The Jefferson Cumberbatch Column – Enforcing the Rule of Law
Caleb Orozco
We are equally responsible to ensure State accountability to protect the human rights of ALL and not SOME! Therefore all laws, policies and actions must be consistent with the CONSTITUTION…No one person, group or community should be discriminated against because of the colour of his or her skin, his or her choice of religious belief, his or her ethnicity, or his or her sexual orientation… –Cristina Coc –Mayan Leaders Alliance (Emphasis in original)
There appears to be in these parts, I have remarked on more occasions than one, a general antipathy to a claim to a human right, except of course where it implicates the rights of the respondent individual, a friend, or a member of his or her family. For some, there is simply too much emphasis on rights by others these days, and there is likely to be a swift reminder to the asserter of one’s responsibilities as if the responsibility of others not to infringe one’s rights in a democratic society were not equally paramount.
In such a hostile environment, the decision last week by Benjamin CJ in the Belize High Court that section 53 of the Criminal Code of that jurisdiction was inconsistent with rights guaranteed under the Constitution is not likely to be met with much acclaim locally.
According to this provision, marginally noted “Unnatural Crime”–
“Every person who has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years”.
It is generally understood that this offence includes intercourse per anum or buggery, and, as the equivalent-but-not-identical provision in Barbados does, it takes no account of whether the implicated parties are consenting to the act, whether it is done in private or whether the “recipient” is male or female. In Barbados, conversely, the offender is liable on conviction on indictment to a clearly dissuasive sentence of imprisonment for life, according to section 9 of our Sexual Offences Act, Cap. 154.
Benjamin CJ found that the provision violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner, Mr Caleb Orozco and other Belizeans identically situated, to human dignity, to privacy, to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law, since it criminalized sexual intimacy between consenting adults, even in private.
As to the question whether Mr Orozco had legal standing to make his claim since, unlike the claimants in Lawrence v USA, he had not been arrested or charged for an offence under section 53, Benjamin CJ was of the view that the very existence of the law made him an “un-apprehended felon” because he was liable to be arrested at any time, given his avowed lifestyle of engaging in anally penetrative sex with other men.
To the argument that the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the ground of sex and not on that of sexual orientation, it appears that the learned Chief Justice treated the former as including the latter in light of Belize’s international obligations that treats them thusly.
Such international obligations would include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Barbados became a state party on January 5 1973, and which was used in Nicholas Toonen v Australia by the United Nations Human Rights Committee [UNHRC] to nullify some provisions of the Tasmanian Criminal Code that criminalized all forms of sexual contact between consenting adult men in private.
In that matter, the state of Tasmania conceded that Mr Toonen’s right to privacy had been arbitrarily infringed by the provisions but sought to justify their enactment on the ground that the retention of the sections in question was justified and partly motivated by an effort to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS in the state, and that the laws were further justified on moral grounds.
The UNHRC found that consensual sexual activity in private was indeed covered by the concept of “privacy” and that the lack of the enforcement of the provisions in recent times did not prevent their continued existence from continuously and directly interfering with Mr Toonen’s privacy. The Committee found further, as Benjamin CJ ruled last week, that the reference to “sex” in article 26 of the Covenant is to be taken as including “sexual orientation”.
Officials of the local LBGT chapter have warmly welcomed the decision, according to press reports, and the question naturally arises whether a similar decision would ensue were there to be a local challenge to the constitutional validity of our section 9.
I am reluctant to offer a considered opinion on this matter, which is not as straightforward as it might appear at first blush. For one, the Barbados Constitution in its section 17 does not guarantee a right to privacy in the emphatic terms of section 14 of the Belizean Constitution-
“A person shall not be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. The private and family life, the home and the personal correspondence of every person shall be respected”.
Second, the Barbados “saving laws clause” is far more restrictive than that in Belize which limits the continued constitutional validity of laws existing at the date of Independence to a period of five years thereafter. There is no such limitation in Barbados. The Belizean provision is as follows –
“Nothing contained in any law in force immediately before Independence Day nor anything done under the authority of any such law shall, for a period of five years after Independence Day, be held to be inconsistent with or done in contravention of any of the provisions of this Part”.
In consequence, Benjamin J was not restricted from considering the constitutionality of section 53 even though it might have existed before Belize became independent in 1981, After 1986, it would have lost its freedom from constitutional question in any event. In Barbados, such a law might have been saved from constitutional query.
I expect that there will be some degree of resistance to this ruling locally, chiefly on the basis that it gives overt legal sanction to the transgression of Biblical injunction. While there is, of course, much cultural force in such an argument, it must also be recognized that Barbados is not yet a theocracy, that the determination of whether a law corresponds with the nation’s supreme law in the Constitution is a matter for temporal debate on accepted canons and principles of interpretation. Too besides, I am not at all certain that the mere existence of a law, absent its effective enforcement, should suffice to satisfy a fiat of compliance with Biblical precept.
To be continued…
Barbados Underground 
Jeff
Without committing yourself to writing, I understand you to say that this is not a matter for the local courts. Discrimination against gay sex is too entrenched in our laws, only an act of Parliament would suffice to change the law. The courts must interpret the law. They would be legislating if they act similarly to Belize.
While writing an interesting thought came to me. If or when the law changes would it still be defamation to call a fellow a “bulla”. After all, you would not now be saying that the person engages in criminal conduct.
LikeLike
My friend is discriminated against for the last 12+ years by the CTO of MTW ( Mr.Frank Thornhill ) only because he is a black poor man, seeking regress to a dangerous situation that was allowed to developed, because a White foreign woman built a road in watercourse to caused flood damaged to his home, Mr.Frank Thornhill is the person with the duty to execute the Flood ACT CAP 235 section 6b and 7, but refused, to date it appear not even the PS or PCC of MTW can get this CTO to perform his duty
LikeLike
@ Jeff
No story!!
We all accept that the world is headed the way of Sodom and Gomorrah. The results are ALSO there for us all to see….There is therefore no surprise that the legal fraternity would all eventually endorse bulling…
How about some research, and a paper on DEEDS claim that the Government of Barbados, with the connivance of multiple graduates of your institution, have stolen the rightful inheritance of one Violet Beckles …with the result that multiple landholdings in high-profile areas can not stand on a firm legal footing…?
LikeLike
Jeff wrote ” In Barbados, conversely, the offender is liable on conviction on indictment to a clearly dissuasive sentence of imprisonment for life, according to section 9 of our Sexual Offences Act, Cap. 154.”
Should visitors be warned especially Canadian tourists? Canada even allows gay marriage.
LikeLike
@Hants
Our politicians always quick to say that we will not change our buggery law but all are welcomed.
LikeLike
David
I heard on a min bus that some of our politicians are known bullahs so don’t expect the walking parliamentary Senator Todd to bring once more,a motion to the senate that all parliamentarians declare whether they are bullahs,wikkahs or strate.
LikeLike
@Bushie
Our current law forbids consensual sodomy between a man and his wife.
Does that make sense to you?
LikeLike
Is sex in private between two consenting adult women illegal in Barbados?
If it is not then men are being discriminated against.
That is my layman’s opinion.
LikeLike
@Caswell at 8:40 am, Agreed, as to the local position.
Calling a person a “buller” in those circumstances would not be an imputation of a criminal offense, but it may still be something that is frowned on by “right -thinking members of society”, the test for defamatory words. That is the position in the Overseas Dependent Territories where the act between consenting adults in private was legalized by an Order in Council from the UK.
@ Bush Tea at 8:55am. Has not that matter already been the subject matter of an unsuccessful court action? How much are you willing to pay me for my research and writing skills?
@ Hants, no adult is likely to be arrested and charged for this offense in Barbados unless it takes place in public view.
Women lesbians in Barbados commit the act of gross indecency. even consensually and even if in private! According to the Sexual Offices Act, Cap 154
(1) A person who commits an act of serious indecency on or towards another or incites another to commit that act with the person or with another person is guilty of an offence and, if committed on or towards a person 16 years of age or more or if the person incited is of
16 years of age or more, is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of 10 years.
(2) A person who commits an act of serious indecency with or towards a child under the age of 16 or incites the child under that age to such an act with him or another, is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of 15 years.
(3) An act of “serious indecency” is an act, whether natural or unnatural by a person involving the use of the genital organs for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire.
LikeLike
This type of debate should open our eyes to the abject ridiculousness of the underlying statutes which effectively criminalize a large swath of citizens who are already technically condemned for a private, sexual act between consenting adults. If a spouse angrily accused her mate of rape after their drunken tirades… if he did penetrate her anally… and if the charge of rape itself was not upheld because it was proven that consent was mutual it appears from above that a conviction of ‘buggery’ could still be sustained.
Is it proper that an ‘ambitious’ and ‘righteous’ prosecutor could actually convict this husband to a period of incarceration comparative to that of armed robbers, embezzlers, murderers etc.
How is that rational!
There was a case in the US which anecdotally reinforces the folly of some of these ‘dated laws’. In the state of Georgia a 17 year teenager following a 2003 New Year’s Eve Party with fellow teenagers and friends was shown (precursor to the now ubiquitous cell phone video) having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl. Now immediately we see that minors are involved thus ‘consent’ is semantics in this case. So the lad was charged with aggravated child molestation under an old law – since amended – convicted and charged to 10+ years in jail.
Absurd, but same comparative folly possible for actual consenting adults under our buggery laws as discussed by Jeff.
At appeal years later one of the Justices asked “We have a responsibility to enforce the law. Should we do that at the expense of fairness?” In our cases, one could also add, “and commons-sense”.
These type situations make absolutely no legal or societal sense to lay persons like myself so it’s the legal scholars and practitioners like Jeff that need to clarify the nonsense.
LikeLike
@ Jeff
Women lesbians?
Yuh slippin up, Boss.
LikeLike
Apologies for the error, BT! I miswrote.
LikeLike
Why has the Chief Justice of Belize suddenly discovered that a law against sodomy offends against constitutional guarantees of individual rights?
For the same reason the feeble-minded members of the legal profession across the Caribbean ape their British and Canadian role models in their writing, their manners, and even their professional dress. Monkey see, Monkey do. Are we fit for independence? Should we expect to be treated as full human beings? Are we H. Sapiens 1.0, when most of the world is H. Sapiens 2.0?
LikeLike
So Jeff, partly facetious but serious also. How does one describe transgendered persons under the Barbados law?
Are these lesbians or homosexuals? Is transgendered even recognized under our law?
LikeLike
Nuh body ain’t talking bout de nation sundaysun front page?
LikeLike
@dpD, I suppose that they are simply called “transgender”. That is the “T” in LBGT. Current Barbadian law treats a person’s sex as determined at birth. The concept of transgender is a legal impossibility here.
@Chad, The law courts act on legal claims. The Chief Justice did not determine this matter out of the blue. Mr Orozco claimed that his rights were infringed.
LikeLike
So we have these laws on the books, but for the most part, they are being ignored. If they were followed a significant portion of the island would be in jail.
Does ignoring them make them null and void?
Meanwhile we can continue a robust discussion on what is stated in the Bible….
LikeLike
Just so that I understand this correctly
We have a matter of “3) An act of “serious indecency” is an act, whether natural or unnatural by a person involving the use of the genital organs for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire….”
Is de ole man to unnerstan that for all the occasion the one has taken oneself in hand, whether publicly, or in the privacy of one’s home, and effected the natural? Act of Onan , or jerked off to be plain, that one can be charges, AND INCARCERATED, for arousing and gratifying sexual desire?
That would mean technically 99.999% of Bajans should be locked up.
In fact Jeff it might be the way to get rid of these DLP dufuses if you or Come Sing a Song or Caswell were to bring a case against them like that fellow did in Belize for jerking off publicly under the guise of effecting the work of government
LikeLike
@Piece, LOL -the act must be committed “towards another” but, as the teacher told Little Johnny, it shows that you are thinking. I cackled with laughter as I read through your contribution! 🙂
LikeLike
@ Jeff who wrote “(3) An act of “serious indecency” is an act, whether natural or unnatural by a person involving the use of the genital organs for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire.”
Does that mean natural sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not legally married is an act of “serious indecency”?
LikeLike
@ Jeff, I agree with Bush Tea. Some Research on the Violet Beckles case would be great.
LikeLike
Bush Tea August 14, 2016 at 8:55 AM #How about some research, and a paper on DEEDS claim that the Government of Barbados, with the connivance of multiple graduates of your institution, have stolen the rightful inheritance of one Violet Beckles …with the result that multiple landholdings in high-profile areas can not stand on a firm legal footing…?@@@
Bush,
Can you not tell on how Jeff writes or dont comment that he is also part of the problem ?
My last clue was when the wrote about parties in Barbados but not know what CUP stands for,
Jeff know well , they all talk to each other, the World is at their Doors, cut off the money like Bank of America,now in the top five as posted , soon they will can reach number 1.Barbados will soon be the next black hole in space,No more light,
Bush they have the proof and WE now posting proof on CUP page little at a time, The World knows it just now for Bajan to see, know for self, All the history books of Bim needs a revisit,We are not just flying fish and SLAVERY, OR WAITING FOR WHITE PEOPLE TO LAND AT OUR PORTS TO FEED US,
LikeLike
Yes, Jeff is part of the system that see unjust, but prefer to write about bull shite, just like Walter PPK Blackman
LikeLike
A KEY reason why Bush Tea would like to see an informed academic study of DEED’S case is the inexplicable situation where the inheritances of Bajans – from the very fields and hills; to the utilities; the banks; the supermarkets; the hotels; the beer ….. shiite!!, even the very SUGER that made us great …have ALL been taken from us with absolutely NOTHING to show in return.
Only KARMA normally has the ability to extract such precise and focused justice….. and knowing the inevitability of karma’s revenge, Bushie is tempted to conclude that we are paying a SERIOUS price for having deprived one of BBE’s ‘bush-persons’ of THEIR rightful inheritances…
…and it sounds a LOT like Bush Violet….
That Barbados – as a country – could sit idly by while Bush Violet was raped and left to suffer in poverty …by those in the society who were there to dispense JUSTICE …..and who were there because of FREE education in the first place…. is a POX on this whole damned country.
It is instructive that Caswell is one of the VERY FEW who made any serious attempts to assist the victim….
That Barbados is itself facing THE IDENTICAL rape by a number of the albino-centrics of this world should be no real surprise, cause ‘he who diggeth a well shall ALWAYS fall into it…”
Bushie is now only awaiting an unbiased, intelligent, academic analysis – of the sort we have come to expect from Jeff – to confirm (or dispel) the bushman’s hypothesis…..
LikeLike
Deeds,
Who is or was Violet Beckles and what is her story?
LikeLike
‘To say of what is, that it IS*, or of what is NOT* that it is not, is TRUE.” Aristotle Metaphysics 1077b, 26.
LikeLike
Thanks, Watchman! What do you do when you see “unjust” (sic)?
@Heather at 10:54pm, are you willing to fund my research into this private matter or is this just part of your your and Bush Tea’s proprietary editorializing of the blog content?
Finally, has the Violet Beckles claim not been already determined by the court? Has the judgment been appealed? Will anyone answer?
@Donna, where have you been?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I believe I was not around when Deeds fully made his case and his style confuses me. I would prefer a simple story with background details. Who was Violet Beckles and how did she come upon this inheritance. Was she a former slave or a member of the plantocracy?
LikeLike
I will leave it to Deeds or David or Bush Tea to fill you in, but the essence of the claim is that she once owned many, if not most, of the plantations Barbados and that over the years sundry lawyers, most of some estimation, managed to steal, defraud her of or purloin her properties. I do not now recall how she came upon such substantial holdings.
LikeLike
@ Jeff, as far as I am aware the matter was never heard in Court. This is be of interest to all the hiers of Violet Beckles. We should reach out to them to find out if they can afford to pay for thw research.
It is time that some major effort is put into resolving this long outstanding claim. Bushie is quite right to state that everything is being taken away from Barbadians.
From what I have gathered about this matter is that Beatrice was a remarkable woman who is fitting to be remembered in the history of Barbados. At present it is as though she never existed.
I am absolutely positive the BU household would welcome your valued contribution in resolving the case of the Century.
LikeLike
@ Jeff, if the heirs cannot afford to pay for the research, if David would pemit it we can have a fund raising effort to which I will contribute.
LikeLike
If it is a case of merit, Jeff Cumberbatch would post initial analysis take it but I will presume to say a few things about this matter that we need to consider first.
Philip ? I forget his last name composed a book which Amused hints is a confabulation or sorts which has undoubtedly made him not so favoured among the fraternity
To take such a case, given where it would lead, if true, would be a career affecting move by Jeff.
He would have to be assured of winning for failure would be devastating to his career.
If, as Deeds purports, that we have collusion that spilled over multiple generations and Chief Justices, Chief Town Planners, Queens Counsels, lawyers, oligarchs and corporations, we would have such a seismic movement that it would shake up all Barbados.
Would Angelique the Vampire be willing to stake her own job and livelihood on such a claim? why even now, prior to engaging, she has noticeably shifted the burden of responsibility from the first person singular, to the royal we that is common in her vacillations on any matter which means having skin in the game that might upset the political aspirations of her principals.
There are some battles that you would do best not to fight as Spartacus of Thrace learnt in his last battle against the Romans.
Would the Troika Herald protect Jeff s life under threat by a Baloney for instance via a petition from Murica? I think not!!
LikeLike
Piece,
Jeff would certainly be putting his life on the line, maybe literally. And also those of his family, if he has one. The decision should be his alone. Just as the decision to write with false names should be ours alone. The battle is not Jeff’s. The battle is OURS!
LikeLike
@ Piece
There are some battles that you would do best not to fight as Spartacus of Thrace learnt in his last battle against the Romans
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Recently, Bushie made the point that in order to have peace, we must pursue justice; in order to have wealth, we must give to the needy; in order to have ‘well-being’, we need to focus on the well being of others…… AND IN ORDER TO HAVE LIFE, WE MUST BE WILLING TO DIE….
Your ongoing predisposition to preserve (y)our physical life at all costs is symbolic of the malady that pre-empts most Bajans from enjoying life as ‘true golden vessels’ rather than enduring living as brass bowls….
Unless we are willing to die for righteousness, we must be prepared to live as brass bowl slaves….
We all must die, but cowards die a thousand deaths….
LikeLike
Precisely.
LikeLike
On August 14 @ 12:08 pm the author of this article responded to Pieceof……. by stating that ‘HE’ ‘cackled with laughter’ Since when did COCKS cackle or is the author himself transitioning to a HEN?
ac…where u at? Ms. Cumberbatch might just need ur help setting de wig and lip-stick for his next BU photo.
And remember children when you go out in publick DON’T SHAKE MEN’S HANDS!
LikeLike
@ Jeff
I stated on BU many times a 7 standard school educated watchman like me have no influence on the higher educated persons like you in Barbados who see unjust but prefer to be silent and wait for a chance to join the oppressors, have you seen any other comment in this/your post that appeal to you for a comment, what you say about the discriminatory action by a top Civil Servant to a/any poor black man, please be minded, that the poor black man perception of a victim is real to him, more so, when not redressed
LikeLike
@Heather, can one respectfully say that your reasoning is extremely disjointed as it relates to “the heirs cannot afford to pay for the research”. The person who prosecutes this matter here on BU and elsewhere certainly appears quite intellectually competent. If he/she has already affirmed their status as an heir to this alleged vast land wealth they certainly have it within their competence to seek any of various methods to finance their claims.
For a man of Jeff’s avowed interest in social justice it should be instructive, pellucidly so, that he prefaced his remarks about doing research with queries about having his time rewarded. I don’t know the man personally but based on all that he has done here and his career to date he sees well grounded about balancing inequality even if it means giving his services freely so I interpret his attitude here that he firmly believes that these claims are bordering on bogus.
So re your suggestion to seek funds from others to contribute to such a matter it should only be presented under terms as each contribution be a purchase share in any future successes for your ” case of the Century” That would be way of validating Jeff’s practical request for his cost of research in this murky matter
If we take Deeds at his/her word that there are grave infelicities involved with these land matters can he/she (again) clarify a few basic questions before we start the crowd sourcing funding? If Violet acquired through intellect and foresight all these lands, how did she then become so indifferent in later years to allow the elites to squire her hard-fought gains from her grasp? And why did she allow the ‘deeds’ to be ‘non-registered’ or did not definitively bequeath them properly to ensure there were no doubts about future claims.
Surely a savvy player as she was would have foresaw a future where these valuable lands would be fought over vigorously and her claims sought to be invalidated where possible.
But switch gears and evoke Mr Barrack’s fight. When there is NO DOUBT about the validity of your claims and it’s only the power of the government to frustrate those claims that halts your progress, there are investors who are very willing to ‘buy’ those claims from you and ‘out-frustrate’ the government with their own legal and other resources.
Thus in this modern life Deeds has many options to prosecute any real claims he/she may have. We can respect the energy and determination and we can learn from it as we did with that Barrack matter, but to fall back into a victimization mentality of everything “is being taken away from Barbadians” is unacceptable.
We DO have the power to redress that.
LikeLike
To cackle is to laugh in a loud, harsh way.
Your dad’s jokes might be so bad that they’re funny, making you cackle every time.
@Mr Hopi, for your enlightenment!
LikeLike
@ Dribbler
With every post you highlight your ignorance of Bajan REALITY.
If you think that it is possible for an individual to win a matter in our Courts just because they have the ‘right’ and some means, that you are wasting our time with your comments.
MANY, MANY well-to-do Bajans, some intelligent enough to hold their own on BU (and THAT says quite a lot) have been frustrated and ROBBED by our courts now -either by delay (their preferred tactic) or by deliberately or maliciously flawed decisions….
The comments by the CCJ – in many of these cases that reach that level (eventually), should be enough to testify to Bushie’s point…
If you (or anyone else) think that a simple looking old lady – with potentially HUNDREDS Of MILLIONS in property, could walk into our justice system and come out unscathed …then you do not understand what happened to John Griffiths under the distinguished hands of the Speaker of our Honourable house….
LikeLike
Dribbler,
That’s why I asked who was Violet Beckles and how did she come by such an inheritance. If she was a member of the white plantocracy, I care not. If she was a former slave or descendant thereof I’d like to know how she acquired that much property. Was she the illegitimate child of a massa gone soft in his old age? I cannot take these claims seriously without background details.
LikeLike
Bush Tea, may you recall for the readership just one, no more, of those “deliberately or maliciously flawed” decisions? How would you recognize it if it came up to you and slapped you around your head?
LikeLike
@Mr. Cumberbatch…. What is enlightening about cackling which is usually associated with hens? You must really be transitioning!
When the Americans and Brits start enforcing Beastiality laws will you come on BU and espouse the pros and cons such rights as well? Do you have the balls to ensure that the FTC is unbiased?
LikeLike
@ Donna
I am tempted to say “let Google be your friend” but just put in her name here in the search box and you will see the volumes that attend her matter, though I am not sure of her history or pedigree
@ Brother Bush Tea.
Left to the ole man I would choose to cry some battle cry while moving to the next plain but my narrative was not for self, it was a perspective that is based on being wiser because of personal experiences around certain subjects.
My narrative is quite plain actually.
If I am in a mini bus and a man steps in and proceeds to stab me or my family, he is dead, or I am dead or severely incapacitated
If same man steps in and attacks child, without thinking he or I will be a victim of some bodily harm or death or both.
In circumstances where he attacks an adult female I notch it down a little and assess options and with a male it is a process.
The point that I would seek to make is that for me, I know fight as my first response where you or others do the ratchet down first and escalate later.
I “see” that clearly in how other people engage because they weigh the pros and cons.
My pronouncements here about the 30.07s, nor Nazim Blackett nor Mugabe Mottley know no such fear for there was where I ventured while others kept safe in their own narrative because the might fear the Troika, The extrajudicial actions of the police or the caliber of the 30.07
Jeff as a man is one to be admired, as is Leigh Trotman, as is Caswell Franklyn but they are men who while radical in their own right show constraints in their actions that can be construed in hindsight to be 20/20 or cowardice.
Spartacus has beaten the 6000 strong legion and reached the alps and freedom, there was no need to turn back and fight, such is the nature that some of us are afforded in other homes, we do not need to turn a stay here to fight the ironic three legions that he faced.
The legion of the DLP and that of the Troika BLP and that of the BU legion AC.
A SC check to live on and GI Bill to bury the corpse so why turn to die?
You must think I am blowing air up your pooch when I say that you bring me much consternation with your talks about Brassbowls but the thing is, after reading you and Pachamama and Well Well And De Word and Donna and others, you stop, arrested on the verge of all that you are doing and wonder what the ef am I doing?
I am going to show you something that I was typing from 4 o’clock this morning on this ipad
LikeLike
@ The BU Family and the Honourable Blogmaster
I have started a series of “Stoopid Cartoons” called “The Santa Clause List – Naughty or Nice”
I have borrowed the Paling Cock from the Blogmaster and dressed them up as Santa.
It represents Assinine and is a tribute to her wisdom and foresight in speaking out contra the stooped posters and giving such sterling support for the campaign.
They must be really angry with her when the see that the idea that Well Well and Consequences had about corruption generated 3,000 views and 1,500 direct downloads and 6,500 “on-sends” (term for 2nd tier resends via the 1500)
The List I propose is in keeping with that famous song “he’s making a list he’s checking it twice he knows who has been naughty or nice ..” Will highlight a four or five point list of the major egregious tiefing actions or incompetencies of each minister, or senator or DLP representative
The objective is to create a number of small form memes that list each of their fowl ups and puts a face to that person for use by their respective opponents in their broadcasts via email and other media which Alex M and Steven W should by now have suggested.
I doubt though that they have the mechanism to do it cost effectively like de ole man do though heheheheheh
Dat be stage two of de campaign heheheheh
Some suggestions on how to make it orderly would be.
ONLY POST YOUR SUGGESTED TEXT IN THE POSTER CAMPAIGN SECTION HERE ON BU.
MAKE THE ITEMS SHORT
DO NOT DO REPEATS, BY THAT I MEAN IF CAHILL IS ALREADY MENTIONED AS A DEMERIT FOR LOWE DONT PUT IT THERE AGAIN
LikeLike
@Mr Hopi,
I shall not discuss FTC matters in this forum.
So you heard that “cackling” was associated with hens and nothing will change your mind? I sought merely to expand your learning of the etymology of the word!
LikeLike
@Jeff Cumberbatch……I did not ask you to discuss FTC matters here. I asked 1 simple question now I’ll make it 2…Do you have the balls to ensure FAIRNESS and should the day arrive when you are compromised in your capacity (money talks and bullshit walks) will you stand up and walk away and hold onto your “intergrity?”
BTW I happen to be one of the “UNEDUCABLE” ones on BU so you cannot remove the cackle from the HEN and as a man you must stop being so bitchy…yet another characteristic of a HEN or is it a COCK in transition!
LikeLike
I stopped and cut it because of a few things.
I am sure of what the Stoopid Cartoons will do but I paused because of what the outcome of the Campaign will be.
We are going to elect “another tribe of self centered egoistical monkeys” who have shown us nothing to differentiate them from these lot
Eight years yet there is no Statement of Net Worth from not one of these Opposition Swine, not one, including Mugabe!!!
Two it is BU and I am very much afraid of suggesting things that present the very thing we would guard against yet, we are where we are, among the planet of the apes.
I look 5 years down the road, even ten years, with the abject hatred that our citizens have for the most inept government we have ever had with a majority HoA and a Mugabe and I say WTF!!!
So you see de old man predicament??
text messages that replace posters on your guard wall?
Billboards that CANNOT BE CUT DOWN!!!
You understanding me??
This is the legacy of David Thompson – a veritable wasteland and more importantly this is the legacy of 50 years of Independence a nation of people led by two tribes of monkeys (I got that term from another blogger earlier)
LikeLike
@Hopi,
I will not argue with you what constitutes bitchiness. I bow to your superior knowledge there. And yes, should the day arrive when I am compromised in my capacity, for whatever reason, my integrity will be the paramount consideration.
LikeLike
Some research on Deeds case ..sounds great. But who would pay for the research and would be be the researchers. Independant inquires are not cheap and govt involvement would not be welcomed.
LikeLike
Mr Bush Tea, I can’t win your popularity game of neologisms or adopting straw arguments. Criticize as much as you want but it’s good to use accurate portrayals of the commentary previously given.
My reference to Mr Barrack pointedly focused to the frustrating governmental power towards the average citizen, in or out of the courts. Your screed thus makes absolutely NO sense in that context. But it does make sense as part of your standard palaver, however, so popular victory to you, sir!
Please do as your good friend the blogmaster often beseeches: read with comprehension!
As an aside. Apart from the well-know Barrack case, there is the less well publicized case of land owners around Harrison’s Cave who have been denied their rights for many years now as it relates to monies being paid for lands compulsorily acquired. The matter is so long standing and ‘shockingly effed-up’ that the sitting PM was the attorney of record for some of the plaintiffs seeking redress. Just showing how many years has dragged on…as is the norm.
No subvention can be approved to pay these average ‘Violet Beckles’ their ‘pittances’…yet over 3/4 Million can be erroneously approved for legal fees on a ‘simple’ loan agreement in the Cave’s operations.
@Donna. you are much too intelligent and capable to ask as you do @ August 15, 10:32 AM for, let’s say, the Cliff Notes on Violet Beckles. You have always struck me as the type who diligently digests the actual book and only uses ‘Cliff Notes’ for additional guidance. So as Pieces noted ‘let Google/BU search’ be your guide; read the book out there on this.
Incidentally, I personally find it unfortunate that you would dismiss the claims if ‘she was [not] a former slave’ or ‘illegitimate [Black] child of …massa’.
Would her race status change the alleged oppressive and disgusting legal machinations perpetuated on her rights or those of ‘any’ Bajan.?
As much as I appreciate the context of your ‘racial view’ we often need to be reminded that Pastor Niemoeller’s words are as relevant today in situations like this, as they were in the 1930s: We do not fight for those who are not like us at the peril that we are sacrificing our own ability to fight.
LikeLike
@Dribbler not trying to mislead the public. Jeff is seeking payment. In one post I stated that the HIERS should pay. In the next one I stated IF they cannot afford to pay. I have no knowledge of their financial circumstances.
LikeLike
@ Dribbler the above should have read “STOP” trying to mislead the public
LikeLike
@Dribbler. If after the hiers camnot pay and others agree to the suggestions to finance the research, of course we should be reimbursed. The reason why this matter should be resolved in Court is so that we do not have to take any persons word just the truth. The Court of law should be able to decide what is factual or not and deliver justice.
LikeLike
Ok Professor, you run along and “keep ya hands clean.”
LikeLike
@ Jeff
Bush Tea, may you recall for the readership just one, no more, of those “deliberately or maliciously flawed” decisions?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Boss, it is so bad that almost ANY decision can suffice… so let us go with probably the one of best renown…
Not Barrack – (too easy and too obviously flawe) …. but Winton Campbell.
A professional engineer, in the position of Government Electrical Engineer, is victimised by government because he dares to insist that a white businessman follow the existing electrical regulations. He is within his right to insist on these regulations as THE professional in this area, but the albino is able to pull strings to force government to actually ANNULL the position – just to appease their bribe master….
You ask…
How would Bushie recognize it if it came up and slapped him around his head?
Simple …. BASIC FAIRNESS, …JUSTICE and ..RIGHTNESS
..and the basic requirement for any court to uphold RIGHT over WRONG.
Ever since your shiite court made THAT decision, no other Civil servant has dared to STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY THOUGHT TO BE RIGHT …. for obvious fear that they too would be screwed – and could have no recourse to the ‘courts’…
How an otherwise reasonable man like you can put your confidence is a bunch of shiite words written down by AC-level clowns such as we have in parliament as your guage of ‘justice’ bogles Bushie’s brass bowl brain…..
By the way…. how come you need payment in order to research DEED’s case …but can find time to produce such extensive legal arguments for bulling and wicking…?
Peter paying for that…?
…or Paul?
LikeLike
@Bushie
Do you agree that Sir David did a good job on the talk show today?
Did you hear when he said 100 plus recommendations were made in a report laid in parliament in 2007?
We like it so.
>
LikeLike
@ David
The difference between Sir David and the present lot is that he is actually quite intelligent. He was able to pass the 11+ exam and went on to succeed at school….
He did a good job on brass tacks because Bushie did not call ( 🙂 )…and probably because he no longer has any real political agenda to hide.
The problem with genuinely bright people like him is that they can get away with a lot more shiite since they would hardly send text messages demanding bribes…or hide the money in mommy’s account.
LikeLike
@Bush Tea, if what you said about Campbell is true, then the Cabinet responsible should never grace the corridors of power in this jurisdiction ever again.
You realize of course, that the decision would only be “malicious? or unjust if those facts had come out in court and Campbell still lost? Did they?
Incidentally, I am usually paid for whatever I may write…unless I decide to share it gratis.
LikeLike
Jeff
I don’t know what came out in court but I can tell you that Bushie spoke the truth.
LikeLike
“Heather August 15, 2016 at 9:21 AM #
@ Jeff, if the heirs cannot afford to pay for the research, if David would pemit it we can have a fund raising effort to which I will contribute.”
Quite noble indeed I daresay but after she has won the case and her heirlooms restored what will be in it for the contributors/
LikeLike
The research was done ,The Question is now what is still held by government ? The DBLP Government have been removing proof of the crime from the different department in the Barbados government, When we find and check back from time to time and they are gone , But we still have our copies stamped, Most lawyers say they cant find and dont want to use what we have, The history and courts have been gutted full blast like removing Natives Indians from their land, The Barbados Police Fraud Squad Station Sgt Mark White have maybe 20 pounds of paper work, We hold well over 100 pounds,
Books as well are written to fill the gaps,
Donna, i hope you have googled , Massive Land Fraud Barbados or even Violet Beckles of Barbados, let this link and some info help you ,
https://www.facebook.com/alexmitchell.el/
LikeLike
@ balance
Quite noble indeed I daresay but after she has won the case and her heirlooms restored what will be in it for the contributors/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JUSTICE!!
…the VERY best thing that any set of people can possibly do for THEMSELVES…
Boss…
You don’t know how much you show your true colours….
LikeLike
@ Caswell
I don’t know what came out in court but I can tell you that Bushie spoke the truth.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Skippa, knowing you, that statement ALMOST sounds like you would end it with
“…for a change”…LOL
When has the Bushman done otherwise…?
@ Jeff
You realize of course, that the decision would only be “malicious? or unjust if those facts had come out in court and Campbell still lost? Did they?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You take some very interesting positions.
How can it POSSIBLY be other than UNJUST and MALICIOUS, when an innocent Public Servant, trying HONESTLY to do his best professional job, can be so victimised by politicians in favour of their puppet-masters ….. and the court be useless in unravelling the dastardly act?
So you are now saying that the Court has NO inherent responsibility to get to the FACTS of a matter in order to ensure that JUSTICE is dispensed…but rather is quite justified in allowing misrepresentations, concoctions and downright fabrications to be presented WITHOUT any responsibility to itself delve into the matter?
So then any set of ‘lawyers’ within a tight ‘fraternity’ …or any set of ‘Lodge -connected’ brothers can EASILY fabricate their own collective version of ‘justice’?
What kind of system is THAT…?
…one that you endorse?
LikeLike
I too found Brasstacks today with Sir David to be both enlightening and entertaining.As Bushie pointed out,he is an intelligent legal luminary whose services are in demand in the wider Caribbean.He has the background and the training to separate the issues and zeros in on the substance.
Winton Campbell was not the only public servant legislated out of service.As I recall Shirley King was given the parliamentary treatment also by none other than EWB.
LikeLike
@ Gabriel
“legislated dismissal” is not the problem at all. In Bushie’s book, it is a legitimate tool in Government’s management kit.
The PROBLEM here is the motive. …and the uselessness of our HIGH COURT SYSTEM to get to the root of such extreme actions to ensure that justice is done …and transparently seen to have been done.
Campbell pulled out ALL THE STOPS that could reasonably be expected from an ordinary citizen (which he undoubtedly ALWAYS was) …and yet the shiite courts were IMPOTENT.
Had Campbell not pursued the matter …. or had Government produced evidence of him being guilty of some shiite, then Bushie’s position would be VERY different.
LikeLike
@ Jeff
Bushie will give you a simple example of a WISE and JUST Court of justice.
Seriously …have a quick read of 1 Kings 3:16-28.
How would our high Court have dispensed this matter…?
LikeLike
“Boss, it is so bad that almost ANY decision can suffice… so let us go with probably the one of best renown…
Not Barrack – (too easy and too obviously flawe) …. but Winton Campbell.
A professional engineer, in the position of Government Electrical Engineer, is victimised by government because he dares to insist that a white businessman follow the existing electrical regulations. He is within his right to insist on these regulations as THE professional in this area, but the albino is able to pull strings to force government to actually ANNULL the position – just to appease their bribe master”
Bushie might very well be telling the truth but contributors ought to be aware of how justice was dispensed in the case so below is submitted for information and independent analysis
[2] When he held the office of Chief Electrical Engineer, Mr Winton Campbell, “the Appellant”, was one of many civil servants holding a public office which could be abolished by a statutory Order laid before the Barbados Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House (as provided for by section 2 of the Civil Establishment Act 1948, Cap. 21).
[3] On behalf of the Attorney General of Barbados, “the Respondent”, it was argued that the inevitable consequence of the statutory abolition in good faith of a unique public office was a retirement from that then non-existent office, leaving the former office holder only with the accrued pension rights he had under the terms of his appointment to that office (unless appointed to a new office in the public service so as to continue his pensionable public service).
[4] On behalf of the Appellant, it was argued that, despite abolition of his office of Chief Electrical Engineer by statutory Order, he could only be removed from the public service under section 94 of the Constitution by the Governor General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Public Service Commission: moreover, the Governor-General could not act upon such advice without affording him the right to refer the matter to the Barbados Privy Council under section 98. Failure to comply with section 94 had meant that the Appellant remained in the public service and was entitled to receive the emoluments that had been attached to the office of Chief Electrical Engineer. Alternatively, he was entitled to damages, including exemplary damages.
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[5] By letter of 10 April, 1987, the Appellant was informed that the Governor General acting in accordance with the advice of the Public Service Commission – and so complying with section 94 of the Constitution – had appointed him to the post of Electrical Engineer in the Electrical Engineering Department with effect from 2 June 1987 at the rate of $45,888 per annum, subject to his being passed medically fit. The principal terms and conditions were as follows:
“(a) You will be subject to the provisions of the Service Commissions (Public Service) Regulations, 1978 (as amended from time to time) and to such other Regulations, Statutory Rules, General Orders and administrative directives as may be in force in the Public Service;
(b) You are required to complete and submit the enclosed form of Declaration of Health to me by 1987-05-08. In this connection, you may be required at the discretion of the Chief Medical Officer to undergo a medical examination (Order No. 2.7 of the General Orders 1970);
(c) Subject to the exigencies of the Public Service, you will be entitled to the grant of leave in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the General Orders 1970;
(d) Your appointment is pensionable in accordance with the provisions of the Pension Act, 1947, Cap. 25, as amended by the Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1985-18.”
[6] This appointment was to provide for the carrying out of the key tasks required of the “Electrical Engineer” by the Electricity Act, 1936, Cap 277. When the Appellant took up this important office in June 1987 it happened to be established under the Civil Establishment (General) Order 1987 (SI 1987 No. 52) pursuant to powers conferred by the Civil Establishment Act 1948. The Civil Establishment (General) (Amendment) No.2 Order 1987 (SI 1987 No. 147) then amended the earlier Order: “Substitute the words ‘S3’ for the words S5 appearing in the column headed ‘Code Number’ opposite the office ‘Electrical Engineer’.” The Civil Establishment (General) (Amendment) Order 1988 (SI 1988 No. 50) further amended the earlier Order: “Delete all the words appearing under Electrical Inspection Department and substitute ‘1. Chief Electrical Engineer S3 … 1 [one] … 2. Senior Electrical Engineer S7 … 1 [one].” The reference in the Electricity Act to “Electrical Engineer” was then construed as a reference to “Chief Electrical Engineer” pursuant to a Notice under section 20(3) of the Interpretation Act, Cap 1, published in the Official Gazette on 22 August 1988.
[7] It appears that the Civil Establishment (General) Order 1987, as amended, was then replaced by the Civil Establishment (General) Order 1990 which continued the offices of one Chief Electrical Engineer S3 and one Senior Electrical Engineer S7. However, the Civil Establishment (General) (Amendment) Order 1991 (SI 1991 No. 170) required deletion of those offices, substituting for them “1. Chief Electrical Officer S4 … 1 [one] … 2. Deputy Chief Electrical Officer S7 … 1 [one].”
[8] This Order, made pursuant to the powers conferred on the Minister responsible for the Public Service, came into operation on 1st April, 1992 by virtue of the Civil Establishment (General) Notice 1992 (SI 1992 No. 25). It had the effect of abolishing the Appellant’s office of Chief Electrical Engineer from that date, as pointed out to the Appellant by the Chief Personnel Officer’s letter of 8th April, to him. The letter reads as follows:
“I am directed to refer to my letter No. PH. 224/156 of 1991-11-18 informing you of a proposal to re-organize the Electrical Engineering Department. The reorganization has been finalized and the post of Chief Electrical Engineer held by you was abolished with effect from 1992-04-01. Arrangements will be made for the payment to you of any benefits for which you may be eligible as a result of the abolition of the post of Chief Electrical Engineer.”
[9] This state of affairs came about after complaints both from members of the Electrical Inspection Department headed by the Appellant and from the Appellant himself about lack of collaboration and co-operation within the Department. This led the Head of the Civil Service in April 1989 to commission an inquiry to consider the operations of the Department and staff relations therein.
[10] As a result of the inquiry a report was submitted to the Government in August 1989. A meeting was held between senior officials in the Public Service and the authors of the report. It was proposed that the Department be reorganized and certain functions be transferred to the Traffic Section of the Ministry of Transport and Works. It was further proposed that this Ministry should set up a unit to undertake responsibility for providing for electrical design services so as to avoid the need for engaging expensive private electrical consultants. It was agreed that, subject to the Appellant’s approval, he would be seconded from his post to head this unit.
[11] On 18th September, 1989, the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of the Civil Service wrote to the Appellant.
“As promised at the meeting held today among yourself, the Chief Personnel Officer and myself, I refer for your information and comments, a copy of the report on the enquiry into the Electrical Inspection Department which was conducted by Mr. F.A. Parris and Mr. Rudi Webster.
I am also directed to inform you that in keeping with the suggestion at paragraph 17(1) of the report it is proposed, as a temporary measure only, to seek to utilize your services on the following assignments which are most urgent to the planning requirements of the construction and development programmes of the Government –
– to provide electrical design services associated with major construction and maintenance projects;
– to provide professional services to the Ministry of Transport and Works on design and operational aspects of street lighting, traffic lights and signals and the metering for traffic control.
Included in the construction projects which are on-going or contemplated are the West Wing of the Parliament Buildings, the proposed new Marine House Complex, the Headquarters Building for the Fisheries Department and the Vendors Mall in Bridgetown. It is felt that the services required in this connection will last for up to two years.
Your comments on the proposal in the above paragraphs in relation to the required support staff, equipment and other facilities will also be appreciated. You will, doubtlessly, wish to comment on the entire proposal as it relates to you personally.
Above all I wish to assure you that these proposals are made not only to avoid am exacerbation in the relationships at the Government Electrical Inspection Department but more particularly in the interest of the speedy fulfilment of Government’s commitment to certain projects over the next two years.
Your early response to this letter, if possible by the end of September, would be greatly appreciated.”
[12] On 3rd October, 1989, the Appellant replied:
“Thank you for your letter MP 6055 Vol. III dated 1989-09-18 and your offer for me to provide electrical design and other professional services to the Government programmes you outlined.
Your attention must be drawn to the Electricity Act Cap. 277, Section 3(d) which confers on the Chief Electrical Engineer the authority to be responsible for the execution and approval of all electrical installation work on Government property.
It must be noted that electrical installation design is a process of planning and involves the preparation of specifications, documents and drawings depicting the scope of work to be carried out. Since the Chief Electrical Engineer is accountable for the execution and approval of such work, it is his duty, if he so requires, to engage the services of persons to undertake any stage of his tasks. It is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport and Works.
Your proposals appear to impinge upon the statutory duties of whoever holds the office of Chief Electrical Engineer and also to split the functions of that officer between his Department and the Ministry of Transport and Work.
I must also inform you that architectural proposals are to be examined and site investigations undertaken to determine the extent of work required and the support staff, equipment and other facilities needed for the execution of the programmes. You must also take into consideration the difficulty in recruiting and training support electrical engineering personnel at this time in Barbados.
The report of the recent investigations into the Electrical Department has been submitted to my lawyer for advice.”
[13] On 27th October, 1989, the Permanent Secretary met with the Appellant to try to resolve matters, but the Appellant indicated unequivocally that the only option he favoured was his immediate return to his substantive office as Chief Electrical Engineer.
[14] Having him continuing as Chief Electrical Officer proved unsatisfactory, leading to the Cabinet on 29th August, 1991, approving a proposal for the reorganization of the Department, including the re-assignment of certain functions to the Ministry of Public Works Communications and Transport and involving the abolition of the office of Chief Electrical Engineer. The Cabinet agreed that the Appellant should be fully compensated in relation to retiring benefits within the provisions of the Pension Regulations 1947 referred to in the terms of his appointment. The Chief Personnel Officer by letter of 18th November 1991 (referred to in [8] above) directed the Appellant to proceed on special leave in the public interest from 19th November 1991. This was challenged by the Appellant in an action before Husbands J who held that “the Chief Personnel Officer’s directions to the plaintiff were legal, in accordance with the rules of natural justice and in accordance with the General Orders and the Constitution of Barbados.” No appeal was pursued.
THE COURTS BELOW
[15] Meanwhile, the Appellant had commenced these proceedings by originating summons in the High Court filed on 19th October, 1992. Essentially, he claimed that his public office had not been abolished, so that he was not entitled to any pension, but he was entitled to be regarded as having continued in public office entitled to the salary and other benefits attached to that office; alternatively, he was entitled to damages. The matter came before Waterman J who completed the hearing of the originating summons on 5th December, 1995 and delivered his judgment on 4th December, 1998 dismissing the Appellant’s claims. The Appellant’s office had been abolished in accordance with the law, leaving him entitled only to his pension rights. No order was made as to costs.
LikeLike
Steupsss @ balance
Why don’t you leave a man’s job to Jeff nuh?
This may be above your pay grade…
Bushie is talking about JUSTICE.
The fact that Government has the CONSTITUTIONAL right to abolish a post has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the JUSTICE of doing so…
WHY DID THEY DO SO…?
The police may have the right to search your house for drugs, …but if a certain sergeant does so because you won’t leave his wife alone, … that is another matter altogether.
LikeLike
“Bushie is talking about JUSTICE.”
Were you when you accused the Government of victimisation.
It is indeed above my pay grade and that is why I put the information on Bu so that other commentators could judge so you could steupss till your tongue drop out.
LikeLike
In my opinion, Campbell and King were considered a hindrance to politicians giant sized egos and they were both shown ‘who is boss in here’.The fact that the boss in both events happen to be DLP who want to be thought of as the employees’ champion,suggest the proof of the pudding was in the eating.The NCC workers are in the same boat.Lowe’s brothers and sisters and mother are protected by the ERT.The employees must suck salt.To quote the PDC point man Mark ….’.down with the damn DLP.’
LikeLike
Dribbler,
I am supposed to care about some white planter who gained his wealth off the backs of my ancestors and then was defrauded? Steupse! Boy you like you would want to make me sin my soul! I’m trying hard to keep it at a steupse!
LikeLike
Deeds,
I now recall reading the claim in a newspaper but I must admit I dismissed it as just too unbelievable. Even when I saw your posts here I dismissed you as a madman. This is, like Piece’s submissions on the Nazim Blackett Police Brutality blog, something I will have to spend time processing because I have been naïve for a very long time.
LikeLike
And now that Wynton Campbell case has done further damage to every civil servant through the CCJ ruling.
LikeLike
@ balance
Were you when you accused the Government of victimisation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
EXACTLY.
People in authority (government /police /teachers /parents) are given authority in order for them to enforce righteousness and justice. When that authority is mis-used for purposes such as victimisation, such persons MUST be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens.
It is the role and duty of the court system to enforce this BASIC requirement, and to the extent that it is unable (or unwilling) to do so, such a court system must be condemned as a damned waste of time and frankly, …a lotta shiite.
Bushie is waiting to hear Jeff explain why the above is nonsense.
LikeLike
@ balance
For example, any manager has the legal right to make a job redundant (which is what government did to Campbell) but if this is done because of personal issues between the manager and employee (such as the employee resisting sexual advances), …or in Campbell’s case, because the employee lost favour with one of the manager’s boyfriends as a result of legitimately doing his job, then IT CANNOT BE FAIR AND JUST FOR THAT MANAGER TO SPITEFULLY MAKE THE JOB REDUNDANT.
If the manager did so anyway, then ANY court worth it’s salt should be able to satisfy itself that the redundancy was justifiable (not constitutional – which is OBVIOUS) and failing that, disallow the victimisation.
…and this is only one case…
Our courts are bare shiite.
As a result, the senior public servant are all sycophants and certified ass lickers….
….There is no wisdom to guide public policy…
….Our destiny is in the hands of a set of political jackasses
….Our hard -earned progress is shot
….our reputation is in the gutter
…and we are the laughing stock of the whole world in everything from tourism, finance, sport, justice, management, innovation, music, education …every shiite except wuk-up and get-on like an animal.
All thanks to the INEFFECTIVENESS of our courts….
By the way….
” so you could steupss till your tongue drop out.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cuhdear – don’t you mean till Bushie’ teeth drop out…?
…cause the bushman could always just stick them back in…
But the tongue….?
yuh want Bushie to hush up so bad??!!
LOL
ha ha ha
LikeLike
”Your ongoing predisposition to preserve (y)our physical life at all costs is symbolic of the malady that pre-empts most Bajans from enjoying life as ‘true golden vessels’ rather than enduring living as brass bowls….’
@ Bushie
Well said!
This is maybe the most profound of all your writings.
Highly prescient to those still holding fast to colonial mentalities.
If the intent implicit was made real we wouldn’t have all these irrational fears. A lot of problems we could solve ourselves.
Bajans like living too much but would give our lives to defend empire or empire’s interests.
Is that not the mindset of a slave?
LikeLike
@ Bushie
Of course we are with you about Jeff’s and his legal profession’s predetermined acceptance of bulling as a right, you may say righteous, human activity.
Please remember that what Jeff is part of is central the culture of imperialism. When massa says bulling is alright Jeff’s profession must genuflect under the cloak of precedence.
Poor Jeff is merely a water carrier for the people in charge
LikeLike
@ Pachamama and Bush Tea
Whuloss!!!
The mindset of a slave!!!
I’ll be wunna Huckleberry hahahahahaha.
Let me be clear.
We are at war.
The war is taking the lives of our youth (as the exit off the Jolly Roger and Bajan Queen, as they sit on the block, as they enter our schools and exit clueless and unemployed, as the seek tertiary education and are left high and dry without the resources to continue)
It is taking a toll on the poor man and the not so poor – as they are now the employed poor, one paycheck from poverty)
It is decimating our rather the chances of 95% of the population to own a piece of the rock through the insidious insertion of disproportionate contracts to a select few and economic slavery for the rest of us.
The tools to fight war as we all know have to render the enemy useless.
What are some of the “enemies” we seem to be fighting?? I will presume a small list.
Enemy 1. So at the level of economic enfranchisement, if whitey or whomever the “enemy” is perceived to be, is discommoding us in the realm of contracts and land ownership then, it follows that we either compete with them in those arenas (ONLY TO LOOSE WHEN OUR POLITICIANS PROMISE 60/40% awards in favour of the “small black man”) or move to different contract types and “lands” where, for the time being, the field is level.
MagnaCard was one such “contract and land” that was initially owned by us niggers and highjacked by Illuminat? a product which now abounds across the Bajan “landscape”. But we dun lost that one, haven’t we?
But that is one tool that the ole man speaks of here, every effing day, which i suggest should be used in our fight to dominate “virtual, economically fruitful land”, That fight has not changed for all of these years.
It would be most unkind of me to say that I see you, and my colleague in arms Bushie, “holding fast to colonial mentalities” since I do not see either of you gents fighting in that millieu!!
But then again, if i continue to use the brush that you gents seem to have applied here, maybe i should, hahahahahahaaha.
Maybe i should say things like “your individual absence from this field of endeavour is symbolic of the malady that pre-empts most Bajans from enjoying life as ‘true golden vessels’” as champions in this domain and new land of indigenous technological empowerment , instead of “enduring living as technologically devoid brass bowls…”
Wunna problem is that wunn does talk bout sacrifice and 100 years wars and the struggle and all that but have difficulty realizing that this IS NOT AN OVERNIGHT THING and that you and I may die and not see the results of this revolution of the psyche
At the level of moral and spiritual war, I am a dufus since I cannot understand how the legislation of Integrity legislation can induce integrity and, as all of wunna know, de ole man has little belief and confidence in the posturers of the local church.
The blogger Retribution has stated here that “money talks and bullshit walks” and I reflect on that statement because, to all intents and purposes gents, we be talking up nuff storms and BS here in BU.
So either it is that wunna feel that talking is part of the process of empowerment that sensitizes people as to the nature of the problem, and that some additional steps come there after or we are practicing “verbal waste foopism”
That is unless of course either of you has transcended word and sound at 343 m/s and can convey your thoughts to others BY TELEPATHY.
I would beg you both to share such with de ole man and not be like Artaxerxes with his keys to the Archives.
LikeLike
What has been the vision of our political leaders in the last 8 years? Have we seen a semblance of it being played out?
What has been the vision of our last 3 Presidents of the BA?
LikeLike
“Bush Tea August 16, 2016 at 7:20 AM #
@ balance
For example, any manager has the legal right to make a job redundant (which is what government did to Campbell) but if this is done because of personal issues between the manager and employee (such as the employee resisting sexual advances), …or in Campbell’s case, because the employee lost favour with one of the manager’s boyfriends as a result of legitimately doing his job, then IT CANNOT BE FAIR AND JUST FOR THAT MANAGER TO SPITEFULLY MAKE THE JOB REDUNDANT.
If the manager did so anyway, then ANY court worth it’s salt should be able to satisfy itself that the redundancy was justifiable (not constitutional – which is OBVIOUS) and failing that, disallow the victimisation.”
Shut up not at all if you so do then there will be little to tickle my fancy
but Bushie was your allegation a part of the thrust of Mr Campbell’s attempt through the court to retain his original post
LikeLike
@ balance
but Bushie was your allegation a part of the thrust of Mr Campbell’s attempt through the court to retain his original post
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don’t be simple.
Do you think that when that police sergeant executes the illegal search warrant at your house …there will be any mention of your interest in his wife?
…your tail will be so busy trying to protect your property and freedom that even you will forget what the REAL issue is…
..and good luck getting a local lawyer to raise it in court…..
When you find such a lawyer perhaps you can share the number with Deeds…
This is why courts need to be WISE.
…to ask questions like “Why choose balance’s house – and not Jeff’s”; It there any other relationships between those initiating the search and anyone related to the home?; Do you know of any reason why this search would have been initiated…?
etc….
Were Bushie to be your judge, that Sergeant would quickly find out which god he is serving…. and the word would quickly go forth unto the land …that it does not pay to abuse police authority….
LikeLike
Donna August 16, 2016 at 1:14 AM #
Deeds,
I now recall reading the claim in a newspaper but I must admit I dismissed it as just too unbelievable. Even when I saw your posts here I dismissed you as a madman. This is, like Piece’s submissions on the Nazim Blackett Police Brutality blog, something I will have to spend time processing because I have been naïve for a very long time.
Donna We hope by now you have googled, this is more truth than your Bible,
LikeLike
David August 16, 2016 at 8:30 AM #
What has been the vision of our political leaders in the last 8 years? Have we seen a semblance of it being played out?
What has been the vision of our last 3 Presidents of the BA?@@@
crime and more crime corruption , the proof is all over the people faces and head at night living each day as it comes, All we need now is police to take off the entire Island of Barbados,
LikeLike
Bush Tea, no lawyer worth his or her salt would ask those questions, having no idea what answer the policeman might give. Law of Evidence 101!
LikeLike
@ Jeff…
Any lawyer worth any salt would be able to show that there was NO logical basis to restructure that job at that time …other than to ‘get at’ Campbell.
…just as ANY answer by the sergeant ..as to why he chose to search balance’s house rather than yours or Bushie’s …opens him to entrapping himself with lies….
In any case, a wise judge would explore such avenues in order to make sure that all three sides of the story are ventilated in the interest of justice…
In Bushie’s case study for you, that judge pulled out his sword…and quickly dispensed with any need for DNA, blood or other tests….
LikeLike