What can Barbadians build on for 2016 based on events of 2015. Many issues and individuals occupied the headlines in 2015, BU selected a few to kick start the voting (No Vote Buying Allowed).[…]
Vote for the Top Issue or Individual in 2015
Discover more from Barbados Underground
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
111 responses to “Vote for the Top Issue or Individual in 2015”
-
We must defend our country the only country we can call home from those who are self serving. Never must we say., should have done something after the fact. Let us defend the issues but never depreciate our character with personal attacks towards we have divergent views.
Merry Xmas and Prosperity even to those who despise me for seeking better governance for my beloved Barbados!
-
A Merry Xmas & Happy New Year everyone…!
-
It is very difficult to vote for only one specific issue as they were all very annoying to say the least! Now we have the covert operation of the done deal of the energy plant to be built by two unsavoury Canadians.
-
On another note, David. Can you or anyone else tell me how a company can be private, but 100% owned by Government? Wouldn’t that be like saying that the Transport Board is private but 100% owned by Government?
-
-
Maria Agard brought the case against Mia Mottley and Jerome Walcott … tacit admission that the Barbados Labour Party does NOT exist as a legal entity. Finally proof. That is to me the most significant event of the year.
HAPPY CHRISTMAS AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR TO ALL
-
Anthony Davis December 24, 2015 at 12:51 AM #
“On another note, David. Can you or anyone else tell me how a company can be private, but 100% owned by Government? Wouldn’t that be like saying that the Transport Board is private but 100% owned by Government?”
Take the Barbados National Oil Company (BNOC) for example. This is a quasi government organization that has been registered as a company under the laws of Barbados. Their vehicles are not licensed with the usual MP or ML notations associated with government departments and statutory corporations respectively, but with P to denote the company is located in St. Philip.
Other examples are the Barbados Port Inc. (BPI) and Grantley Adams International Airport (GAIA).
These “private” organizations, “but 100% owned by government.”
-
Same to you BAFBFP.
-
@Anthony Davis
Del Maltros is a new project that appeared late in 2015.
@Baffy
The Maria Agard will be a watershed case, like you BU will be following closely.
-
@ David there were so many that it is difficult to say which is number one.
What is “significant” is that Bajans are exposing the APPARENT BUT UNPROVEN corruption that seems to be part of the Barbados political landscape. ( I being careful not to say what I really mean cause somebody might sue me or David )
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR TO ALL BU BLOGGERS.
-
BAFBP, the political party is an unincorporated association…it may be a legal entity in that respect, but I suspect that you mean it is not a legal “person” which cannot sue or be sued in its own name. You are right. Normally though, one sues the trustees of the party when claiming damages.
-
Too many to choose from and all are priority.
This is Pieces’ nitwit buddy the AG Adriel who could ‘see pain’ while this lady has been feeling the pain for 34 years while they all pray she dies and they won’t have to pay for her injuries.
-
A very special Happy Holidays to BU’s David, may your blessings be many.
-
@Jeff
Wade Gibbons of Barbados Today raised said issue on his FB page. He mused why Agard is suing Walcott and Motley. The outcome of this case is being observed by many for very weighty reasons.
-
@Well Well
Same to you and the gang!
-
@David and Jeff, this issue of the BLP as a legal entity does not tickle my interest as it does the Bajan public because I really can’t see what impact or difference it makes to the substantive issue: whether the leader/ex council’s ability sanctioned the member appropriately and accorded her all dignities of natural justice.
How is the political party as an entity different from any similar organization that has a constitution and formal structure to manage members and discharge their duties to the public (Rotary Club, Old Scholars Group, B’dos Cancer Society, to name three)?
The other question I would pose: Who owns the party’s HQ building? Was that given to them by a benefactor? Does the council administer the day to day operations like cleaning, fixing etc?
If a shingle (work with me here) falls off the roof and damages a parked car, in whose name is the insurance coverage: the non-legal person BLP, the president/chairman of the council or some other business entity that sits as part of the BLP?
If the car owner is not satisfied and engages a lawyer then who does she sue, not the president or officer with the biggest pockets who by his/her position has taken on some type of fiduciary responsibility?
These legal things does befuddle lay-ingrunts like me!
The precedent and pending outcome of a political party member taking on her party bosses legally is surely a very big deal locally but is the operational basis of the party being examined at this stage too. Really???
-
@Dee Word
What matters is how the court will rule on this matter and the implication for how the public will be encouraged to hold political parties accountable. It does not matter how other charitable type entities are currently viewed in law. A political party is not your regular Bazaar entity. A new dawn, a shift is required.
-
BTW David, you need to give yourself, team and bloggers some fun surveys as well.
Who is the most controversial, annoying and interesting blogger from three (Bushie, Bushie and Bushie)?
Who is the most detailed and quote accurate, again from three (Artaxerxes X 3)
Whose weekly column generates the most interest… (Jeff, Caswell, Loveridge) Tie likely. Jeff and Caswell.
A tough slog, no doubt. LOLLL.
Greetings of the season to all. And continued super successes in 2016.
-
@David at 10:50 AM…respectfully, I disagree with you on that re “how the public will be encouraged to hold political parties accountable”.
This Agard matter has nothing to do with the public and holding parties accountable. This is a matter between a member and her party. We are definitely getting into grand bazaars if we go down that road.
Can I offer that the PUBLIC holds political parties ACCOUNTABLE at the ballot box! Just saying David.
The public does NOT take their political party to court otherwise our legal system would be more inundated than it currently is.
We are getting carried away with this Agard matter and infusing it with precedents of which it DOES NOT have.
-
Jeff Cumberbatch December 24, 2015 at 9:32 AM #
BAFBP, the political party is an unincorporated association…it may be a legal entity in that respect, but I suspect that you mean it is not a legal “person” which cannot sue or be sued in its own name. You are right. Normally though, one sues the trustees of the party when claiming damages.So Jeff all this talk about “suing” and “damages”. Exactly what “damages” is she claiming or can get?
-
David
The majority of what you kick started above with can be lumped together under mismanagement and should include Agriculture and the various Taxes imposed willy nilly,with some taxes having the opposite effect intended like the garbage one.
-
Happy Holidays to one all,do have an enjoyable season whether it be with Bachus or with some other deity.
-
@Vincent
Agree it is all about governance!
We could have included thieving Michael Carrington etc.
@Dee Word
Let us agree to disagree. Issues are all connected.
-
The principals of Firms are liable to their shirt buttons. It is a reason why key players like accounting companies are not allowed to incorporate as Limited Liabilities. Political Parties are playing roles that are even more vital than accountants and yet no one can be legally held liable. They are not even incorporated. This “Trustie” thing is being tested on a “internal” matter. Suppose there are damages to be paid, will Mottley and Walcott be forced to pull their own pockets …?
The reality is that every gang in Barbados, the ones whose presence the Government of Barbados refused to admit to, are ALL “unincorporated association”. Surely by now there are people who are concerned with this economy being managed by gangs.
-
Actually David, let’s agree to agree. I am one with you that Dr. Agard’s suit is all related to the public disposition of the BLP. Most definitey Dr. Agard once to dislodge the leadership team or at minimum make them pay politically for their actions. I also think you would agree that politics is ultimately about elections: the final resting point of public accountability.
@BAFBFP at 12:29 PM Your mixed metaphors (so to speak) of long standing business/legal processes is interesting. Jeff and others can speak expertly; as a businessman in the process I am lost .
For every accounting company partner who can be held liable – for offering very specific business advice upon which people are directly relying and for which the government has specifically given ‘certification’ – there are other business entities whose officers are not held liable.
If Mottley/Walcott are forced to pull their pockets as you say then what? Were they not ACTING directly on behalf of the BLP and was the decision not completed by majority vote…. So wouldn’t the party be ‘forced’ to indemnify them?
Why are they gangs?
Why are we dissembling this case and its impact from realities of business and law?
A political party is a constituted group that is expected to follow its rules and regulations. The party members and officials answer to the party process not the PUBLIC.
Any elected officials from that party who make up the national political entity are the ones who answer to the public. They in turn will never answer to their party on national political decisions.
Two separate but fairly practical processes I think.
-
Happy Holidays Baf, De Word, Vincent.
-
The law governing unincorporated associations is complex because these are not separate legal personalities. This does not mean that no one can be held liable, as BAFBFP insists, in fact it means that every member is liable. I hope the extract below helps.
“In today’s increasingly corporate world, it may come as something of a surprise that there are many thousands of organisations … which are set up as unincorporated associations. The sizes and structures of these organisations can vary enormously, as can their purposes and objects: many of them are voluntary organisations or charities.
Others are member-based organisations formed as clubs political parties and societies which further the interests of the members and are not for profit, such as sports and social clubs. Owners’ or residents’ associations in developments will also often fall into this category.
These associations are not, for the most part, governed by statute or regulations, but by the common law, developed largely through decided cases.
NO LEGAL PERSONALITY
The principal issue for unincorporated associations is that they have no separate legal personality, which means, essentially, that the law does not recognise them as legal entities separate from their members.Without legal personality, an association cannot enter into contracts, employ staff or own property, or raise or defend court actions.
@Nostradamus,
Compensable loss, injury or damage will have to be established by Dr Agard if she is to recover damages. Your guess here is as good as mine. I cannot see any financial loss having been suffered, however.
-
@Jeff
Compensable loss, injury or damage will have to be established by Dr Agard if she is to recover damages. Your guess here is as good as mine. I cannot see any financial loss having been suffered, however
+++++++++++++++
Is there any precedent for “loss of reputation” or “being held up to ridicule”, humiliation and disgrace? etc. or would this be treading on new grounds?Merry Xmas
-
Dr. Agard should be ‘up’ for the Stupid Politician of the Year award, she would win hands down.
-
I mean, how silly can one politician be? She really believed that with 2 years to go she could tangle with a Leader of the Opposition, a party chairman and political leader and win? This just goes to show what a lot of people said about her was correct, “she ain’t no politician”
-
Who wants to be like the so called politician anyway. Where is the pride in it?
-
David,
The pride is in doing it properly, to the best of your ability. How can she help her constitutents, local and national from in Opposition? -
She has not made it harder for herself to deliver on her promises while being an independent.
-
@Elbow
Please cite the manual you are referring to.
-
David
Please cite the manual to disprove what I am saying, can you? -
The people of CH CH WEST will the ultimate ‘manual’ for what I said, lets just wait to see what they thing about their present MP when election day comes.
-
@Elbow
You are the one making the assertions, the onus rest with you.
-
Don’t know if it’s the same BU Hal Austin….but nice to see him commenting on this ver important issue that can and does happen to too many innocent people in Barbados because of the greed, disdain and contempt displayed by government agencies and insurance companies for people who are injured. The Registrar’s office should also do more to make sure this does not continue to happen, it’s very unfair to claimants who have to suffer in pain for years.
”
Hal Austin
December 24, 2015 at 5:10 am
“Here is our attorney general again, showing quite clearly that he is not on top of his job.
After a 34 year administrative cock up, gross incompetence, all he has to say to ordinary Barbadians is that he could ‘see the pain’.
This is crass nonsense. Has he forgotten that the Registrar reports to him and he has the power to reform the Registrar’s department? What about the Listings Office? What caused this unforgiveable delay?
Even the CCJ, not the most exciting appellant court in the world, finds the Barbados judicial process dysfunctional.
What is the attorney general going to do to prevent similar cases in future? How does he plan to compensate this poor woman for her pain and suffering caused by the administrative delay?
What is particularly perverse is that the attorney general said he became aware of the case when he read about it in the press. Does he have meetings of his senior staff? Do they make him aware of things that may be publicly embarrassing? Is he competent enough to manage a large and important department?
Is the Opposition party going to take up this case? What about the prime minister, a former attorney general? What about our many lawyers who are always protesting and marching? Here is a case crying out for solid pro bono work and for justice” -
Sargeant@4:49 pm,
All those are eminently recoverable …. once proved to have been suffered. It will not be presumed by thecourt ( if she is successful in her main claim) that these have occurred
-
It is Christmas Eve and many district are experiencing low water pressure or is off.
-
‘Is there any precedent for “loss of reputation” or “being held up to ridicule”, humiliation and disgrace? etc. or would this be treading on new grounds?”
All of the above was endured by Ms Mottley at the hands of Mr Arthur in his public outburst which could have led the public to believe that Ms Mottley was not fit for leadership because she was sexually deviant.
-
@ balance
Truth is the ultimate defence. -
@ David
The controversial issue of the year must surely be the continued tame and lame acceptance of political brass bowlery by the Bajan public in the face of such outrageous events as outlined in your poll:imagine…
..CLICO – Millions stolen from thousands of bowls …Not a boy has been charged.
..Almond brand destroyed in favour of Sandals – with decades of tax give-aways
..Every shiite that is Bajan, up for sale to the most crooked albino available
..CAHILL – Four ministers and a Froon signs a billion dollar deal with a lonely, broke Canadian woman…
..The flushed shiite tax is merged into land tax to discourage home ownership. Bizzy still waiting for his handouts…
We have new and improved stand pipes, new headquarters, and multiple water outages….
..Now Stinkliar has set his sights on taxing cell phones… and when that fails, he will tax BU bloggers…. (anyone except Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, engineers and accountants…)…AND Bajan brass bowls soak up all this piss without a murmur… !!
How the hell is that even POSSIBLE….?
Even a jackass kicks out after such repeated abuse… -
“Bush Tea
We know Bajans have he passion if we judge by the videos circulating of them fighting for Pricesmart cakes yesterday.
-
@ David / BU
Merry Christmas to you and yours plus the Bu family
-
@Balance
All of the above was endured by Ms Mottley at the hands of Mr Arthur in his public outburst which could have led the public to believe that Ms Mottley was not fit for leadership because she was sexually deviant.
++++++++++++++
Perhaps Ms. Mottley should have sued Mr. Arthur, but you have accused Mr. Arthur of something I don’t think he did. It is up to the public to believe what they want to believe, Mr. Arthur s too smart to say anything about Ms. Mottley that would make him a defendant in any litigation.You, on the other hand may have to consult a lawyer if she comes after you for writing the above.
-
@Sargeant, surely you jest to ask about political combatants fighting ON the political battefield whether “there any precedent for “loss of reputation” or “being held up to ridicule”, humiliation and disgrace? …”
If Dr. Agard had been confronted by Ms Mottley in her capacity as a professional medical practitioner then I could appreciate your query. But in her role as a politician! Really.
When the then previously demure and lady-like Billie Miller (now Dame, of course) was reported to have indelicately raised the hem of her dress to a roaring crowd at a political meeting whilst in the midst of some purposeful words about where her opponents could place their lips, do you perceive that thereafter she could EVER claim to be ‘humiliated or disgraced’ politically.
Not saying Dr. Agard did any such thing but she does not strike me as a wilting flower. So I suspect she has said things on platforms that mark her as a woman ready to throw it down.
How do you cry harm in that circumstance unless you have been wronged under legal libel/slander etc.
Isn’t her standard for action lower (or higher, depending on one’s perspective) than that of a regular person? Just saying!!
-
@David, in time maybe I wil come around to you (and Bushie’s) view of PRIDE in this battle with Dr. Agard and Ms. Mottley. But to date I see it strictly in political terms as the protegee stepping out from under the thumb of the mentor and aiming to ‘dethrone’ her.
As others have said I believe she has miscalculated badly. Politics is about victory at the polls ultimately and this strategy by Dr. Agard weakens her party and thus minimizes its chances or victory. She herself could lose her seat even if she ‘wins’ the legal victory.
Other than the pride of which you speak what is there to be taken away from victory in the courts?
Do you believe that she can use that as a base to challenge Mottley for leadership of the party? Hardly.
So at best this is positioning her for future leadership in the party and to achieve that she has to engage with the anti-Mia faction and convince them she is good enough. And for Marshall, Payne or Toppin even to subordinate themselves to the leadership of Dr. Agard she would have to vanquish Mottley legally and politically; win her seat as a BLPite and then engage Bajans that she is ready to lead.
Do you really see all that developing from this innocent looking legal matter…the proverbial shot that would be heard all across Bim.
I don’t. To me it’s just a political maneuver to allow Dr. Agard to save ‘face’…if she wins in court; which is very possible on the natural justice claim!!
-
@de Ingrunt Word December 24, 2015 at 8:38 PM #
Chuckle….. well said,I hope that David grasps the point……do enjoy the holidays.
-
Grunt Word
I agree with you but I don’t see any victories for Dr. Agard, in every final scenario she winds up losing everything. The first loss was her being expelled from her party, the second loss was the DLP’s refusal to grant her safe harbour as card-carrying member of that party, the third loss will be the in courts of law and public opinion (she is losing badly already) and final loss will be her seat in Ch Ch West.
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.