The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – The Supremacy of Parliament

Jeff Cumberbatch - Chairman of the FTC and Deputy Dean, Law Faculty, UWI, Cave Hill

Jeff Cumberbatch – Chairman of the FTC and Deputy Dean, Law Faculty, UWI, Cave Hill

My Constitutional Law lecturer at university, the late Professor Ralph Carnegie, was of the view that the Constitution, with a capitalized “C”, and signifying the written document was but a part of the constitution (small “c”) of a jurisdiction; this latter signifying the panoply of practices and conventions constituting the rules of governance. I think that it was Ralph too, as I later reluctantly came to know him, who disabused us of the populist notion that Parliament could do anything except make a man a woman. In his view, so long as it was not constrained by Constitutional regulation, it had the power to declare that in law a man was a woman. And since the definition of a man and a woman is a legal precept for most purposes, including that of capacity to contract a marriage at common law, condign drafting might easily achieve this objective.

I trust that I have not bored my readers as yet, but I recalled both of these statements on Tuesday last when the United Kingdom Supreme Court, in an 8 to 3 decision, upheld the earlier judgment of the Divisional Court of England and Wales that the Executive, acting through the Secretary of State, did not have the constitutional power to give the necessary Notice of Intention to withdraw from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty without the prior authorization of Parliament.

This decision reaffirms the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive…, as it should be. We in the region have come to accept a contrary ordering, especially where, out of either constraint or gratitude, there exists some Cabinets that can easily outvote opposing voices in Parliament even though the Constitution expressly provides, at section 64(2) in our case, that “The Cabinet shall be the principal instrument of policy and shall be charged with the general direction and control of the government of Barbados and shall be collectively responsible therefor to Parliament “. [Emphasis added].

It also reinforces the first Carnegian thesis by showing clearly that it is possible for there to be a constitution (which was the basis of the decision) without there being a Constitution (which the UK assuredly does not have).

The enhanced numerical composition of the Court heralded the constitutional significance of the decision, although the notion of an enlarged panel in British jurisprudence is not peculiar to constitutional issues. Indeed, only this week, I lectured on the decision in Murphy v Brentwood District Council where the then highest court in England, the House of Lords, transformed itself into a seven-member court (up from the usual five) to deliver its judgment on the existence of a duty of care in negligence.

The decision itself is understandable, although it might be considered that parliament had already devolved its supreme authority to the people in the “Brexit” referendum. The notion that parliamentarians are mere representatives of the popular will divided by constituency would tend to suggest some exegesis of vox populi, vox curiae.

However, the decision turned on the much more arcane point that section 2 of the European Communities Act, the statute that gives effect to the UK’s obligations under the EU Treaty, created a process whereby EU law became an overarching part of UK law. So long as it remained in force, it operated as a transfer of legislative power by the subordinate UK parliament to the EU law making bodies and thus could be annulled by Parliament only.

Nor did the provision that EU law would apply only in the absence of withdrawal confer a power on the Executive to withdraw from the Treaties, given that any such withdrawal would effect a change in UK domestic law and since their Lordships perceived a vital distinction between variations in UK law resulting from changes in EU law and those arising as a consequence of withdrawal from the EU. To their minds, this initiative would have the inevitable consequence of removing one source of UK law, a fundamental change that constitutionally required Parliamentary assent. Too besides, withdrawal would remove some of the currently existing rights of UK citizens under EU law, a phenomenon that is not permitted without parliamentary approval.

The majority also dealt with the rather nice argument that the existence of the Ministers’ accountability to Parliament, referred to in its Barbadian formulation above, allowed Parliament to play a sufficiently substantial role in the affair. According to the majority, “It was also suggested that it should not cause surprise if ministers could exercise prerogative powers to withdraw from the EU Treaties, as they would be accountable to Parliament for their actions. This seems to us to be a potentially controversial argument constitutionally. It would justify all sorts of powers being accorded to the executive, on the basis that ministers could always be called to account for their exercise of any power. There is a substantial difference between (i) ministers having a freely exercisable power to do something whose exercise may have to be subsequently explained to Parliament and (ii) ministers having no power to do that thing unless it is first accorded to them by Parliament”.

My preliminary view of the matter was that the purported withdrawal could not itself remove existing law in the UK, already a fait accompli, even though it would do so eventually. Some reasoning akin to this appears to have found favour with one of the dissentients, Lord Carnwath. In his opinion;

“Service of an article 50(2) notice will not, and does not purport to, change any laws or affect any rights. It is merely the start of an essentially political process of negotiation and decision-making within the framework of that article. True it is that it is intended to lead in due course to the removal of EU law as a source of rights and obligations in domestic law. That process will be conducted by the Executive, but it will be accountable to Parliament for the course of those negotiations and the contents of any resulting agreement. Furthermore, whatever the shape of the ultimate agreement, or even in default of agreement, there is no suggestion by the Secretary of State that the process can be completed without primary legislation in some form.

The highest court in the UK has now ruled on the matter. Not everyone will agree with it, but it is, nevertheless, the correct one. Which serves to bring to mind another Carnegian bon mot, “ The decision of the highest court is not right because of superior reasoning, it is right because there can be no appeal from it.”

104 thoughts on “The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – The Supremacy of Parliament


  1. Jeff

    I look forward to reading anything written over the name, Jeff Cumberbatch. Sometimes it might be over my head but I am never bored.

    You alluded to the situation that currently exists in this country, where the Executive outnumber the other members of the House. I feel that it makes a mockery of our parliamentary system, and I believe that Constitution (big c) should restrict the size of the Cabinet to no more than one-third of the members of the House. What are your views.


  2. http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/92959/ccj-quickly-settles

    It’s useless having an executive branch of government that for decades can do nothing to speed up or makes changes using the constitution to the judicial process to benefit it’s citizens, that makes them useless and ineffective.

    Even the CCJ is beyond fedup of Barbados’ court system, so in reality there is really nothing at all to boast about in Barbados as long as there is no competent, efficient judiciary.


  3. @ Jeff
    Kudos to you !!!
    It takes a man to admit that he was wrong… (and that Bushie was again right?) 🙂

    @ Caswell
    The Barbados arrangement is a de facto dictatorship, plain and simple.
    Either we get a decent, honest, intelligent Prime Minister …. or our asses looking for grass….

    So if you are unprepared to BUP, and to put in place an arrangement where the PM is really a CEO, under the direct governance of a National Supervisory Committee, then any kind of changes to the current constitution can be nullified – in a country of brass bowls, a dead judiciary, and easily bribed officials.

    You should note that in the Credit Unions (with the same brass bowls, dead judiciary and easily bribed officials) the problems are MUCH MORE EASILY addressed…. and the scamps sent packing…


  4. Well, your thinking on this matter seems reasonable, as far as the law goes.

    And that is the problem. For law alone does not go far enough

    It cannot and does not answer questions like, who makes up the Parliament?

    How do members get there?

    What are the factors driving their decision making?

    To what extent are they representative of the citizens?

    What are the possibilities that this parliament’s thinking might be inconsistent, with the people, future parliaments, even past parliaments.

    Are there any groups of citizens with the ability to bias the thinking of parliament?

    In sum, law alone cannot, of and by itself, speak to these issues.

    Lastly, you did not consider the possible contrarian role of the House of Lords.

    Given those limitations we then should expect all the answers from the operations of law


  5. Jeff,
    Thanks for supporting the view of the supremacy of parliament versus the executive. Two other small points: parliament can indeed decide who is male and female. It is illegal to discriminate against transgender people.
    Second there is only one type of ‘referendum’ that has legal weight in UK law, it is called a general election.
    The Referendum we had on June 23, in which I did not vote, was simply advisory. It was not, and could not be binding.
    You mentioned Prof Carnegie. I have said here before, one of my law lecturers at university once told the class that if you wanted to know the ignorance of the media (read people on blogs) just read what they say about something you know about.
    For those getting their information from CNN, they know squat about British constitutional arrangements.
    Parliament is supreme, that is why we are a parliamentary democracy. Referenda are unBritish; they are foreign and should return to whence they came. This is the confusion David Cameron has left us with, idiot.


  6. Yes, Bushie, you were right! Good, now if you will let me have the winning numbers for the next Mega Six draw, I should be grateful. LOL.

    @Caswell, I agree with your proposal for Constitutional change.. And perhaps while we are at it, we ought to make a real distinction between Parliament and the Cabinet. Then policy would be subjected to independent scrutiny and debate. Much like with Bushie’s supervisory committee.


  7. @@Why must you look moves our MINDS of what is in our face in Barbados, We know lawyers are spies, agents for the Crown.

    @@Caswell the same thing cross my mind we got to “C”,

    Building without Clear Title, telling lies, tricks of the DBLP,

    I dont call your name as you dont call mine and or CUP/CoUP We see it in what you post or write,, But People can see you well.
    If your name was in Violet Beckles papers I sure would. But for you to be a lawyer you do not serve the people well on this Blog, “complicit ”
    UWI and Sir Beckles really need to know about the C the small “c”in Beccles “white”and not Beckles”black” Who the National Trust wrote in their Books John Beckles died in 1823 ,, that own the Bay Plantation?
    My records show John Beccles was Governor 1834, 1835,1836 with 2 small “cc”and not”ck”.

    The deed reads John Beckles who died in 1957 age 74 sold to Beatrice Henry in the 1930s and never a man that became governor after he died, nor sold land 100 years after he died.

    I was told the John Beccles Lies are running the radio in Barbados, Remember We holding the truth and facts for the World to see and know but first Bajans,

    We hold Clear title for more than 90 years and not 70 where the law holds, We are not dealing with 166 pages ACT of Fraud of good title of 20 years, which does not apply to this case,


  8. It cannot and does not answer questions like, who makes up the Parliament?

    How do members get there?

    @Pachamama, contrary to your thinking, these are exclusively legal questions. Try answering them in the local context.


  9. It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many lawyers who think that they have some special body of knowledge, and some special cognitive skills, sometimes called legal reasoning ability, that non-lawyers do not have. They believe that they get this knowledge, and these special reasoning abilities during a relatively short three-year experience in law school.

    The reality is that in many universities you get a better understanding of constitutional arrangements from the political science professors than from the law faculty. And you get the “highest” (i.e., the most rigorous) habits of reasoning from the philosophy department.

    So most lawyers, who have spent all of just three years at their law schools, should be a lot more modest about what they know, and how well they can think about “legal” issues.


  10. Jeff,
    It is not rocket science. Individuals and those selected by the various parties put themselves forward to be members of parliament; the electorate is given a vote and the majority candidate is then elected as MP.
    However, no matter elected, they are not mandated by party or constituency. They are there in their own right.
    But pragmatism steps in: if they want to be r e-elected, then they must listen to their constituents; if they want to influence policy, and get a ministerial or Shadow position, they must work with the party Whips.
    But the 660 members of the UK parliament are there as individuals.
    The real issue is who are they people who put themselves forward, who have the confidence or arrogance to do so. Like Barbados, many of them are lawyers, many – almost all – are graduates, and a large number are Oxbridge graduates.
    Their conceit is that they believe, on the Labour side, they can best represent the workers who do not understand the fine points of politics.
    Their occupational backgrounds are just as interesting: NGOs, Spads or parliamentary assistants, think-tanks, journalism and university dons. Trade unionists have more or less been squeezed out on the Labour side and they all go for a few ethnics: Caribbean and Asian people on the Labour and Liberal sides, and West Africans and Asians on the Tory side. Tories now have one Tory. There is no science.


  11. Jeff

    We accept that you are the legal expert.

    Where we differ, like with all other singular areas of academia, is that phenomena can hardly be properly explained from one viewpoint alone.

    All we did was to ask a series of questions to show our thinking.

    The first two were the introduction. And we understand the simple lodgings they may find in the law. There is no mystery there. We wanted to go beyond the obvious legal rules.

    In their totality, to us, they represent issues that law alone fails to address.


  12. @ Pachamama: Your point is taken! I concede that the legal provision can never be the sole answer in all cases. In fact just now in the same Brexit judgment, who knows what economic, social and philosophical influences might have played a role in the minds of their Lordships in reaching their decision?


  13. @ Hal, I agree with your analysis for the House of Commons. Try applying it to the local context, however, and there is no semblance of similarity, especially as it pertains to the individual conscience. Here it is “my party or nothing!”.


  14. @ Jeff
    Bushie would be happy to share the winning numbers, …but won’t …for a number of reasons…

    1 – Too many others would see them and share your winnings (the square bracket thing only seems to work on Pieceurderock’s cuntputer)….

    2 – You are pretty well off from all indications, (Bushie has his sources…) so there is no need to throw water into the sea….

    3 – Having a lotta money is not all that it is cut out to be… and can actually be a major problem – unless, of course, you have a whacker…
    For example – if we make you a multi-millionaire, then the FIRST thing you will do – is stop writing these columns, …because you will be too busy spending the blenders….

    No dice skippa….We need you….


  15. Jeff,
    That is hypothetical. The judgement was based on the law of a parliamentary democracy. All else is academic. Maybe some had breakfasts that morning while others went jogging.
    The Supreme Court simply confirmed, as if they needed to, that constitutional authority has passed from the Royals and Church to parliament. That is what Cromwell fought for.
    The real interesting bit in that Supreme Court hearing, that CNN and websites could not convey, were the nuances: Lord Pannick, rightly recognised as the brightest lawyer at the bar for a generation, versus Lord Sumption, the brightest of the previous generation, with Lady Hales being the feisty independent-minded feminist.
    Lord Carnwath intervened on a number of occasions, but he was not in that league. While the others were playing in the Premiership, Carnwath was in the Championship.
    This is the deception of the internet: it can provide information, but not knowledge. The commentary by the legal experts was as interesting as the case.
    As soon as Pannick started his presentation Sumption intervened, and that continued. I suggest, Jeff, you should get the video to show to students then follow with a discussion. Transcripts would not do.
    All the London universities are having public debates on the outcome.
    Plse allow me to say this is what exposes the frauds who pretend in this forum they know what they are talking about.


  16. Jeff,
    The problem with Barbadian politics is the electorate falling for the corned beef and biscuits. My mother ran a rum shop in the Ivy and I can remember people like George Ferguson coming in and spending lots of money on rum and corned beef and biscuits. I knew then that there was no morality in Bajan politics.
    There is also a lack of personal integrity, most candidates are opportunists. As they say, you get what you pay for.
    In St John, we have now gone back to the old Rotten boroughs, with seats passing from husband to wife.
    Even now, people who can hardly feed themselves, are some of the biggest party supporters. You just could not make it up.


  17. Bushie, you are on the ball today (though not your sources) and writing is too much fun for money to prevent me doing so. But you are so right that “Having a lotta money is not all that it is cut out to be… and can actually be a major problem – unless, of course, you have a whacker…” At least, so I have heard…lol!!! 🙂


  18. “…..if you wanted to know the ignorance of the media (read people on blogs) just read what they say about something you know about.”

    Amen.


  19. @ Jeff Cumberbatch:
    “This decision reaffirms the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive…, as it should be. We in the region have come to accept a contrary ordering, especially where, out of either constraint or gratitude, there exists some Cabinets that can easily outvote opposing voices in Parliament even though the Constitution expressly provides, at section 64(2) in our case, that “The Cabinet shall be the principal instrument of policy and shall be charged with the general direction and control of the government of Barbados and shall be collectively responsible therefor to Parliament “. [Emphasis added].”

    From your ’emphasis’ it can be gleaned you are agreeing that the Executive (in this case Cabinet) must adhere to the provisions laid out in any piece of legislation or Act passed by Parliament and carrying the royal assent of ‘Her’ Majesty or her representative (for the time being).

    A colleague of yours once argued that ‘Morality’ is the highest law of the land. Maybe that’s why members of Parliament are conscientiously referred to as ‘honourable’.

    We are just hoping you have your letter of resignation already written; just to be dated and signed.


  20. @ enuff
    What ‘amen’ what??!!
    Suppose what you ‘know’ of the thing that you ‘know’ about, is as flawed as what you thought that you ‘knew’ about CARICOM?

    Most people don’t know squat…
    don’t mind Hal yuh, ….He knows not that he knows not…


  21. Hey Jeff
    Is “David” using an old photo to illustrate your column? I just visited the FairTrading Commission website and the profile here bears faint resemblance to the individual with the salt and pepper beard on the Commission website.

    Is that some lawyerly sleight of hand that accounts for Chad’s unrelenting criticism? On the other hand it might be prudent for some sort of disguise yuh never know if the FTC will make a decision that angers a few people.


  22. @ Sargeant

    “Lawyerly sleight?” or “lawyerly slight?”

    You like you also know who Chad of the 9 fives is.

    Jeff has said previously “I know not the man” but I come come to understand that “know” has 3 connotations, one of which WILL NOT be pertinent to Jeff, the second being “to have knowledge of” and the third, when taken in conjunction with the word “not” can also mean that he does know the man but does not know what he is capable of, based on previous encounters.

    What surprises me is that Chad of the 5 nines came to this assembly but Nine of Nines has not come.

    Now, Sargeant, you are a military man so you can comprehend this better than most.

    Chad 99999 is purported to be the nemesis of Jeff and the latter’s posits (he and ammm that Ms. Cole lady who seems to have dropped off the radar? heheheheheheh)

    But Nine of Nines recently commented on this subject and it seems most strange that 9 of 9’s is not here to lend support or to disprove what has been posited by Mr. Cumberbatch.

    By the way, a few of you may note that this is the closest to a clear political statement that Mr. Cumberbatch is saying heheheheheheheeh

    Dat is why I like he bad bad cause whereas de ole man going come and cuss and swear and violate de sanctity of this day, Jeff going say his Piece? heheheheheh and lef we ole menses tuh try to make sense out of what he is saying, a process which is lost pun de ole man.


  23. @ Jeff

    The decision of the Supreme Court is the correct one simply because there is no court above it to which one may appeal. Does correct now mean final in the law? Now it is pellucidly clear why the Law is an ass. But that is the rule of engagement in human society if not we will all live in chaos.


    • @Bernard

      Definitely clear 🙂

      The decision of the Supreme Court is the correct one simply because there is no court above it to which one may appeal. Does correct now mean final in the law? Now it is pellucidly clear why the Law is an ass. But that is the rule of engagement in human society if not we will all live in chaos.


  24. Caswell
    I have said before that this present government is laden with the biggest number of ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the history of Barbados and this is the first area that should come under the “cutting expenditure” hammer.Further I agree wholeheartedly that cabinet should be no more than 10% of the number of seats of parliament,although I firmly believe we don’t need more that 8 ministers.This lot has nothing to show for the money they get.I hope the 40% come out this time around and help vote their backsides out of existence.


    • All sensible people agree that the governance system is not working as originally designed. Why appoint Esther Byer, Patrick Todd et al as minister and parliamentary secretary for example? It is all about cronyism and pandering to the paramountcy of the political party. To hell with national priorities.


    • Gabriel

      I have said before and you should realise that Thompson and Stuart had to fill their Cabinets with these duds because most of them were unemployed, underemployed or otherwise unemployable. They were therefore given jobs in the Cabinet so as to give them a salary and not for them to do any useful work. So far have you seen any semblance of useful work coming from any of them? They don’t even understand how to operate as a cabinet and that is why they are always trying to get one up on each other, (Inniss has perfected that) or opposing each other publicly.

      Sent from my iPad


    • Interesting comments by Americans protesting in the USA against Trump’s immigration executive order. Some have reportedly commented on behalf of ‘refugees’ who expressed fear about doing so publicly. All of this is playing out in the land of the free read the greatest democracy on earth @carl more.


    • @Pacha

      Our system has deteriorated to the level where the it is never about serving the people. It is more about the representatives growing financial security. The ignorant public will get the people they deserve. A crash curse in civics needed maybe? The ignorance is so inbreed it is hard to fathom how we will be able to disrupt the establishment.


  25. David,
    You say a crash course. But there is nothing to stop informed people from holding free classes/seminars/meetings locally in schools, halls, etc. School buildings are empty from Friday evenings to Monday mornings. Use that time.
    When I first came to Britain, during the 1960s student movement, that was the form of public education, agit prop.
    Every weekend university students, trade unionists, etc would organise discussion groups.
    It was out of this movement that Richard Branson started his Student magazine, then moved on to Virgin records, then Virgin Airlines. The rest is history.
    One value of this kind of public education is that you integrate the formal and informal modes of education.
    I came to Herbert Marcuse through the student movement, then went on to read about him and the Frankfurt School, and by following the members of the School became interested in other aspects of their knowledge. It bred in me a dislike of empiricism and the Enlightenment.
    An example of this that Bajans might appreciate is legal education: you start with law, then become interested in the sociology of law, then the philosophy of law (jurisprudence), etc.
    Or in art: the politics and sociology of art are totally different to being an artist or sculptor. One is theory the other is practice.
    People must get out, educate the public, and not hide behind their curtains drinking cheap rum and eating fish cakes.
    This is why we ought to appreciate people like Jeff Cumberbatch more.


  26. Chadster…it’s the lawyers in the US will take Trump down, they have the skills, the problem with too many lawyers in Barbados, they do not use their skills and training for the right reasons…..but for all the wrong reasons against the wrong people.


  27. Five judges, four of them women, have issued orders temporarily staying or suspending enforcement of the travel ban issued by President Trump.

    Trump will prevail because a president has broad discretion to exclude aliens from the United States. So the feminists and the lawyers will make a lot of noise and waste scarce resources before they are run over.

    The White House has issued a statement pointing out that less than 1% of travelers to the United States are directly affected by the travel ban. None of these people are US citizens.


  28. Chadster…it will kill yiu to see how it will eventually play out, no one listens to the lies from the white house, only mentally ill people support other mently ill people.


  29. @Chad
    Five judges, four of them women, have issued orders temporarily staying or suspending enforcement of the travel ban issued by President Trump
    ++++++++
    Trust you to bring up the gender issue but we know you love white women, you’ve told us a couple of times that you dated white women so what’s the big deal? Are women incapable of delivering sound legal judgements?


  30. You lot let Jeff C off easy
    B’dosToday Jan 27 2017….”“BNTCL is a storage facility and therefore I think that once the FTC sorts itself out and comes to its own conclusions, we should be able to see a clear way forward. I am optimistic that we will get this out of the way,” the Prime Minister said.”

    Instead of talking about Big C’s or little c’s, what about big P’s and little p’s, namely the PM and pressure.

    Once the FTC sorts itself out…..Hmmm. “WE” should be able to see.

    Bushie check your storage, looks like the PM stole your whacker, and is using it on the FTC?


  31. David,
    Wild Coot is spot on. But it goes further. The workers that China brings to the Caribbean are people out of jail, as the Grenadians discovered in 2007, when Chinese gifted the nation the new cricket stadium. Have you ever seen Chinese unemployment figures.
    Then there is the question of quality control. Who is going to check the quality of work? Even if Barbados appoints quality control engineers the Chinese will just ignore them. They will retreat in to their language behind a shield of ignorance.
    Then there is the clause in any Chinese agreement that the workers – all men – must stay on and live in the country benefiting from their largesse. The Chinese govt will also give them settling money to establish small businesses.
    There is a demographic problem pending, mixed race Chinese. After 50 years of constitutional independence this lot have delivered us in to neo-colonialism.
    Some progess.


  32. Bushie
    Ain’t yours flawed too? I sticking to my position-people talk a lot of nonsense about things they don’t understand, including Hal and me sometimes. #sueme


  33. @ Sarge,

    Yes. the photo is an old one. There is indeed now salt and pepper in my beard and on my head. It is not David’s choice however. This is the photo that I have been using for the last few years. I do need and intend to get a more recent one done.

    @ Northern Observer,

    I can assure you that I am under no pressure as Chairman of the FTC, not from the PM, the public or partisan politicians. The decision as to whether a transaction impacts negatively on fair competition is a legal and not a political one. Much like the recent Brexit judgment I have written on above.


    • @Jeff

      Many are sceptical based on the decison by the FTC to allow LIME and FLOW to merge. Especially as it effects the concentration of ownership in the data space.


  34. By the way

    We are always hesitant to accept that anything/anyone is ‘supreme’, has ‘supremacy’

    Except the Great Ancestral Ones, of course.

    Maybe our dislike for the language that is english.


  35. Just read a headline in the Nation (web version)

    “Schools among ten best in world”

    This was gleaned from a speech by the Min of Education to the graduating Class at Erdiston Teachers Training College and makes for another entry into the “Lies, damn Lies and Statistic” file. If the schools are so good at providing a sound education that equips them for the essentials of success what happens after those students journey beyond the confines of those walls? Do they go on to excel at University? Do they have the movers and shakers from Silicon Valley beating a path to their doors? Do they invent anything? Are they innovators or are they successful entrepreneurs? Are they among the top ten in the medical profession in the world? Are they providing a blue print that will lead to a more prosperous Barbados?

    Pity that among the “ten best in the world” doesn’t correlate to anything except political bombast signifying nothing.


  36. @ Sargeant
    That was a genuine mistake made by a barely literate minister of eddykashun.

    What the study REALLY said (and it is probably true) was that Barbados’ SYSTEM of education was among the best in the world.

    The SYSTEM of education relates things like to the compulsory nature of attendance for all children; the percentage of GNP committed to funding education; the STRUCTURE of progression from nursery to tertiary; and the AVAILABILITY of education at the highest possible level to all citizens.

    Surely you would not expect Ronald to be able to differentiate between that analysis and the QUALITY and RELEVANCE of what currently prevails under his watch …would you?

    It is therefore not a case of “Lies, damn Lies and Statistic”, or even of alternative facts, …but a simple case of a foolish minister of eddykashun failing to understand simple English.


  37. @ Jeff CumberbatchJanuary 30, 2017 at 9:04 AM
    “I can assure you that I am under no pressure as Chairman of the FTC, not from the PM, the public or partisan politicians. The decision as to whether a transaction impacts negatively on fair competition is a legal and not a political one. Much like the recent Brexit judgment I have written on above.”

    Time will tell.

    If “fair competition” is a ‘strict’ legal decision then you are standing on solid ground faced with a crystal clear ‘open-and-shut’ case.

    Like the ‘true’ champion of Productivity it is expected you would follow in your political master’s footstep and deliver a ‘legal’ decision within the same timeframe your boss has set for the commencement of the Hyatt erection after his 7 days decision-tree timetable.

    We don’t expect you to do otherwise and thereby incur the wrath of Bush Tea’s whacker by teaching your students one thing about the ‘supremacy’ of the law but practising another under pressure from your political masters while holding a rubber stamp in your ‘right’ hand instead of a gavel.

    Unlike Brexit the readers of BU are not looking forward to a Jeffexit from that unfairly treated and ‘politically dictated to’ arm of cabinet.


  38. Ronald Jones is filled with his own usual crap, he needs to research how all countries are ranked and in which groups….damn fool,..lol


  39. Jeff C, took my observation personally, I think we all know while Chair, he is but one of several on the Board. I doubt the Chair has a veto vote.


  40. @WW&C
    re tax breaks….first off, the author is a member of the Green Party who ran in the Rosedale riding in a Federal election.

    I was tipped off by this comment
    “Wright said “it is inequitable to exempt the international income of mostly large Canadian corporations that are able to benefit from complex offshore structures because it gives an unjustified preference over smaller businesses operating internationally that cannot afford the professional fees”.

    For one knows that companies of ALL sizes make use of it, and one can even get direction to off-shore set-ups by visiting your local bank branch.

    With almost every level of government in Canada is now running in the Red, and some like Ontario in deep, deep red, this will become a greater issue with time. Initially tax treaties were one way to off set the cut in international funding, while winning bonus points at home with those able to avail themselves of the savings. But as the treaties expanded, it has become a larger and larger boon-doggle.


  41. Barbados has been warned. Government has to accept the strong probability that Canada will change the “Tax treaty”.

    Barbados needs NEW ways to generate wealth. NEW industries must be created.


  42. No Northern Observer, I did not take your comment personally. I was simply clarifying for you and others that the nature of the decision is governed by the provisions of the Fair Competition Act and not bu partisan political considerations. David, the LIME/FLOW merger was precedent to my term of office and I know little about its precise considerations.


  43. Barbados has a problem with the size of its market.

    My simplistic reasoning is that the FTC is supposed to provide protection from price gouging by companies that are monopolies or that indulge in unfair competition and collusion with their competitors.


  44. @Hants
    ever noticed how many gas stations in the GTA and area, with multiple owners, can arrive at a similar price every day, and even have a website which predicts with great accuracy what the price will be tomorrow.

    Market size becomes irrelevant to if they wish to fix prices or not?


  45. @NorthernObserver, wrote “Market size becomes irrelevant to if they wish to fix prices or not?”

    That is why we have the FTC in Barbados unless I am mistaken.


  46. Northernobserver,
    You are right about price fixing, but good regulators must outlaw cartels.
    You can investigate them by tapping their telephones, seizing their mobile phones, putting tracking devices on their cars, seize their meeting notes. On conviction the minimum should be five years imprisonment.


  47. @ Sarge at 9:07 AM

    It may surprise you. But the answers too your apparent rhetorical questions are yes . In almost all cases.


  48. @ David,
    Mr Blog Master. I think the BU family must ease the pressure off Jeff. Jeff, being a man of integrity, may have to recuse himself. And we do not want that. Do we?


  49. @Hants
    and why we have the Competition Bureau et al ?

    They can figure out when 3 manufacturers of chocolate bars are colluding, but cannot see when the retail price of gas is the same. We should note that 50%+ of each liter of gasoline is taxes.


  50. A fifth feminist, the Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, has joined four female federal judges in blocking enforcement of President Trump’s temporary travel ban.

    Hopefully, the President will fire Sally this week.


  51. With all these lawsuits being filed against Trump immigration ban
    Carribbean nationals should pay special attention especially those applying for visas or those already in posession of visas.
    This might be another wall Trump is attempting to build to shut out all immigrants


  52. @ But Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right – INRI January 29, 2017 at 1:50 PM #

    …..”Nine of Nines recently commented on this subject and it seems most strange that 9 of 9’s is not here to lend support or to disprove what has been posited by Mr. Cumberbatch.”……

    Salutes PUNTIS TRIANGULI

    The above stimulating article is worth its weight in gold and will be an eye opener to many.

    The VIEW of the late Professor Ralph Carnegie, was that …..”the Constitution, with a capitalized “C”, and signifying the written document was but a part of the constitution (small “c”) of a jurisdiction”…… this latter signifying the panoply of practices and conventions constituting the rules of governance.

    If the “view” connotes that jurisdictions’ constitutions forms part of or have a similar construct to a/of a greater controlling document (the Big C) then, collectively as jurisdictions we may well be focused in realizing a greater good and equal provisions for the collective citizenry of those jurisdictions.

    Was this view relating to a “Constitution of Caribbean States/CARICOM?”

    The debate is of the supremacy of Parliament,

    As per the UK…

    “the Executive, acting through the Secretary of State, did not have the constitutional power to give the necessary Notice of Intention to withdraw from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty without the prior authorization of Parliament.”…. just briefly, who makes up the Executive? Is not the Parliament the peoples’ chamber and is not the “legal course” to be taken forms part of the “Treaty”?…if so, then this is PROBABLY why the UK is intent on withdrawing not because of the benefits derived from being a member BUT of the subtle infiltration of control of their governance. Many laws will now have to be repealed, maybe because those same laws which form part of the Treaty are nor in the interest of the British people or of their elite.

    As per Barbados…..

    ….”section 64(2) in our case, STATES that …. “The Cabinet shall be the principal instrument of policy and shall be charged with the general direction and control of the government of Barbados and shall be collectively responsible therefore to Parliament “.

    Supremacy of Cabinet.
    The more this statement is read, the more perturb is the understanding of it.

    From the perspective of intent, it connotes that CABINET is… ” the principal instrument of policy”…CABINET CANNOT BE AN INSTUMENT, THE CONSTITUTION IS THE INSTRUMENT, the CABINET is the facilitator of that instrument. It must be amended.
    …”and shall be collectively responsible therefore to Parliament ”
    How can you be responsible TO something (Parliament) IF YOU (Cabinet) is THE SUPREME BODY OF ADMINISTRATION? … it must be amended.

    Cabinet, the Supremacy of Administration (at present) is established not by the input of the peoples vote, this too must change.

    Further, to say Supremacy of Cabinet, for policy, general direction and control of the government (according to section 64(2)of the Constitution). Be that as it may.
    YET should a judgement be required, whether it comes from the Governor General, the High/Supreme Court, the CCJ or some other International Court, then the Supremacy is forfeited to the Court . Is that to say that the Court is surely supreme or the GG for that matter? and…..
    Whereas Parliaments’ roll or effect on any decision making is via debate and vote, even the passing of law which in fact gives them supremacy according to the constitution as is,
    It too may be by design that the Cabinet can be directed by Special interests, as well as the Constitution and of Parliament.

    Some amending is required.

    On another note…

    The sale of BNTCL
    Barbados did a survey of its’ waters for oil deposits quite recently, large deposits were found. Subject to correction, Trinidad and Tobago disputed the demarcation of territorial waters of which they were laying claims these finds. An International Court mitigated these claims and ruled that indeed Barbados has legitimate claim.

    The value of these deposits would have to be in excess of US$100M.

    To sell to a private interest does not make sense. It belongs to the Nations’ people. If this Government cannot move to extract and process it then leave it alone until we can. SIMPLE!

    :nineofnine-temple builder : of GAIA


  53. @ 9 of 9

    Salve Magister.

    I am watching but do note that your style is not that of Chad of the 9’s in this submission and that I might have been wrong plussing Chad of the 9’s does not know Latin.

    “You went south and came back north” and displayed a mastery in both actions, albeit that while the southern voyage was longer, when you flew north you went straight to the point.

    How many Bajans, outside of those people reading this blog, and even among those reading this blog, have picked up that when this deal was sealed in the Ministry of Energy that what was contemplated was giving specific parties lifelong interests to their heirs and successors in the oil drilling rights of Barbados FOREVER???

    I wonder if, now that you have made this disclosure that, Barbados’ ONLY proactivist lawyer will hasten to his task to seek an injunction and that Barbados’ Silent but Deadly lawyer, he knows who he is, will act to destroy the plans of one Quisling.

    I see that you yourself are a legal man who, as is evidenced by your writing, in conjunction with your intelligence gathering skills, has been able to discern why this sale is being hurried through in the clear light of day.

    This is why Carl Moore and AC hate Barbados Underground so much, they and the rest of the posse find that their plans are exposed bigly here on BU.

    THis is why Mugabe is going to close it down IF SHE GETS IN POWER

    DE OLE MAN WILL SAY THIS FOR ALL TO HEAR.

    THE POLITICAL PARTY WHICH RUNS ON A CAMPAIGN OF PROSECUTING THE DLP MINISTERS stands a very good chance of winning.

    Excellent exposee.

    But by this act one sees who you are though, walk carefully, they are not going to like this exposure by a lawyer who is privy to the Oil Exploration escapades of the GoB? with such sound institutional history?


  54. @ Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right – INRI January 30, 2017 at 11:51 PM #

    BY EXTENTION,
    desalination plants, other water storage accessories
    garbage collection and processing
    sewerage plants
    roads refurbishment namely cement
    housing construct
    education namely financial support structures
    health monopolies
    land valuation structures
    Interest Rates structures
    exclusion of prosecution structures
    TO NAME A FEW


  55. @9of9
    the sale is the BN..Terminal…CL, not the BN..Oil…CL; the former being a subsidiary of the latter. The BNTCL deals with the distribution of finished goods.
    I could be wrong, but I do not believe oil rights for exploration accrue in the sale. However, it remains unknown to me as to whom those rights belong.


  56. @ NorthernObserver January 31, 2017 at 1:52 AM #

    the sale is the BN..Terminal…CL, not the BN..Oil…CL; the former being a subsidiary of the latter. The BNTCL deals with the distribution of finished goods”….
    ….”

    It would benefit the class to have some clarity on the subject, also what goods are processed and produced and where is it done. Even under correction , the sale means a life long enterprise, does it not?


  57. @ Northern Observer.

    An interesting observation and hierarchical structure that reinforces the need for BU to eyeball the hidden agreement.

    One would not be surprised if said document has some nefarious condition to extend to oil drilling rights by way of “strengthening the parent organization” or some inane condition like how Honda ole place on Bay Street get sell out? For Hyatt heheheheh

    I wonder if these quisling people doan tink dat dem cyan speak stuttering selves, after carving up all the energy reserves distribution and exploration?, doan tink dat dem going dead? Seriously!!!

    @ 9 of 9’s

    As if to reiterate my point your 12.49 post last night, rather, this morning, indicated that every one of those kickback structures has (1) a ministry and teifing minister (2) a complicit? permanent secretary? and participating staff (3) external actors and beneficiaries (4) documents that record the scam (5) legal enablement for the contracting agents to the scam and ensuingly lawyers, most likely the office of the attorney general and its clerks who are willing? Parties to the crime.

    Again this is why, any smart political party can say that it will prosecute all parties to these crimes on assuming office.

    Mugabe cannot say this cause she is purported to have benefitted from that Syrup contract at the MoE and received emoluments from de udder big scam dat it had years later.

    As Plantations always is saying “all uh dem hands nasty”

    Send Barbados Underground de files and evidence nah??


    • @PUDRYR

      Did you hear head of BREA’s comment in the news this morning? How can he comment with such certainty and the terms of the agreement have not been made public? You have to listen carefully to these talking heads.


  58. …and how about the Simpson fella who ‘does not see it as Government’s role to own national assets’?
    One wonders then, how he envisions that the PEOPLE OF BARBADOS would otherwise collectively have anything of their own….
    He sees no problem with foreigners owning every shiite …. but with BAJANS doing so…

    These semi-literate blacks who take it upon themselves to be spokesmen of albino-centric principles need to be exposed for the female rabbits that they are.

    The ‘Government of Barbados’ DO NOT OWN A SINGLE SHIITE…!!
    It is the people of Barbados that own(ed) those assets….. and the PEOPLE OF BARBADOS have every right to own their energy assets, their banks, their supermarkets, their manufacturing and tourism plant.

    Only traitors to the people, and blinded jackasses says otherwise.


  59. @ Pacha
    There IS a viable, personal threat to the JAs …. it is called suicide…
    …but they are too stupid and brainwashed to see it….

    How black people can be made to see the ‘point’ being made by John, Money B, Lawson and Chad99999 that unbridled capitalism – as espoused by the albinos of the North, is the way for Black people to go is REALLY beyond Bushie….

    Owen started the shiite, …but it seems that he was influenced by various cheques that were later exposed by thieving Thompson…. but how do we explain the other lackies who, after being educated at the expense of our taxes, can now stand up in public and call for us to sell off our national assets to foreigners and descendants of the plantocracy (who can afford to buy them – having benefitted for centuries of free black labour.)

    Economists (whatever the hell those are) are even worse than lawyers.
    A pox on all their asses.


  60. Barbados did a survey of its’ waters for oil deposits quite recently, large deposits were found. Subject to correction, Trinidad and Tobago disputed the demarcation of territorial waters of which they were laying claims these finds. An International Court mitigated these claims and ruled that indeed Barbados has legitimate claim.

    The value of these deposits would have to be in excess of US$100M.

    Might as well be US$100 trillion and the bulk of that oil might still never be recovered, and not because oil had become obsolete after our economies switched to renewable energy sources, but for the reasons outlined below in an Oct 2016 Peak Prosperity blog podcast (46min):

    Gail Tverberg: Why There’s No Economically Sustainable Price For Oil Anymore

    Our modern, energy-hungry societies’ predicament in a nutshell:

    When on the rising side of the Hubbert curve, everybody has good wage level and everybody can feed themselves. You can build new oil wells and everything works out fine. But what happens as you get past the 50% mark is that you no longer have enough oil coming out for the economy to keep growing. It starts going down. And what happens then is that the economy doesn’t function in the same way. You start getting the prices to spike as you try to get higher-cost oil out. And this is what we saw in the 2007-2008 period.

    The price of oil spikes and you get recession. Then the price of oil comes back down. But wages don’t recover and you get the very low price problem that we have right now. So it doesn’t work right. You can’t keep getting the same amount of oil out, essentially because the wages of the people don’t stay up high enough in order to afford the output of the economy.
    At this point, it has gotten bad enough that there is no price that works. The price that producers need is higher than what the market will bear.

    If we go to a place like Saudi Arabia, you’d say: They can get it out of the ground for $20 a barrel. But then when you look at it, you discover that they really need a much higher price if you include in all of the taxes and all of the funding they need to keep social order, import lots of wheat and the many other things that their economy needs, and build a desalination plant. So they really can’t get along on $20 a barrel. They learned how they can get along on $100 or $120 a barrel, but they can’t get along on $50 a barrel  — even in Saudi Arabia.

    So you end up with a situation where there isn’t any kind price that really will work.

    peakprosperity(DOT)com/podcast/102796/gail-tverberg-why-theres-no-economically-sustainable-price-oil-anymore


  61. Parliament has re-asserted itself again as the Govt has submitted a 100-word Great Repeal bill. The amendments run to 85 A-4 pages. This means a full debate must b had, and rightly so. Parliament rules, that is the message, not governments.


  62. @ Green Monkey
    It that not the identical quandary we face in Barbados?

    During Arthur’s time, easy loans gave us the idea that we could live at a high level – with expensive cars, big salaries and plush offices. We were, however living a lie, and really being financed by loans.
    Now that our credit cards have been maxed out, we do not know how to revert to a standard of living that we can ACTUALLY really afford….
    …how do we live without free education; free health care, free bus fares; free school meals; free housing…? …. unheard of…!!

    So we can’t access funds to sustain our (false) standard of living, …but there is NO WAY that we can give up these ‘basics’ of life. What happens when the Central Bank can no longer write bounced cheques…?

    This quandary always only ends with one result….


  63. Until we have solar powered planes or cruise ships, how de ferners get here, the concept of 100% renewables is very long-term. If he thinks the divestiture of BNTCL is some new government focus, rather than turning assets into cash, methinks he dreams.


  64. “The PEOPLE OF BARBADOS have every right to own their supermarkets … Only traitors to the people, and blinded jackasses says otherwise.”

    Wow. Just, like, “wow”. Another total lol from the teaboy.

    Lol.

    If you want “the PEOPLE” to own a supermarket, then get the PEOPLE to open a supermarket. It’s been tried, in many countries over many decades, and somehow it always ends up with 78 year-olds standing in line from 4 a.m. in the pitiful hope that they can get some flour or toilet paper today. Or perhaps, in very recent memory, get their hands on some plastic Bulgarian shoes that will fall apart the fifth time they try to put them on.

    Christ, your economic illiteracy is truly wearying. And the “traitors to the people” shite just dates you.

    Grow. The. Phuque. Up.

    You’re best as the disciple in non-natural fibers, leading the brothers and sisters towards that always-changing Next Tuesday tea-time with the Big. The Boss. The Engineer.


  65. @ NorthernObserver

    I was going to express something similar in the vein to the non-immediacy of implementation vis a vis a replacement of fossil fuel by 100% renewables

    The question any reasonable minded promoter of Renewables needs to ask is how long before this country can migrate from fossil fuels?

    One can actually ask that questions in several ways that are all not too complimentary of remarks presented by the said Aidan Rogers.

    1.Given this country’s inability to even implement Solar Water heaters in the 40 years that Solar Dynamics first came on the scene as the leader? in solar heated water

    2.Given that government has had 40 years in that sector

    3.Given that this government has received millions of dollars in grants, bilateral aid and technical assistance

    4.Given that successive GoB administrations have not made any inroads into improving that sector

    why would Aidan Rogers like us to believe that the sale, and possible realization? of $100m would have any immediate, or medium term, impact on the national status of renewables?


  66. @ David
    What a tour de force , starting with a judicial ruling in UK. It seems as though the West minster model has died in Barbados. We now have a pelau of British law and constitution and American governance practices. So our system of governance is evolving. At least BU seems to be a midwife.

    @ Bush Tea

    The whacker seems to be old technology. It is not working. Time for a re-engineering excercse. But evolution is a safe process although it does not fit in with your philosophy of theology nor governance.


  67. I do not believe in unbridled capitalism. Where do you get that impression? I do not believe in exploitation. I do not believe that thousands of people should work to make superprofits for a few hundred major shareholders.


  68. @ Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right – INRIJanuary 31, 2017 at 2:41 PM
    “Given that successive GoB administrations have not made any inroads into improving that sector
    why would Aidan Rogers like us to believe that the sale, and possible realization? of $100m would have any immediate, or medium term, impact on the national status of renewables?”

    Another question to ask is who will be paying this lobbyist posing as an ‘impartial consultant’ on this fire sale?

    This distress sale (a transaction which should occurred since 2012 and involving a broad range of investors both individual and institutional like the Credit Unions) has nothing to do at this stage of the economic conflagration with the promotion of renewables or even to accelerate the pace of privatization but merely to save the forex ass of the present sorry administration amidst the growing spectre of the devil called Devaluation.

    The only thing going with this sale to create a private sector monopoly is that the base price of ground fuels will have to rise to about 15% to meet the required ROI to justify this purchase in a stagnant ‘growth’ market in a sunset industry.

    This permanent hike in prices should make the switch to renewables e.g. electric-powered vehicles a bit more attractive.

    If Rogers were a true promoter of renewables and defender of the environment from the threats posed by fossil fuels he would speak out vehemently about government’s stated pursuit of a programme of offshore drilling for hydrocarbons which can only be some of the dirtiest in the world and most expensive to recover and refine.

    You can bet any actual programme of offshore drilling would be a goodbye kiss to tourism. Maybe then the Hayatt erection would be the only hotel left ‘standing’ and still open to accommodate the thousands of oil barons conducting business to sell heavy oils to the light-sweet Arabs.


    • Actually the two questions to ask IF the project is approved are as foolows:

      1.what will be the net inflow of foreign to Barbados i.e. 100 minus imports.

      2.will the 100 million be sourced in the external market and will government have to provide a sovereign guarantee?


  69. @ Miller
    This distress sale (a transaction which should occurred since 2012 and involving a broad range of investors both individual and institutional like the Credit Unions)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yuh mean you still with this nonsense…?
    What sell what assets to what Credit Unions what??!!

    Do you understand that these assets ALREADY belong to the Bajan public?
    Do you understand that the government is only the temporary administrators of the assets?

    So how do you suggest selling assets that ALREADY belong to bajans, back to Bajans – in the form of credit unions?
    Steupsss….
    So if your family is having cash flow problems …do you sell the house back to yourself? …or to various groups of your children?

    Skippa, if the parents are incompetent, and have failed to manage the family business successfully, then the CORRECT and proper thing to do is not to mortgage the damn house and continue to squander the money in their incompetence, …BUT they should seek out the most competent of their family …and HAND MANAGEMENT DUTIES over to them….. for the good of the whole family.

    ….why wunna continue to be guided by the money-grabbing, albino-centric thinking continues to elude the bushman….
    Would you REALLY sell your home to strangers …unless your children could match their bids…?

    It must be the stupid eddykashun…!!


  70. @ Bush Tea @ 7:39 PM

    Tell them. The transaction adds nothing to the foreign reserves and is a temporary and inadequate response to the Debt / GDP ratio. It may however add to the inflation rate, if the rate of return on investment is as high as Miller indicated in an earlier intervention.
    Partial analysis is the fundamental problem in these knee jerk solutions. They appear to solve a problem in isolation but create bigger ones elsewhere in the system.


  71. @ Bush Tea January 31, 2017 at 7:39 PM #

    Hoping to drive a BRAND new FORD in ALBERTa Canada, the latest electric model. lol.

    Couldn’t say it better.

    David is right, you just have to listen to these people very carefully and you see an agenda.
    How many of you realize that there’s a lot of money to be had when a government becomes a signatory to the Treaties of International Organizations.

    What is Climate Change?…..Global Warming?
    The Parris Agreement ?….. Bio-diversifying?
    Sustainable Development?…renewable energy?

    WHAT IS FREE ENERGY….WHAT IS THE TORUS?


  72. As usual, I am right. The Brexit Article 50 legislation easily passed the UK House of Commons by a vote of 498-114.

    Note: The chump Hal Austin contradicted my prediction that the Brexit authorization was an easy lift.

    WINNING!


  73. De ole man knows that “The Writer” has an understandable rule where he does not comment on the particular elements of his post at a specific entity and I, for one, respect that stance.

    I have only posted this as an aside for general consumption since, while perusing that rag time paper, whose name i shall not call, (having mentioned it once before today) I came across this article

    “…New York sues Charter, alleges Time Warner fraud on internet speeds.

    NEW YORK – New York filed a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing Charter Communications Inc. of short-changing customers who were promised faster internet speeds than it could deliver. The lawsuit in State Supreme Court in Manhattan accused Charter’s Spectrum unit, until recently known as Time Warner Cable, of systematically defrauding customers…”

    I wonder if the lawyers among us here on BU particularly the man “who is “lawyer adverse”” (heheheheh, he knows who he is) would care to comment on why it is that, in the face of many instances of teifery and oppression by our telecommunications providers why it is that

    (i) not a feller, INCLUDING David Commissiong, even wid all his cases contra the DLP (i ent think David got contra BLP matters under his portfolio) why, not a feller ent bring some sort of class action suit gainst those 4G “masqueraders” who giving people 3G speed while coercing 4G rates from the consumers?

    OR

    (ii) Why it is that the FTC, in the interest of the people, does not bring any lawsuits against the ISP teives, at any time, like dem does do in Jamaica?

    Doah de ole man dun say dat when de FTC big staff, not my Chairman, lef he out uh dis, is purported to be getting Galaxy 7 for dem Family, and heirs, dat may account for de bias against the very consumers that they are supposed to be protecting

    I wonder if, given the oligarchical type targets of these accusations, and their dominance of the telecommunications, de ole man was hoping that this tangentially imputed some “supremacy” and therefore would not be deemed too far “off topic” heheheheeheeh.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.