Barbados Bankers’ Association the New Third Party?

Donna Wellington, President, Barbados Bankers’ Association (BBA).

Submitted by Caswell Franklyn, General Secretary, Unity Workers Union

It is no secret that I believe that the present DLP administration is bad for Barbados. Now it appears that this view is shared by the Barbados Bankers’ Association (BBA). They have announced that due to a “lack of clarity” on the process involved in the issuance of tax clearance certificates by the Barbados Revenue Authority (BRA), banks had to suspend real estate transactions. As a result, banks have suspended approximately $221 million worth of real estate related transactions.

I could be wrong but I don’t believe so; to my mind, that announcement is double speak to say that the Government is bad for business and they are prepared to take short term losses to help rid the country of this DLP administration.

I firmly believe that the announcement is a calculated move to influence political change. When the banks put pressure on potential borrowers and blame their actions on the BRA, those borrowers would become angry with the Government. People who could not get loans would not be happy with the DLP and come voting time that anger would be reflected in the results.

Even though I believe that the BBA and I share the view that the DLP is bad for business, I deplore the method adopted by them. They should be patriotically urging taxpayers to pay their fair share of the tax burden that is being heaped upon the people of this country.

I would advise the Barbados Bankers’ Association to stay away from involvement in politics on the sly and be honest enough to declare their hand.

147 thoughts on “Barbados Bankers’ Association the New Third Party?

  1. “So, you are essentially implying the police arrests a suspect based on “hearsay (i.e. gossip),” because the “evidence” they gathered that led to the arrest has NOT been “subjected to cross-examination in a court of law.” This is what you have said.

    Until the evidence is tested it is hearsay. That is elementary which you could have learned in any comprehensive school. And to imply in previous submissions that you are legally trained (with talk about your clients) is a disgrace.
    Police arrest on suspicion; suspicion is not evidence of guilt.

  2. Hal Austin

    “Artax May 30, 2017 at 1:23 PM #: @ David: Hal Austin is suggesting that the invoice you posted is “hearsay (i.e. gossip)” or mis-management and not fraud.”

    Could you please indicate to me where in the above comments I stated that the invoice was EVIDENCE?

    And comprehension is TAUGHT at PRIMARY SCHOOL.

    Shiite, Hal Austin, what are you really trying to prove? That you are more educated than anyone who contributes to BU?

    Enough of you and this shiite.

  3. Hal Austin May 30, 2017 at 1:37 PM #

    “And to imply in previous submissions that you are legally trained (with talk about your clients) is a disgrace.”

    Hal Austin


    I have NEVER, EVER WRITTEN in ANY PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS in this forum THAT I AM LEGALLY TRAINED (with talk about (my) clients).

    But, you are absolutely correct, in this case you are presenting “hearsay (i.e. gossip)” and NOT evidence.

  4. Wuhlaw…wuhlaw…….what a tour de force…………..Hahaha……..and Hal sticking to his guns irrespective of all that is tossed at him……only a court case will suffice for him.

    Chuckle…..That may yet come.

  5. Artax,

    Sit down and take a deep breath. Until David’s invoice – or the original – is present in court and tested under cross-examination it is hearsay. That is what the rule of law is all about. It is not rocket science.
    To be accused is not to be guilty, unless you are a 13 yr old school kid.
    I do not want to be held to it, but you have previously talked about your clients in relation to the BRA, but it may b some other govt department.

  6. David,
    I am not being disingenuous. It appears as if you are like Artax, ignorant of the law of evidence. Until the invoice is presented in a court of law and tested by the defence attorneys, it is what is called in some jurisdictions hearsay. Until then, David, it is just a bit of paper.

    • @Hal

      This is the BU forum and NOT a court of law. As ordinary folk we are simply saying that coming out of a forensic audit done by a global brand there were damming findings made public. If the same accounting firm had issued a note on a company in the UK the FT you worked for would have felt obligated to investigate why the note.

      There is enough ‘evidence’ for us regular folks to demand closer investigation of Parris, Thornhill and co and Clico related transactions.

  7. David,
    Closer investigation is not guilt or evidence of guilt. Remember: innocent until proven guilty. You have made the point better than I: this is a discussion forum, not a court of law. Then we must stop pretending that a piece of paper is evidence of guilt. BU is not a court of law.
    Forget the bogus judicial management review. It was a waste of money.

    • @Hal

      Final comment, there is enough ‘evidence’ in the public space to merit greater urgency by the authorities. Also remember that Barbados is a small place.

  8. On May 29 Artax wrote about ‘clients’:
    I agree with your above comments. Over the years, I became familiar with many Inland Revenue officers because I had to communicate and interact with them when I’m acting on behalf of clients.

    • @Hal

      Based on the evidence you have produced a better conclusion is that Artax is an accountant…lol

  9. David,

    Last word or first, we cannot keep excusing our incompetence about being a small island. It was DeLisle Worrell’s excuse about a small open society.
    We either have the rule of law or we do not. Corrupt people in high office should be driven out, not tolerated.

  10. @ Hal Austin

    Perhaps it’s you that should sit down and take a deep breath and cease from attributing to me and responding to comments I have not written.

    Why do you make the silly comments of associating knowledge to age or level of learning? I’m sure that there are “13 year old school kids” who have a higher IQ than yours and are able to articulate themselves through writing on a much better level than you.

    Once again, you are being economical with the truth and “creating your own straw men to knock them down,” perhaps to suit your self aggrandizement agenda. Stop the rhetoric and answer the questions, PLEASE!!!!!

    Could you please INDICATE to me WHERE in any of my contributions I mentioned TO BE ACCUSED is TO BE GUILTY?
    Also, are you suggesting that my reference to a client and the BRA SUGGESTS that I am a LAWYER?
    Or are you of the opinion that lawyers are the ONLY individuals QUALIFIED to act on behalf of clients at the BRA?

    Only the “13 year old school kid” you referred to in your contribution would make such an erroneous assumption.

    Hal Austin you are a very indigenous individual. I’m not convinced you are a real journalist.

  11. Hal is , and always has been, someone who will do and say any shiite in order to be noticed.
    No wonder he uses his real name…

    Why Artax would choose to continue such a back-and-forth in the face of such clear nonsense can only be explained by the fact that angela has been unusually quiet in the last few days (probably making inputs into the budget) …and therefore unavailable to take her usual licks…

    Wuhloss !!!

  12. @ Artax
    You probably mean “invidious” rather than “indigenous”, but that is not really the case…
    the correct word is “pathetic” ….

  13. @ David

    Hal Austin is essentially guilty of engaging in what he is accusing you and I of undertaking.

    The “invoice has to be presented in court and tested under cross examination, “otherwise we would be making an assumption based on hearsay.

    Yet, he used my comments as “evidence” to erroneously state I implied in previous submissions that I’m legally trained.”

    Until Hal Austin “presents my original statement in court and it is tested under cross-examination” his assumption I am a lawyer “is based on hearsay. That is what the rule of law is all about. It is not rocket science.”

    “To be accused is not to be guilty, unless you are a 13 yr old school kid.”

    Hal Austin is a joker.

  14. Lol…but Bushie Hal talking a lotta foolishness. The invoice is evidence in BU and the wider public and if presented in court it would become evidence of the court. The infamous Ken Lay of Enron was locked up, although there was a lack of oversight by the relevant agency.

  15. @ Enuff
    Lol…but Bushie Hal talking a lotta foolishness.
    Everybody knows that … including Hal…
    But yet, when he start pelting some hot licks in Bushie’s tail,
    …you will be first one deading wid laugh
    …and urging him on…

    …ain’t it??!!

Leave a comment, join the discussion.