at 7:25 pm

    
    

    Gabriel

    Is this the link you want?

    Trinidad attorney general under police probe

    Friday, January 30, 2015 | 9:11 AM     3 Comments

     

    

    Trinidad’s Attorney General Anand Ramlogan

    PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (Trinidad Express) – Anand Ramlogan’s job as Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago hangs in the balance.

    He is the first Attorney General to face a criminal investigation.

    And as Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar flew home last night, one thing must have been on her mind—can Ramlogan, who has survived many controversies and calls for his head, continue to properly discharge the functions of his office with the cloud of a criminal probe hanging over him.

    The probe centres around the allegation that on October 31, six days before his appointment as Police Complaints Authority (PCA) Director, David West was approached by the Attorney General with a request that he withdrew his witness statement in the Section 34 defamation lawsuit brought by the Attorney General against Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley, in exchange for the appointment to the directorship.

    http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Trinidad-attorney-general-under-police-probe

    Loading…
44. 

    David

    January 30, 2015 at 7:55 pm

    
    

    Mr. Prime Minister you stated on Wednesday at the BCCI luncheon the move by Sagicor to redomicile is a strategic decision, BU says you are wrong. It IS because it has no confidence in Barbados’ ability to claw back its sovereign rating anytime soon. We are not idiots.

    Sagicor considers T&T for relocation

    Story Created: Jan 28, 2015 at 11:57 PM ECT

    Story Updated: Jan 28, 2015 at 11:57 PM ECT
    Insurance giant Sagicor is considering Trinidad and Tobago as one of several country options as it prepares to relocate its registered offices in Barbados.
    In a published statement yesterday, Sagicor president Dodridge Miller said the recommendation to re-domicile its office followed Standard and Poor’s recent action to downgrade entities within the Sagicor Group.
    These downgrades were a direct result of S&P’s downgrade on the sovereign credit rating of Barbados recently, Miller’s statement said.
    The Sagicor Group needs to restore its credit rating and re-domicilation of Sagicor will result in its registered office being relocated from Barbados to a country with an investment grade rating.
    He said consideration is being given to a number of locations, including Trinidad and Tobago, the United States, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.
    A recommendation will be made after an evaluation process is completed.
    “There are several steps involved in this process and subject to shareholder approval, we expect to have it completed by the end of 2015,” Miller said.

    http://www.trinidadexpress.com/business/Sagicor-considers-TT-for-relocation-290156741.html

    Loading…
45. 

    bdosmike

    January 30, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    
    

    @ac “BTW no one have asked if there is a stature of limitation as to how long a lawyer can keep a client funds without dispersing since most here have been questioning the length of time the claimant funds were held by mr,carrington.”

    First of all ac try, ‘Statute of Limitations’, not ‘stature’, not that I think that is remotely relevant to this case.

    Secondly, try reading the posts of educated professionals like Caswell Franklyn before you write.

    The Legal Profession Code of Ethics, 1988, Rule 70 states:

    “An attorney-at-law shall not retain money he received for his clients longer than is absolutely necessary.”

    14 years was ‘absolutely necessary’ was it?….. OK den…..

    Loading…
46. 

    Crusoe

    January 30, 2015 at 8:46 pm

    
    

    @ Prodigal Son …”governor is projecting”

    You don’t need any more than those three words to get your point across…. nuff said!

    Loading…
47. 

    Crusoe

    January 30, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    
    

    Fellas, I wantz to set up a truck, mowing and weed whacker business, I gine need bout $200,000 all told.

    Wunna mind a whip round fuh muh? And besides, is legal work, nuh illegal ting.

    And seeing as it is a cross the spectrum thing, even tough I am not affiliated to B nor D, even ac can put a lil 10,000 in?

    Loading…
48. 

    ac

    January 30, 2015 at 8:54 pm

    
    

    bdos bmike! unlike you and other linguist i don;t really waste much time worrying or preying into comments that have a misspelling and they are many commentators here on BU who have made them what i take into consideration are the relevancy of points being made everything else is of less interest . i do not have intellect meltdowns or nor do i care to have linguistic orgasms about a misspelling ,there are more important issues that ac have to deal with daily than trumpeting a linguist horn,
    another bone of connection on your part was that of you having offense to my query which was answered,
    there are times when some comments go unnoticed for whatever reason and the necessity for you to rail about any query show an arrogance and a basis lack of understanding and familiarity with blogging.
    now the next time you have a desire to have a linguist orgasm pick on somebody your own size (small)

    Loading…
49. 

    millertheanunnaki

    January 30, 2015 at 9:04 pm

    
    

    @ ac January 30, 2015 at 8:54 PM
    “… i do not have intellect meltdowns or nor do i care to have linguistic orgasms about a misspelling ,there are more important issues that ac have to deal with daily than trumpeting a linguist horn..”

    Oh, Oh, ac my sugarplum, that’s the most suggestive sweetest sexiest statement you have ever made on BU.
    Linguistic orgasms I am ready for one. What must I do to reach such an apex of linguistic explosion? Back the volcanic eruptions of DLP incompetence and distorting lies?

    Loading…
50. 

    Bush Tea

    January 30, 2015 at 9:08 pm

    
    

    @ Miller /DeeWord
    All those who argued there are no laws or code of ethics or conduct governing the handling of clients’ monies by lawyers need to STFU; and that is directly aimed at ac and supporters like Fractured BLP, et al.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Watch it Miller….
    Bushie is one of those who stated that there are no “laws” governing the handling of clients money by lawyers and contrary to your protestations (wonder why?) Caswell’s post VERIFIES exactly that no such laws exists…

    “An attorney-at-law shall not retain money he received for his clients longer than is absolutely necessary.”
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Is that a law? ..that is just a lotta shiite…..written by lawyers to fool idiots into thinking that rules exists…
    What the hell is “absolutely necessary” in a court of law?

    In pecuniary matters an attorney-at-law shall be most punctual and diligent, he shall never mingle funds of others with his own and he shall at all times be able to refund money he holds for others.
    ++++++++++++++++++++
    ….more shiite!!

    ..Punctual and diligent bushie’s ass!! this is meaningless gibberish.!!
    ..Refund the money? ….so then it is allowable to “borrow it” then????
    ..never ‘mingle funds’ ???? what the hell does that mean? who ‘mingles’ money?

    Steupsss
    Miller …you like you forgot that Bushie was NOT born this century.

    Imagine if we had a ‘law’ that said that it was an offense to remove a chicken from Price Mart without paying, for longer than absolutely necessary …and that such chicken must be replaced punctually and diligently if requested by Mr Mart.

    Those ‘laws’ were designed by lawyers, for lawyers to facilitate their own personal banking system….

    Laws shiite…!!

    BESIDES….
    An attorney-at-law who breaches this code could be disciplined.

    LOL 🙂
    C O U L D be disciplined….or could NOT….

    Man wunna lawyers’ asses will burn hot in hell….

    Loading…