Jeff Cumberbatch – Chairman of the FTC and Deputy Dean, Law Faculty, UWI, Cave Hill
I should start this week with a disclaimer. Despite its title and the epigraph, this essay has nothing at all to do with the identical hendiadys so frequently encountered in the Holy Bible and in the admonitions of the modern day end-timers. It treats rather, less loftily, a physical local sign by now notorious and the wonder of a recent judicial pronouncement emanating from the European Court of Human Rights.
That “RH” sign and public expression
For the quantum of public discourse that it has generated, that notorious sign featured on various social media, and more latterly in one section of the local printed press (not the Barbados Advocate), should have been wildly successful in raising public consciousness, if not for citizens to cease littering indiscriminately, at least for them to conjecture as to the meaning to be attributed to the letters “RH” in the sign. There is a well known Barbadian expletive that fits this abbreviation perfectly; indeed sometimes the two letters themselves are used for emphasis, and this might reasonably be presumed to have been the intention of the sign’s creators, especially since the other offered suggestions offered so far do not fit the bill, syntactically speaking.
Moreover, since the letters are used in an adjectival sense[to describe the littering], as would be the expletive at times, it might be objectively considered that the letters denoted that expletive.
This last point cannot be made too forcefully however, since the expression I am referring to, as most others of similar kind locally, may be used alternatively as a noun, an adverb, a preposition and maybe a conjunction all in the same sentence and to express varying notions. For instance one may be as bright as it, or one may be as “dumpsy” as it, as, equally, one may be either as poor as RH or as rich as RH. In fact, any two contrasting concepts will serve to make the point.
Nevertheless, in spite of its colloquial variety, it is an expression that would probably attract the attention of the local constabulary if used in a public space, and thereby render the user liable to a criminal charge of using indecent language. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression in section 20 of our supreme law simply does not extend that far. Indeed, it may be argued that this freedom is expressly qualified in this regard by section 20(2)(a) that immunizes from challenge any law that makes provision that is reasonably required in the interests of public morality, inter alia.
The offence of this nature is usually committed when the expletive is uttered orally. Should it make a difference that the words are not voiced here but rather suggested in a sign and not even expressly but, at worst, impliedly? There are some areas of the law, most notoriously in that pertaining to defamation, where the subjective intention of the publisher is treated as irrelevant and the meaning of the publication is guided by what the ordinary reader or listener would have understood it to mean. It is at least doubtful, however, whether such a holding should form the basis of a criminal charge where a criminal intention to use the expletive would normally be required.
Furthermore, I recall having read somewhere once of a proceeding in one of the local magistrate’s courts when an accused, wearing a T shirt with ostensibly Chinese or Japanese characters, was severely censured by the presiding judicial officer when it was finally recognized that the characters spelt out an expletive if read either upside down or from an appropriate angle. I cannot now recall whether the accused was cited for contempt although, given the nature of the expression revealed, he very well could have been. Was he any less a publisher of the offensive expression in that case than the anonymous creator[s] of the RH sign?
The wonder of the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR]
For those Barbadians, arguably not so few in number, who are opposed, bitterly, fundamentally, diametrically or otherwise, and for whatever reason, to the concept of same-sex marriage becoming a possibility in this jurisdiction, the recently reported June 2016 decision of the European Court of Human Rights that there is no human right under the European Convention on Human Rights to be party to a same-sex marriage might have come as a pleasant and welcome surprise, especially after the US Supreme Court decision in Obergfell v Hodges that imposed homosexual marriage as a right applicable in all the states of the union. In fact, the European decision is over one year old and is consistent with at least three previous holdings of that court that there is no human right to a homosexual marriage and thus the member states cannot be compelled to recognize it. This in spite of Article 12 of the Convention that reads;
“Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family. According to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”
Despite the apparent breadth of the text however, the European Court has consistently ruled, utilizing the principle of subsidiarity; whereby the Court limits its ability to review a domestic authority’s decision and that of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation; through which member states are permitted to vary in their domestic law from their Convention obligations just so long as this variation does not cause the very essence of the Convention right to be impaired, that there is no obligation on a member state to legitimize homosexual marriage. In 2010, the ECHR held that the right in Article 12 was granted in the context of strictly traditional forms of marriage so that an Austrian couple could not allege discrimination because they were denied the possibility to marry or have their relationship recognized by Austrian law. In 2012, The Court held in a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained that the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple, that “in view of the social, personal and legal consequences of marriage, the applicant’s legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.” And in 2014, the Court pronounced, in a matter from Finland, that the law did not require member states “to grant access to marriage to same-sex couples…”
I have already argued in this space that the local antagonists to same sex marriage have little to worry about. While we have not as yet enacted a provision equivalent to that in the Jamaica Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms 2011 to the effect “no form of marriage or other relationship…other than the voluntary union of one man and one woman may be contracted or legally recognized in Jamaica”, This is precisely the common law position that now obtains locally and would have to be changed by appropriate legislative action, if at all.
ANOTHER MAN WHO IS CUSSED AND HATED PUN BU IS JOHN K…….JUST CAUSE HE WHITE
HE IS A REAL BARBADOS SCHOLAR AND. HE IS A VERY QUIET, MODEST HUMBLE MAN.
INTERACTED WITH HIM MANY TIMES ON THE SUNDAY MORNING WALKS IN THE 90’S BUT I HAVE SEN HIM PILLORIED HERE ON BU
Simple Simon
SHITBAMA IS A KNOWN BULLER OK AND HE PROMOTES BULLING IN THE USA
I WILL SAY IT CAUSE IT IS TRUE
BEFORE YOU CAME HERE ZOE DICTIONARY AND I WERE PERSECUTED DAILY FOR SEEKING TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH, AND SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLE SHOULD BE STUDIED IN OBEDIENCE TO 2 TIMOTHY 2;15
YOU CAME AND SCOFFED AT ZOE AND MY DOCTORATES IN THEOLOGY
ON BU WUNNAH CALLIT CHALLENGING
WHAT Pachamama WROTE AT October 16, 2017 at 1:16 PM IS REPREHENSIBLE , BUT NO ONE HAS SAID A WORD BUT TO SAY THAT ”WUNNAH LORD ON HIGH ON THE HILL” WROTE SHITE IN MY OPINION IS ANATHEMA CAUSE ONLY SOME PEOPLE CAN
DO THE CHALLENGING AND ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE CAN BE CHALLENGING
I THANK MY GOD THAT I DONT GOT TO DEPEND PUN NONE A WUNNAH FOR NUTTIN
THEY USED TO LIKE YARDBROOM TOO……….UNTIL HE SAID THAT HE WAS MARRIED TO A WHITE WOMAN………AND ALL HELL BREK LOOSE. HE USED TO WRITE BEAUTIFUL SIMPLE PROSE TOO BUT PEOPLE COULD UNDERSTAND IT.
GP…John is a racist who aches to see the majority Black population as perpetual slaves to a minority of white thieves, the descendants of indentured servants, he prefers see the majority population in generational poverty to enrich less than 8,000 minorities, he is an evil parasite living in darkness.
no one hates John, he is too pathetic to garner that emotion, so stop spreading lies and propaganda…trying to paint John as some kinda BU victim.
RE Stop trying to make out that people are hated or persecuted when they are not. Nobody “ran” dictionary. He choose to remove himself from the blog.
He is free to come back anytime.
WHY SHOULD He ? TO BE INSULTED BY A PACK OF MORONS AND SEMI -ILLITERATES ?
if i had serious wuk like in 2011 and 2012 i wont come either
@Georgie Porgie October 16, 2017 at 2:47 PM “YOU CAME AND SCOFFED AT ZOE AND MY DOCTORATES IN THEOLOGY.”
Where did I scoff at the theological education of you or Zoe?
Prove it.
Since you may have implied that your doctorate is from a U.S. university I may have asked you whether such university was an accredited U.S. university, that is whether it was earned from one of those universities listed here:
https://www.chea.org/4DCGI/cms/review.html?Action=CMS_Document&DocID=32&MenuKey=main
If you had earned your medical degree from a U.S. university I would have asked you the same question.
I also asked the question about the doctorate of Dennis Lowe, our Minister of the Environment etc.
But neither he nor any DLP official, or yardie has ever responded.
you do not know john k he IS A VERY QUIET, MODEST HUMBLE MAN.
he does not deserve the treatment he got from that mouse and son of a real mean rodent, he got here on BU
so how come no one gives me problems on BU…GP
what
s with the sissy cryfest today...and its all BU male commenters doing this, ya see any females on here bitching and moaning about being victims to bloggers.yall are pathetic and need to grow a pair.
Simple…could you believe these, they must want breast milk.
@Georgie Porgie October 16, 2017 at 2:50 PM “THEY USED TO LIKE YARDBROOM TOO…UNTIL HE SAID THAT HE WAS MARRIED TO A WHITE WOMAN…AND ALL HELL BREK LOOSE.”
Really?
I don”t recall that.
Well, Well is married to a white man and I don’t see anybody cussing her for that.
If the white man tickles her fancy, or her whatever…
Lolll!!!
RE Since you may have implied that your doctorate is from a U.S. university I may have asked you whether such university was an accredited U.S. university,
nEITHR OF US SAID FROM WHENCE WE GOT OUR DOCTORATES
ALSO I WOULD HAVE YOU KNOW THAT MANY OF THE THEOLOGICAL COLLEGES IN YOUR ACCREDITED LIST DO NOT TEACH SERIOUS BIBLE
THERE I SO MUCH THAT COULD BE TAUGHT HERE BUT FOR “THE CHALLENGERS” AND THOSE WHO WOULD PULL DOWN PROPER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FAVOURED
IT IS BETTER TO JUST MOCK TOO ………..BUT THEN AGAIN THAT IS RESERVED ONLY FOR A FEW TO DO
TIME FOR GUNSMOKE
@Well Well @ Consequences Observing Blogger October 16, 2017 at 3:02 PM “Simple…could you believe these, they must want breast milk.”
No.
No breast milk for them.
They dun raise already.
As my old lady used to say–may her soul rest in peace, although Pachamama may disagree with the soul thingy—she used to say “at some point ya have to tek de bubbie outta de baby mout”
Push the suckling child in the direction of self suffciency.
All of the BU male commentors are grown men.
No bubbies for them.
Except maybe Caswell…he did admit that he likes the bubbie thing, so for his honesty we will give him a pass.
RE @Georgie Porgie October 16, 2017 at 2:50 PM “THEY USED TO LIKE YARDBROOM TOO…UNTIL HE SAID THAT HE WAS MARRIED TO A WHITE WOMAN…AND ALL HELL BREK LOOSE.”
Really? YES IT HAPPENED
I don”t recall that. BECAUSE YOU HAVE EARLY ALS!
Well, Well is married to a white man and I don’t see anybody cussing her for that. WHO KNOWS DAT BESIDE YOU
AND BESIDS . MOST PEOPLE ON BU FRIGHTEN FUH WELL WELL. EVEN BUSH TEA FROM WHOM SHE HAS TAKEN OVER LIKE HE FRIGHTEN FOR SHE
Simple Simon October 16, 2017 at 3:08 PM #
I TEACH AND PRACTICE BREAST IS BEST FOR ALL BABIES AND ALL MEN IRRSPECTIVE OF THEIR AGE SO GIVE THE BUBBY TO THE HUBBY
@Georgie Porgie October 16, 2017 at 3:13 PM “BECAUSE YOU HAVE EARLY ALS!”
I shouldn’t boast, but no ALS on either side of my family for at least 4 generations back, and my people on both sides tend to live to 85+ and even in their 90’s [some have gone past 100] sharp, sharp as tacks.
We remember.
@Georgie Porgie October 16, 2017 at 3:15 PM “GIVE THE BUBBY TO THE HUBBY
Naughty boy.
Ga long do.
no one is afraid of me GP…i just say things other bloggers find hard to say and it eases the load off them and takes the responsibility off them from saying it, dont get tie up.
when they reflect on what i said, after the initial defensive anger, they realize it`s for the best.
i get the same reaction on facebook from a bunch of mean spirited, vile, repulsive white racist who would sooner kill you than allow you to break up their fantasy white supremacist world.
you are letting optics blind you…Dr. Ph.D.
Simple Simon October 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM #
@Georgie Porgie October 16, 2017 at 3:15 PM “GIVE THE BUBBY TO THE HUBBY
YA CAN SMOTHER HIM TO DEATH WID YOUR MELONIC MAMMARIES………….WHILE YA SINGING A MERRY MELODY…………,AND THEY CANT GIVE YA A DAY IN DODDS.
RE i just say things other bloggers find hard to say
SO DO I………..FROM DAY 1 IN MARCH 2008
BUT SOME HERE THINK I AM A MONSTER
BUT I SAY WHAT I THINK AND I THINK THE PROFESSOR WROTE SHITE YESTERDAY MORNING…….AND I SAID……..AND THE OUTCOME I DAMN FUNNY DAMN DAMN FUNNY
Simple….how was GP able to diagnose you, i know he is good…but…but….lol
Well Well @ Consequences Observing Blogger October 16, 2017 at 3:35 PM #
Simple….how was GP able to diagnose you, i know he is good…but…but….lol
MRS WELL WELL I NOT GIVING YOU MY SECRET DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES SORRY. MURDAHI
ARE YOU SAYING I SHOULD FEAR SIMPLE AND SHOW HER MUCH MORE RESPECT?
SIMPLE SORRY CHESTER! MURDER!
SIMPLE
I DIDNT REALLY KNOW THAT YOU WERE SO OUTSTANDING AND UPSTANDING TOO.
AH PROMISE AH GWINE BEHAVE
Back to serious matters. Barbados is introducing plea bargaining. Is this an issue that should concern us?
You posed the question @Hal so please offer the clarification…. why would that need to concern us unless we are ourselves before the courts?
Actually I am amazed that this even garners attention because in any operational criminal system there must be de facto bargaining between prosecutors and defense lawyers regularly, I would anticipate.
So maybe you can explain what slippery slope you fear in your concerns.
de pedantic,
It is about justice. No, plea bargaining is not a formal part of all common law judicial systems. In any case, it is something that should be discussed by the public.
The following arrived in BU’s inbox today. A reminder the price some pay to guard the right to freedom of expression.
@ David
“The following arrived in BU’s inbox today. A reminder the price some pay to guard the right to freedom of expression.”
How can persons of our known intelligence, not understand that one of the major guardians of the freedom of expression, is ensuring that it is not used to abuse people and spread vicious rumours.
We are very confused when we could actually compare a journalist losing his or her life doing their work, with the vile, uncouth, perpetrators of innuendo and character assassination.
When did we begin to parade poor taste as synonymous with freedom of expression?
Don’t we realise that when we encourage our dog to suck our neighbors eggs he would eventually suck ours?
Don’t we know by encouraging such crass writings and defending such offerings guarantee the destruction of BU or at lease retards its well earned growth.
Would we encourage visitors to our homes to use such vulgarity in conversation with the excuse that it is freedom of expression or the white man’s language?
Should read: Would we encourage visitors to our homes to use such vulgarity in conversation with the excuse that it is freedom of expression and not the white man’s language?
Hal Austin October 16, 2017 at 4:30 PM #
Back to serious matters. Barbados is introducing plea bargaining. Is this an issue that should concern us?
ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY DEFACTO THAT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED HERE TODAY SINE DEO VIA VIR IPSE WAS NOT A SERIOUS MATTER OF IPS FACTOS?
DAVID
LET ME SAY DE FACTO THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS SO IMPORTANT THAT AFTER IGNORING UHSA’S THREATENING LETTER WHEN I EXPOSED THEM IN 2003, THAT THEY SENT A MAN TO MY MOTHER’S HOUSE AT ASTER TIME 2004………….BUT I WAS IN THE NORTH OF NA. THEY ALSO TRIED TO GET AZSPEPTIC TO MEET SOME ONE IN PHOENIX IN 1995.
SIMILARLY WHEN IMSA/JBGDL COULD NOT GET ZTRUTH AND I TO STOP TELLING THE DE FACTO TRUTH ABOUT THEM DAILY FOR THREE YEARS ON TWO BLOGS EVEN AFTR A THREAT OF A US D 1 MILLION LAWSUIT, THEY SENT A DE FACTO VIR DEEP INTO MEXICO TO ZTRUTHS HOUSE AND A MAN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE ALL DE DEFACTO WAY FROM LAREDO TEXAS
David,
Not even the incompetent politicians and business people in Barbados will want anyone dead because they use abusive language under a pseudonym.
However, it becomes a different matter when a flatulent politician like Donville Inniss can announce in a blaze of publicity that he is banning international companies from operating in Barbados for money laundering.
But money laundering is a crime; should not the police be called in on this serious offence? Should he not name and shame these alleged criminals for using a small jurisdiction to carry out their criminal activities?
These are the journalistic activities that invite violence. Why is the Nation, Advocate and Barbados Today not exposing these criminals? Why is a minister of the crown protecting them? Why are the political parties not protesting at this effective conspiracy?
That is what BU should be doing, filling in the gaps in our poor mainstream journalism.
re
That is what BU should be doing, filling in the gaps in our poor mainstream journalism.
BUT HALL YOU ARE BEHAVING HERE LIKE CUMBERSOMEBATCH– TALKING SHITE
DESPITE D DE FACTO EPISODES OF SHIT TALK HERE, BU HA OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS INFORMED WHO SO EVER CHOSE TO READ MATERIAL PROVIDED BY FOLK WHO KNOW ANYTHING, OR CAN SPEAK TRUTHFULLY FROM THEIR EXPERIENCES.
DO YOU EXPECT DAVID TO HIRE PEOPLE TO PAVE THE PAVEMENT AND GO INVESTIGATING NEWS.
TO BE PROLIX YOU ARE DE FACTO EFFLUXING CONCENTRATED PORCINE FAECES MAN. MURDER
William Skinner
Has no legitimacy in neither human rights nor freedom of speech
For him human rights must be of the Obama variety
And freedom of speech is about trying to be like a little Harold Hoyte, a little Botha
Let him explain his dictatorial oversight over a little known. obscure blog
Instead of begging like the lap dog here for David to take action against Pachamama those questions should be answered.
Not making blanket denials, pleads of innocent will only succeed in confirming him as the wasp he has always been.
For Pachamama will NEVER stop cussing you and the other idiots here, yuh brassbowl female rabbit hole.
Complain about that. We give not an *uck. What will be shall be
For Pachamama will not scratch when there is no itch
Will not laugh when it’s not funny
We give not a brassbowl about you or your kind
Jeff ”This is precisely the common law position”.
Surely a judge can set aside certain precedents based upon common law, to reflect the norms as they stand today i.e. surely common law should reflect society’s norms and practices as these have developed?
You note that Barbados does not have specific legislation to prevent such marriages. This is why the question of the impact of judicial precedent and the setting aside of same is key to this issue, surely?
Yes, setting aside precedent deals with distinguishing the facts of a case, but surely in this context, the facts are that the norms of society have changed, to wit, marriage between same sexes are now considered acceptable?
I suppose that the rebuttal is that a judge will not be willing to ‘comment’ on what is the current consensus, however, where there is, as in Barbados, clear evidence of multiple, substantial, existence of same sex relationships, how can this fact be denied?
Surely the parties to such a union are disadvantaged compared to their peers in other ,traditional unions, when it comes to matters such as estate etc?
Can one argue that to ignore this status of modern society is to ignore the facts of the case, which should guide to set precedent aside?
That Parliament has not seen fit to implement legislation on the matter would, I suggest, be further weight that the matter should be decided on facts and as they bear upon common law and not legislation, which, as you note, does not exist.
Here is where I have problems with hypocrites, Dumbville is quite obviously protecting white convicted international criminals, instead of protecting his people from them…these criminal companies have already been convicted…..it is public information and a matter of public record in US and wherever else they committed these crimes…, their businesses in Barbados is obviously a criminal enterprise.
Hal…as a former journalist lives in UK and can easily access information on who these companies are….their names and expose their names on BU…
I was actually thinking about digging up the info, but I want to see if for once Bajans will actually get up and seek the information that will bring Dumbville to his knees, because he should not be keeping secrets for white international criminals and keeping them anonymous in a vulnerable Black majority country.
I already found that Del Mastro was convicted in Canada and I posted it to BU nearly two years ago when one if my daughters told me, it is someone else’s turn to do their civic duty…instead of sitting their lazy asses stewing about anonymous bloggers.
Yeah Hal…I exposed Del Mastros criminal conviction….
Since its bothering you so much, do ya journalist thing and expose the 4 convicted international companies in Barbados….that Inniss os protecting.
Put ya courage where ya mouth always is….
@ Well Well, where do you think that ‘Barbados’ Cahill was exposed as a shell company run from Channel Islands and nothing to do with the ‘real’ Cahill , an established and respectable company, in Canada. ?
Only on BU. None of the ‘established’ journals on the island got the information, even though it was right there for search on the internet.
Jokers.
The extent of traditional ‘reporting’ on the island goes to…fictitious sample quote..
‘The Minister said that he prefers his brown shoes over his black shoes, and he wears only grey socks. He refused any comment on the garbage dump so we did not ask any more questions’.
Exactly Crusoe…that is why I have not really gone searching for those 4 criminal company’s names yet….because I realize it’s only certain bloggers do all the heavy lifting while others hide…but always got a lot of talk after all the hard wirk is donr, real bloggers put much work into exposing the Cahill fraud, some as far as Canada….anonymous bloggers….despite all the evil yardfowls and political lowlifes on the blog who tried to deter them and the blogmaster.
So I will wait to see which bloggers who dont like to get their hands dirty will dig up the names of those 4 companies.
….but always got a lot of talk after all the hard work is done….by anonymous bloggers.
THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE ARE MANY PROFESSIONALS POSTING ON BU PRO BONO WHO KNOW THEIR ONIONS.
NONE OF THE NEWPAPERS IN BARBADOS HAVE SUCH PROFESSIONALS ON THEIR STAFFS, NOR CAN THEY AFFORD TO EMPLOY THEM.
AS DE STUPID PEDANTIC DRIBBLER WOULD SAY THIS IS “DE FACTO” DE TRUTE, AND HE WOULD BE “PROLIX” ABOUT IT TOO! ah lie?
Crusoe…that is what I found so intriguing about the decision of the European Court re same sex marriages and the UN’s re same sex unions,, everyone is now left to make their own interpretations rules and procedures, at least for the foreseeable future.
WELL WELL
TO BE “PROLIX”
YOU SHOULD DO WHAT YOU CAN WHEN YOU CAN AS LONG AS YOU CAN.
SO FIND AND POST THE NAMES AND EXPOSE DONVILLE IN A DE FACTO WAY SINE DIE. LOL MURDAH
Crusoe…I dont take any of the traditional news agencies seriously…barbadostoday carried a one liner blurb a couple days ago and I barely caught it and pasted it to the Blog, they then carried another one liner today again, without giving a story, then ND apparently got wind of the story and it chased Inniss out of his hole…to deceive the people……
….the journalists on the island are jokers indeed…
Loop ran a story with it recently as well….but only what Inniss said, more deceit.
Ok GP…when I decide to do it, I will post the 4 companies names, using your name and give you all the credit, how bout that…I am not selfish.
Simple Simon October 16, 2017 at 1:53 PM #
“Dear Artax: I enjoy reading your contributions, but, but, but, don’t get tie up. It is possible to be both a real, real farmer and a praedial larcenist, the two are NOT mutually exclusive…just as it is possible to enjoy and celebrate BOTH Independence and Christmas.”
@ Simple Simon
Perhaps it’s you that should not “get tie up” and AVAIL yourself of all the facts before “presumptuously commenting.”
According to the goodly gentleman’s neighbours and close associates, the only thing he ever allowed to grow on the land his grand-mother left for him, was grass.
But then again, you will define farming within the context of growing grass, which to you would be “mutually inclusive”………………… uh lie?????
Yall think this is a joke, why do yall think I know the addresses of ALL the corrupt demons in Barbados and where they can be found at any time, this is real life….
While useless bloggers are on here simmering with their vendetta against anonymous bloggers who work hard to expose the nastiness on the island, those same self righteous pricks for bloggers do nothing.
Now there is a minister of government blatantly and publicly protecting white convicted criminals and their criminal business enterprises on the island because he got in too deep with them, instead of protecting the people of the island from them…
……ya know once yardfowls have been scarce for days on BU, this is extremely serious, with Dumbville and other ministers involved.
……. these same haters of anonymous bloggers should do something about it beside looking for BU to expose it so they can read the info like a gossip rag..
Hal should have nothing to fear, he lives in UK….who could get at him there..
“Daphne Caruana Galizia: Top investigative reporter killed by car bomb in Malta
‘There are crooks everywhere you look now, the situation is desperate,’ journalist wrote shortly before her death
Will Worley @willrworley 7 hours ago57 comments
matlese-journalist.jpg
Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed after a powerful bomb blew up a car, in Bidnija, Malta Reuters
A prominent journalist who played a major role in the Panama Papers case has been killed in Malta.
Daphne Caruana Galizia, whose investigative work focused on corruption, was killed when a car bomb blew her vehicle to pieces.
A politician said her death marked the “collapse of the rule of law” in Malta, the smallest in the European Union.
Tributes to Galizia poured in on Monday evening, as thousands of Maltese gathered in the streets for a candlelight vigil to the reporter.
Galizia is believed to have just published the last post on her widely read blog, Running Commentary, just before leaving her house Mosta, a town outside the capital Valletta.
“There are crooks everywhere you look now,” she had written, “the situation is desperate.”
Soon after driving away in her Peugeot 108, Galizia’s vehicle exploded with such force it was sent flying over a wall and into a field.
Galizia reported death threats against her to the police just over two weeks ago, according to local media.
Her in-depth reporting made her many enemies, including the Prime Minister, opposition politicians and members of the judiciary.
She was described as a “one-woman Wikileaks” by Politico and her blog sometimes achieved a larger readership than all the other newspapers in Malta combined.
The death was described as a “political murder” by opposition leader Adrian Delia.
He said: “What happened today is not an ordinary killing. It is a consequence of the total collapse of the rule of law which has been going on for the past four years.
“We will not accept an investigation by the Commissioner of Police, the Army commander or the duty magistrate, all of whom were at the heart of criticism by Caruana Galizia.”
Her husband, Peter Galizia, has also requested magistrate Scerri Herrera is be excluded from the investigation because of previous spats with the dead journalist. “
There are some companies in Barbados named in Panama Paper Leaks, CGIs Warrens address was also used multiple times , the building has since been sold, but that certainly will not stop any investigations, not by the US.
They dont scare.
@HalAustin October 16, at 4:52 PM …I am not suggesting that “… plea bargaining is… a formal part of all common law judicial systems”.
On the contrary, I simply suggested that prosecutors and defense attorneys will inevitably engage in some form of final indictment discussion based on the circumstances of a case.
You are fixated, it appears, on the FORMAL process of plea bargaining.
My lay perspective advises that right here in Bdos if an uncle is part of a consortium suspected of stealing a large crop of potatoes and one or more of that consortium was also suspected of causing grievous bodily harm to the owner of said spuds that the local attorney for my uncle would in effect
exert all his energy to reduce the sentencing (and conviction, if possible) of my wayward uncle by offering any valuable info from his client … that can save his backside from the major indictment of attempted murder or such as compared to one for receiving stolen goods or praedial larceny.
Nothing formal about that under your plea dealing concerns…. just “de facto” legal wrangling by attorney with prosecutor.
That I presume is “… a formal part of all common law judicial systems”
Next Sunday if life be spared maybe the Dean can advise.
@Dee Word
Do you know how effective the ‘informal’ plea bargaining system to which you refer has been effective?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/journalist-killed-car-bomb-panama-papers-reporting-article-1.3566541
de pedantic,
There is extensive literature on plea bargaining. I suggest you brief yourself on the subject.
de pedantic,
Have you noticed this undemocratic attorney general, either out of ignorance or vindictiveness, is now suggesting that to be accused of a gun offence the suspect would be remanded for a mandatory 18 months before coming to trial. In simple English, to be a suspect in a certain type of crime is to be automatically sentenced to 18 months in jail. Guilty until found innocent. The trial will just be a formality.
In a plea bargaining system, the prosecution will propose that if the accused pleaded guilty to a lesser offence s/he would not face 18 months in jail. The judge and defence counsel will have to be part of this conspiracy. There is enormous scope for corruption.
Do you now see the need for radical reform of the criminal justice system?
@Hal Austin October 17, 2017 at 9:57 AM “suggesting that to be accused of a gun offence the suspect would be remanded for a mandatory 18 months.”
I heard the AG’s suggestion.
It won’t work.
If an accused is mandartorily remanded for 18 months and is subsequently found not guilty, then he/she would be quite within their rights to appeal the injustice to the Caribbean Court of Justice, and the court would likely find for the accused, and the government, that is the tax payers could be successfully sued for false imprisonment. As a Barbados taxpayer I don’t want to find myself caught up in this.
I am as afraid of violence as anybody else, but I would advise the AG to pour cold water of this suggestion.
I didn’t go to the AG’s public consultation last week, but if I had attended I would have told the AG that what we need most to prevent [not punish] violence in Barbados is better parenting, not mandatory 18 month remands, including better parenting by some of the political class who set really bad examples by not parenting their outside children, and then the other men in our community follow the example of these leaders.
RE some of the political class who set really bad examples by not parenting their outside children,
THEY DONT PARENT THEIR INSIDE CHILDREN EITHER. LOL
Adriel Nitwit, not surprisingly, aint too bright, they are all making things worse, get rid of them.
Hal Austin October 17, 2017 at 9:43 AM #
de pedantic,
There is extensive literature on plea bargaining. I suggest you brief yourself on the subject.
YOU REALLY EXPECT DE PEDANTIC PUNK TO READ EXTENSIVELY?
you CAN NOT SEE THAT HE HAS TO WAIT TIL SUNDAY TO GET SOME DROPPINGS OF HIS MASTERS TABLE
THIS SAME MORON AND MEDICAL ILLITERATE, HOWEVER, READ AN ARTICLE ON GOOGLE AND TRIED TO CONTRADICT A MEDICAL TEACHER……….AND HAD TO BE STAMPED ON DE FACTO AND IN FACT IN DIE
“Have you noticed this undemocratic attorney general, either out of ignorance or vindictiveness, is now suggesting that to be accused of a gun offence the suspect would be remanded for a mandatory 18 months before coming to trial. In simple English, to be a suspect in a certain type of crime is to be automatically sentenced to 18 months in jail. Guilty until found innocent.”
+++++++++++++++++++
Adriel Brathwaite is engaging in “POLITICAL POSTURING.”
This is the usual “political knee jerk reaction” to make it appear to the public…………and especially DLP supporters………. that AG Brathwaite is going to do something about the escalating gun crimes.
Brathwaite is a lawyer and I’m sure he is aware that it is “unconstitutional” for an individual accused of a gun related crime to “be remanded for a mandatory 18 months” before going to trial.
Just as Hal Austin “said,” the proposed mandatory remand period is essentially implying the accused is automatically guilty until proven innocent.
But as usual, Brathwaite is playing politics………….. he knows the Bar Association, special interest groups and members of the Opposition will obviously oppose that proposal.
This gives him the opportunity to tell the DLP faithful that he wanted to do something but the Bar Association and special interest groups are “in bed” with the BLP, thereby rendering him unable to enact any laws.
Then the usual resident DLP yard-fowls will use this forum to cuss all lawyers, similarly to how BU’s resident DLP jack-ass cussed Charles Herbert.
@Artax October 17, 2017 at 10:27 AM “But as usual, Brathwaite is playing politics…he knows the Bar Association, special interest groups and members of the Opposition will obviously oppose that proposal.”
I oppose it too. And I am not a member of the BLP, the Bar Association, or a special interest group. I have never been charged with a criminal offence. I have no relatives who have been charged with criminal offences.
But I still oppose it.
Because it is WRONG.
And message to wunna bad guys, put down the guns. A set of young men, shooting another set of young black men is bare foolishness.
Grandma says so.
Some boy children especially, who are not fathered properly become angry and violent. And the natural father does not have to be the biological father, but sadly some stepfathers too are also worse than useless.
Fix the bad parenting and we could almost empty Dodds.
But sadly even though all of our men enjoy sex, far too many [not all] take no interest in the very hard work of parenting.
“Brathwaite is a lawyer .”
Brathwaite just like Fruendel, was never a GOOD lawyer, neither of them know squat about the law, or Fruendel would never have advised tiefin house speaker Carrington….to get a lawyer….AFTER…. Justice Cornelius had already given her default judgment….
……ya dealing with a parliament filled with idiots, despite their degrees….and I use the word degrees very loosely.
To make it worse, I just can’t resist this….all the idiots in parliament agreed with the same idiot Nitwit Brathwaite to fingerprint citizens of Barbados upon their return to the island…..had not for Commisiong spotting that clear violation of citizem’s rights and acting upon it to stop them through the supreme court, they would have gotten away with it….and be relishing in violating their own people’s rights.
These are the same ignorant, stupid ministers, most of them with law degrees who are protecting white international criminals convicted in US for committing crimes in Barbados and who knows where else and calling it protocol….while acting as though Barbados has no constitution and no citizens to protect….no one can trust them going forward.
David as usual in a few words you encapsulate a mobaton of meaning. Your simple sentence viz “Do you know how effective the ‘informal’ plea bargaining system to which you refer has been effective?” achieves that here.
In sum, formally, my answer is no, I don’t. Informally, I have an absolutely freaking good perspective.
@HalAustin October 17 at 9:43 AM RE “There is extensive literature on plea bargaining. I suggest you brief yourself on the subject.”… As a layman who is sans your more in depth familiarity due to your past profession I am nonetheless quite suitably briefed on the subject.
Thus I am confounded wherein lies the disconnect here.
You speak of a formal system in criminal justice. I refer simply to the informal process that will take place in practically EVERY criminal event brought to trial.
I simply asked what slippery slope you saw re a formal process, because on its face it seemed no more fraught to corruption or usurpation than no such system.
Actually, no I did not read the AG’S remarks. That seems absurd to me as he would be seeking to codify and formally shatter alll processes related to the natural justice presumption you noted re innocence.
Surely the legal system in Bdos could not accept that nonsense.
In my view that’s not a matter of reform…just good old fashioned dictatorial rulings and politicizing as Artax notes.
Yet having said that our lawyers appear to accept the very informal’ lost way on remand process’ currently done…. soooo maybe the AG is seeking to codify what is de facto accepted.
BTW, Dr GP clearly you got your daily laxative release on my de factoing remarks…😂. And you are right, I can’t read lengthy stuff nor understand facts as presented…didn’t go to school much either…. so indeed how dare me interpret a news story differently to you. Woe is me.
prophecy vs. prophesy
https://youtu.be/exlTTWQA0zw
DE BRIMBLER
RE so indeed how dare me interpret a news story differently to you. Woe is me.
I REALLY DONT KNOW WHY YOU WERE SO STUPID TO INTERPRET THE MEDICINE ….NOT THE NEWS STORY INCORRECTLY AND REPEATEDLY TRY TO CONTRADICT ME
HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD IT SAID….” DOGS AMONG DOCTORS”
I DID NOT COME HERE FOR ILLITERATE CURS LIKE YOU TO TRY TO CONTRADICT ME ON STUFF IN MY FIELD ABOUT WHICH I AM/WAS 100%
I DONT SUFFER FOOLS GLADLY
Seems we are bent on putting ourselves in a quandary here. Plea bargaining is essentially designed to save the court, in most cases , the government time and money. Good lawyers use plea bargaining when they believe if a case is held , their client may receive a harsher penalty, they therefore in such cases, accept or advise a plea bargain.
On the other hand the prosecution (government) may offer a plea bargain to “get something” if they feel that the defense can lick them up or if they have trouble with hostile witnesses etc. In many cases an alert defense , knowing the record of the judge handling the case, may also opt for a plea bargain.
I am not surprised that we are so negative to anything new. We have been known to fight against: Seat belts; breathalyzer test; Sunday shopping; moving Lord Nelson, becoming a Republic; abolishing the Eleven Plus( Common Entrance Exam).
On the other hand , I once heard a call -in program moderator(female) declare that we should not rush to judgment when men beat up women because it is part of we culture ! On another occasion, I heard another moderator and political scientist (male) say that the 1937 Riots was not any “real riot” it was just people “pushing over bread carts”. Connect the dots…we are sometimes very strange people.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with plea bargain.
William,
There should have been a public debate, whichever side of the discussion you are on. Governments simply cannot impose these changes on citizens. In the meantime, I suggest reading some of the literature coming out of the US on plea bargaining. It is not as basic as it appears.
Those of us concerned about the use of the criminal justice system as a mechanism of social control are very concerned.