96 responses to “Another Heather Cole Column – JERK HAM AND BALONEY”

1. 

   Gabriel

   January 14, 2018 at 12:51 pm

   
   

   The Clico fiasco is all about cowboy,crook and a sheriff who is on the list of the corrupt and bribed.These actors are not interested in the people nor the reputation of the country.They are in it for themselves and their families.Why do we keep hearing of a 39 million dollar estate left to an MP.Why does a PM proclaim publicly that the main man is his friend.The answer is blowing in the wind.

   Loading…
2. 

   Heather Cole

   January 14, 2018 at 5:15 pm

   
   

   @Artax, Was the correct remedy applied to this case in the first instance?
   Based on what the current laws do the insurance Act require amendment?
   Has the JM fulfilled his duties if no audit of Assets have been published and yet a company was created to manage the assets?

   Loading…
3. 

   David

   January 14, 2018 at 5:21 pm

   
   

   Heather an audit had to be done to determine the asset transfer to the new company. Perhaps the question you meant to ask is what did the audit find to be missing- assuming Clico maintained an asset register.

   Loading…
4. 

   Hal Austin

   January 14, 2018 at 6:27 pm

   
   

   Artax January 14, 2018 at 12:44 PM #

   The main “objective of the forensic audit was to obtain information to assist the Judicial Manager in its efforts to recover the inter-company assets of CIL and realize them for the benefit of CIL’s creditors.”(Quote)

   The main purpose of a forensic audit is a detailed examination of a firm’s financial health for regulatory purposes, which could include for presentation as evidence before a tribunal..

   It would be unreasonable for anyone to expect the JM to recommend criminal charges to be brought against any individual when such was not included in the “scope of work” of the forensic audit.(Quote)

   The judicial management team cannot recommend criminal charges. However, if during the forensic audit they came across any suspicious evidence, or a prima facie case of wrong doing, they could (and should) pass the details on to the prosecution authorities ie the DPP, for further action..
   The ‘scope’ of the investigation was the legitimate functioning of Clico. Anything less was designed to fail (which it has). It is like saying if you are a detective investigating a burglary and come across a dead body you would ignore it as it was outside the ‘scope’ of your investigation. Nonsense.
   I say again, the judicial management review was ill-conceived, it lacked full and proper judicial powers as understood under common law , including power to subpoena witnesses and relevant documents, such as bank statements. Failure to cooperate with which would (should) lead to charges of contempt of court.
   In fact, the judicial management review should also have looked at the auditing of the Clico annual report over the last five years or so and if the company was given a full bill of health, the auditors should be asked to explain why.
   Auditors in the UK have an expressed duty to report any suspicions to the regulator without informing their clients.
   To this day, not a single person involved in the Clico case has been barred by law from being a director of a listed (or private) company in Barbados. This is state negligence. Are the private companies established by senor executives of Clico, their friends and relatives still functioning? If so, why so?
   Our regulatory system is a mess, we are playing at grown ups when it comes to financial services, if the Clico case is anything to go by.

   Loading…
5. 

   de pedantic Dribbler

   January 14, 2018 at 7:51 pm

   
   

   @Hal, at the expense of muddying this debate I’ll make a few points.

   You noted “To this day, not a single person involved in the Clico case has been barred by law from being a director …” and also said in wonderful harmony that they “.. should also have looked at the auditing […] over the last five years or so and if the company was given a full bill of health, the auditors should be asked to explain why”.

   All good points of agreement. The Blogmaster did exhaustive analysis of these points and more in several blogs previously…. so here are the muddy steps…

   How can you then conclude : “Our regulatory system is a mess, we are playing at grown ups…”

   No one is or was ‘PLAYING’ here Hal. This was the biggest ‘fraud’ in the history of Barbados. They had to know what they were doing and profited from it anyway…no playacting in the least.

   Some of the directors of that company were some of the most respected folks in Bim…. I certainly looked upon Dr Springer as a man of character and integrity…why did he NOT raise concerns.

   This was a comprehensive coverup initiated from as high as the office of the PM… that man you said here with whom you had often debated economic matters.

   If that is what you mean by negligence and a regulatory mess, then we agree.

   This was our first major widespread financial debacle (Consumer Gurantee et al were narrower) and thus I can only conclude we are trying to catch up to you fellas in merry ole England…. and will prosecute the next set of fraudesters…

   Of course that is based on no more evidence that the fact the despite all your UK regs the Libor scandal still took place; that despite regs and supreme supervision the debacle of the London whale still happened…and on and on.

   So let’s agree that this type of malfeasance is as new to Barbados as it is ‘business as usual’ in your developed financially better regulated market.

   Loading…
6. 

   Artax

   January 14, 2018 at 9:50 pm

   
   

   I was going to ask if you ever performed a forensic audit or know what it entails other than what you read on “Google,” ……….but your comments are a clear indication you don’t know anything.

   “However, if during the forensic audit they came across any suspicious evidence, or a prima facie case of wrong doing, they could (and should) pass the details on to the prosecution authorities ie the DPP, for further action.”

   Your above comment is INCORRECT and based purely on your assumption.

   If management of a company hired a forensic auditor (FA) and “during the forensic audit they came across any suspicious evidence, or a prima facie case of wrong doing,” it is NOT the DUTY of the FA to make an arbitrary decision to pass that evidence to the DPP……… especially if there aren’t any laws requiring the FA to make that decision without consulting his/her “employer.”

   The FA’s duty is to provide management with a report of the findings and offer insights and reconstructions into how the activities were carried out, for them (management) to make that decision re: initiate criminal proceedings.

   Management may also require the FA to conduct further investigations and gather more evidence, which may include questioning suspects. If management decides to file criminal charges, the FA is then required to give evidence at the trial as an EXPERT WITNESS.
   ++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++

   “Anything less was designed to fail (which it has). It is like saying if you are a detective investigating a burglary and come across a dead body you would ignore it as it was outside the ‘scope’ of your investigation. Nonsense.”

   The above comment is RUBBISH and again based on assumption.

   My 9 year old son knows that the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of any police department has DIFFERENT “squads/units” with detectives TRAINED in SPECIFIC/SPECIALIZED areas of criminal activity, to investigate cases involving, for example, burglary, sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, homicide, financial crimes and drugs (narcotics).

   If during a burglary investigation detectives “come across a dead body,” they would secure the crime scence and CALL HOMICIDE DETECTIVES to INVESTIGATE the “unnatural death.”

   Why? Because homicide is “outside the scope” of burglary detectives.

   Loading…
7. 

   Hal Austin

   January 15, 2018 at 6:06 am

   
   

   Artax January 14, 2018 at 9:50 PM #

   The ‘scope’ of the investigation was the legitimate functioning of Clico. Anything less was designed to fail (which it has). It is like saying if you are a detective investigating a burglary and come across a dead body you would ignore it as it was outside the ‘scope’ of your investigation. Nonsense.(Hal Austin)

   If during a burglary investigation detectives “come across a dead body,” they would secure the crime scence and CALL HOMICIDE DETECTIVES to INVESTIGATE the “unnatural death.” (Quote)

   In other words, the burglary squad will not ignore the dead body, but report it back to their colleagues. We are saying the same thing in different ways.

   As to the responsibilities of an auditor, I said: “Auditors in the UK have an expressed duty to report any suspicions to the regulator without informing their clients.”

   The FA’s duty is to provide management with a report of the findings and offer insights and reconstructions into how the activities were carried out, for them (management) to make that decision re: initiate criminal proceedings. (Quote)

   Is there a difference between forensic auditing and ordinary external auditing? If so, what is the difference?
   The purpose of forensic auditing is there in the title, it is a function intended to assist regulatory or other investigations. Ordinary independent auditing is simply to endorse the company’s financial reports ie that it is a going concern and has a right to continue trading.

   Auditors do report to management, their clients, but it is not an exclusive duty. If that is the case in Barbados it is further evidence of the incompetent regulatory system. Common sense tells you that if an outside auditor’s exclusive duty is to report to the company executive, there will be a moral hazard – check out Stanford Bank. (There is a big case going on in London at present involving Tesco, the supermarket group. I suggest you get a copy of the transcript).
   Auditors in properly functioning regimes have a public duty since their reports give guidance as to whether or not the company is a “going concern.” (in the UK, this is an obligation under the 1998 Public Interest Disclosure Act)
   I will end by quoting the Auditing Practice Board: “The independent audit function is an important aspect of good corporate governance necessary for the maintenance of confidence in the operation of business, capital markets and the public. It provides reasonable assurance that the published audited financial reports are free from material misstatements and are in accordance with legislation and relevant accounting standards. Auditors’ reports thus add credibility to financial information prepared and published by directors or officers…….”
   And as Lord Penrose, in his 750-page report, has said: “…the audit function is necessary for the maintenance of confidence (and) carries with it a responsibility to the public…”
   This is old history. The legal requirement for independent auditors (if they are reporting exclusively to the company then they are not independent. Internal auditors do that) was an outcome of the 1929 stock market crash.
   I am not an accountant, but I have read more annual reports than I care to remember and the first part I (and most financial journalists are trained to read) is the auditor’s report, it is that important (Just ask Enron). Auditors have whistle-blowing obligations by law in most developed jurisdictions.

   Loading…
8. 

   Artax

   January 15, 2018 at 11:48 am

   
   

   @ Hal Austin

   (1): Your problems are:

   (a): You keep making references to all types of laws and situations in the UK and other jurisdictions that are not common practice (or applicable) in the Caribbean. Then go on with a tirade of comments suggesting Barbados is backward and Barbadians are stupid.

   (b): You have a serious problem with comprehension.

   (c): You never admit when you’re wrong……. you “shift the goal posts” just to prove you’re correct (e.g. your example re: detectives investigating a burglary and found a dead body…..no matter how you try to “polish it up,” the unnatural death still remains outside the scope of work of their investigation).

   You seemed to have based your understanding of accounting issues on “reading more annual reports than you care to remember” and you were “trained to read auditors’ reports,” then seek to give an informed opinion. This is a dangerous act. My friend, auditors’ reports are straight-forward in format and do not require any specialist training to decipher.

   (2): “Is there a difference between forensic auditing and ordinary external auditing? If so, what is the difference? The purpose of forensic auditing is there in the title, it is a function intended to assist regulatory or other investigations. Ordinary independent auditing is simply to endorse the company’s financial reports ie that it is a going concern and has a right to continue trading.”

   Save the “lecture,” you cannot explain anything to me pertaining to auditing, forensic accounting/auditing or fraud investigation. My experience in these fields goes much further than “Google.”

   (3): Are there any whistle blowing laws in Barbados? Is there a Public Disclosure Act? My friend, Barbados has been struggling for years to implement Integrity and Freedom of Information Legislations. This current DLP administration promised to implement ITAL immediately upon being elected in 2008……..10 years after, no ITAL.

   (4): “Auditors do report to management, their clients, but it is not an exclusive duty. If that is the case in Barbados it is further evidence of the incompetent regulatory system. Common sense tells you that if an outside auditor’s exclusive duty is to report to the company executive, there will be a moral hazard – check out Stanford Bank.”

   Your “common sense” on these issues is “enigmatic.” There are rules governing the duties of an auditor, which do not have anything to do with any “incompetent regulatory system” in Barbados.

   Auditors perform a number of functions, which include the unqualified audit report, compilation of financial information, agreed upon procedures, reviews, reviews of interim or prospective financial information or other special purpose engagements and

   The basic job of an auditor to express an independent OPINION if the financial statements of a company were prepared in accordance with the relevant financial reporting framework, (e.g. the GAAP or SAP); prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Company’s Act; whether they are free of material misstatements and is a fair representation of the company’s financial position at the end of the financial year under review.

   An auditor is not responsible for performing procedures to detect fraud unless the fraud has or will result in material misstatements to the financial statements, they should report identified or suspected fraudulent activities to the appropriate level of management and they are not allowed to report fraud to parties outside the entity due to the principle of confidentiality. However, an auditor is obligated to report identified or suspected fraud if required to do so by specific legislation which will override the principle of confidentiality.

   Take the Auditor General of Barbados, for example. the Auditor General outlines his duties in the preamble. For example:

   “In accordance with Section 113 (3) of the Constitution of Barbados and Section 38 (5) of the Financial Management and Audit Act, 2007 – 11, I forward for laying before the House of Assembly my Report of the examination of the accounts of the Ministries and Departments of Government, and of other financial statements and accounts required to be audited by me in respect of the financial year ended……..”

   “The information in the report is provided to Members of Parliament for THEIR CONSIDERATION. The report includes recommendations which are intended to improve the overall level of accountability within Government and to help ensure a greater level of stewardship of public funds.”

   Does the Auditor General report instances of fraud to the DPP?…….. No. It is not his duty, but that of those to whom he is required to submit his reports.

   Loading…
9. 

   Artax

   January 15, 2018 at 11:54 am

   
   

   (5): You made references to “a big case going on in London at present involving Tesco, the supermarket group,” which you suggested I “get a copy of the transcript”……….and “Stanford Bank.”

   The accounting profession has a Professional Code of Ethics or Code of Professional Conduct, which may have certain variations according to the accounting designation an individual pursues (e.g. the US CPA; Canada’s CGA or UK ACCA), but no significant differences. Included are guidelines on “Confidentiality” and disclosure of clients’ information to third parties.

   For example, the Forensic CPA Society’s code of ethics mentions: “A FCPA shall hold client information to the highest standard of confidentiality. An FCPA shall divulge all matters discovered during his or her investigation TO the client. He or she SHOULD NOT SHARE this information with OTHERS WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION and PERMISSION from the client.”

   There are instances where disclosure is permitted, for example: (a) if authorized by the client (b) if authorized by law [e.g. money laundering]. However, there are certain points to be considered if a FA determines confidential information should be disclosed.

   For example, the FA must consider whether all the relevant facts are known and substantiated, to the extent it is practical to disclose the information. If the situation involves unsubstantiated fact or opinion, the FA is required to use his/her professional judgment to determine the types of disclosures to be made. Additionally, the FA should consider the need to take professional legal advice and/or consult with an appropriate organisation before disclosing any information.

   Hence, the issue of disclosure is not as simple as you are making it out to be. And this is where your comment re: “However, if during the forensic audit they came across any suspicious evidence, or a prima facie case of wrong doing, they could (and should) pass the details on to the prosecution authorities ie the DPP, for further action,” comes under scrutiny.

   “Suspicious evidence” is basically an assumption and not fact. It becomes fact “when the all the relevant facts are known and substantiated.”
   You are essentially suggesting if a FA discovers “suspicious evidence,” he/she should go “straight up the ladder” to the DPP, while ignoring if all the relevant facts are known and substantiated…. the rules that guide his/her professional conduct….. the police…… or in the absence of laws requiring the FA to disclose such information.

   If the FA uses his professional judgment to disclose “suspicious evidence,” before dong such, he/she should seek legal advice.

   Loading…
10. 

    Hal Austin

    January 15, 2018 at 2:10 pm

    
    

    Artax January 15, 2018 at 11:54 AM #

    Webster’s Dictionary: “Forensic” – belonging to, used in or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate.”

    Forensic Audit
    An examination of evidence regarding an assertion to determine its correspondence to established criteria carried out in a manner suitable to the court. An example would be a Forensic Audit of sales records to determine the quantum of rent owing under a lease agreement, which is the subject of litigation.

    Corporate financial statements are one of the primary sources of information available to guide the decisions of the investing public. In an effort to control the accuracy of the financial data available to investors in the securities markets, various provisions of the federal securities laws require publicly held corporations to file their financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission.5 Commission regulations stipulate that these financial reports must be audited by an independent certified public accountant in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.6 By examining the corporation’s books and records, the independent auditor determines whether the financial reports of the corporation have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.7 The auditor then issues an opinion as to whether the financial statements, taken as a whole, fairly present the financial position and operations of the corporation for the relevant period.8 See n. 13, infra……….. (This is the public service duty)

    Indeed, rather than protecting the investing public by ensuring the accuracy of corporate financial records, insulation of tax accrual workpapers from disclosure might well undermine the public’s confidence in the independent auditing process. The SEC requires the filing of audited financial statements in order to obviate the fear of loss from reliance on inaccurate information, thereby encouraging public investment in the nation’s industries. It is therefore not enough that financial statements be accurate; the public must also perceive them as being accurate. Public faith in the reliability of a corporation’s financial statements depends upon the public perception of the outside auditor as an independent professional. Endowing the workpapers of an independent auditor with a work-product immunity would destroy the appearance of auditor’s independence by creating the impression that the auditor is an advocate for the client. If investors were to view the auditor as an advocate for the corporate client, the value of the audit function itself might well be lost. See generally A. Arens & J. Loebbecke, n. 13, supra, 55-58.

    By the way, the US is one of the only major countries to still operate under GAAP; most have now transitioned to IFRS.

    The accounting profession has a Professional Code of Ethics or Code of Professional Conduct, which may have certain variations according to the accounting designation an individual pursues (e.g. the US CPA; Canada’s CGA or UK ACCA)…..(Quote)

    Wrong. In the UK ACCA is the qualifying body. The professional body is the Financial Reporting Council, I suggest you read its reports. I do not know anything about Canada. See the above quotes for the US oversight.
    By the way, to be a profession there must be a code of ethics.

    Where did the Auditor General come from? Does the AG audit private firms?

    I am out of this discussion.

    Loading…
11. 

    Artax

    January 15, 2018 at 4:07 pm

    
    

    Hal Austin

    You are trying to be UNNECESSARILY DIFFICULT, because you are a SORE LOSER that DOES NOT like to be PROVEN WRONG.

    The shiite you “copy & pasted” is irrelevant to the “discussion.”

    I wrote: “The accounting profession has a Professional Code of Ethics or Code of Professional Conduct, which may have certain variations according to the accounting designation an individual pursues (e.g. the US CPA; Canada’s CGA or UK ACCA).”

    Your response:

    “Wrong. In the UK ACCA is the qualifying body. The professional body is the Financial Reporting Council, I suggest you read its reports. I do not know anything about Canada. See the above quotes for the US oversight.”

    Hal Austin, you ignorance knoweth no bounds……….. what the hell does the “Financial Reporting Council” have to do with a GAINING a professional accounting designation?……… and READING the REPORTS proves what?

    The Financial Reporting Council in the UK is basically responsible for overseeing the regulatory activities of professional accountants, auditors and actuaries by their respective professional bodies and developing corporate governance codes.

    The ACCA is a professional accounting body that offer courses leading to the ACCA professional accounting designation.

    “The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) is a global accountancy organisation for professional accountants that PROVIDES PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS and the option of membership for those working in accountancy, management and finance.”

    Many aspiring professional accountants pursue professional courses offered by (1): ACCA of the UK (2): Certified Professional Accountants CPA [formerly known as Certified General Accountants Association (CGA)] of Canada and (3): Certified Professional Accountants (CPA) of the USA.

    I have the ACCA designation after passing the requisite courses and satisfying the association’s requirements as it relates to practical work experience and knowing their “Code of Ethics & Conduct.”

    http://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-members/2012/2012c/CofEC.pdf

    The fact is, the Auditor General is an AUDITOR and it does not make him any different because he audits government entities. There aren’t any fundamental or significant differences between his duties and those of auditors in the private sector.

    You will have to GET OUT of the discussion because your perspective on accounting is based mainly on information you “Google” as it relates to the UK, which is being a bit NARROW MINDED. Additionally, you admitted you are not an accountant, and by reading auditor’s reports DOES NOT QUALIFY you to give an INFORMED OPINION on the profession.

    YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ACCOUNTING.

    Mr. Austin it is clear that you are a BLUFFER……. “all bluffers will be caught.”

    Loading…
12. 

    Artax

    January 15, 2018 at 4:14 pm

    
    

    “By the way,” I also have a copy of Canada’s CPA (formerly CGA): The Code of Ethical Principles and Rules of Conduct.

    Please note: “The Code of Ethical Principles and Rules of Conduct APPLIES to the BEHAVIOUR of MEMBERS of the Association when they either PERFORM the role of a PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANT or represent themselves as members of the Association.”

    Loading…
13. 

    Hal Austin

    January 16, 2018 at 12:35 pm

    
    

    Artax January 15, 2018 at 4:14 PM #

    I had intended to allow this silly discussion to go by the way, but by coincidence the Times (of London), a paper of record, reported today (Tuesday) n the troubled construction firm Carillion:

    “The accounting watchdog has warned that it may launch an investigation into KPMG over its audit of Carillion, the construction and services group that has collapsed into liquidation putting thousands of jobs at risk.
    “The Financial Reporting Council said that it would “follow due process and will make a further statement on this matter shortly.”
    KPMG, which has audited Carillion since its creation in 1999, ….
    Prem Sikka, professor of accounting and finance at Sheffield University, said: “The accounts for 2016 were signed off on March 1, 2017, yet by July the company was in serious trouble.
    “The auditor is supposed to satisfy itself that a company is a going concern. It must look at cashflow forecasts and what kind of margin of error is built in. It is very strange that within three to four months the chief executive walked and the forecast was erroneous.”

    I repeat again, in the UK, the FRC is the disciplinary body for the accounting, actuarial and auditing professions. I worked with the organisation from its creation until my retirement; in fact, many of its senior executives wrote for my paper.
    ACCA is just one of a number of qualifying bodies, along with CIMA, AAT, ACA (ICAEW), ATT, CTA, ICB and the CFAB. The matter of which is the most prestigious is a matter for accountants to argue.
    Again, I do not know anything about the accountancy professions in the US or Canada, but I do know that globally, forensic auditing means the preparation of financial documents for presentation before a tribunal.
    Further, one does not have to be an ACCA qualified accountant to be ‘qualified’. Every university and college of further education in the UK offers courses in accountancy which do not compel students to take ACCA exams.
    A number of non-accountants are trained in and use accountancy: finance directors (all FDs are not qualified accounts, many are CFA Institute and MBA qualified), financial analysts, fund managers, investors (institutional and retail), hedge fund managers, and others, even experienced book keepers.
    My only other concern is that if a professed qualified accountant could not differentiate between an independent audit and a forensic audit then his or her clients ought to seek advice elsewhere.

    Loading…
14. 

    Hal Austin

    January 16, 2018 at 12:43 pm

    
    

    The government has ordered a fast-track investigation into directors at the failed construction firm Carillion.
    The UK’s second biggest construction firm went into liquidation on Monday, after running up losses on contracts and struggling with heavy debts.
    The business secretary has asked for an investigation by the Official Receiver to be broadened and fast-tracked.

    Loading…
15. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 2:38 pm

    
    

    Hal Austin

    YOU ARE A VERY DISHONEST INDIVIDUAL.

    For the benefit of contributors to this forum I will highlight your dishonesty.

    (1): You began the discussion by criticizing the judicial management process and the forensic audit of CLICO:

    “Hal Austin January 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM #: I have read the judicial review on a number of occasions, but they have not made any ALLEGATIONS of CRIMINALITY AGAINST a NAMED INDIVIDUAL, nor have they PASSED on ANY EVIDENCE to the DPP, other than the infringement of a supervisory instruction.”

    You have not advanced any other reason for your criticism of the forensic audit other than blaming the “incompetent system and regulations,” for allowing Leroy Parris and related parties to engage in apparent conflict of interest transactions, as evidenced by your below comment:

    “Hal Austin January 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM #: More importantly, we have apparent evidence of the executive chairman of Clico allegedly having a private company to undertake work for the company; his wife having a hospitality company working for the company; and his sister and close associates buying property from a Clico property investment, all under the watchful eye of the regulators. THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM, INCOMPETENT REGULATION.”

    de pedantic Dribbler raised TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES re:

    “de pedantic Dribbler January 12, 2018 at 6:37 PM #: In Hal’s case he seems to be concocting a legalistic way to support his ‘acquaintances’ by attesting to the lack of damning indictments from Jordan et al in the JD.”

    “I also cannot comprehend your euphemistic way of claiming that the SUPERVISION was ‘incompetent’ despite the fact that a SENIOR OFFICER in the supervisory office was SUMMARILY REMOVED from their role at the cusp of this sordid affair AFTER ATTEMPTING to bring the CLICO execs to court.”

    How can Hal Austin state the regulators were incompetent when then Deputy Supervisor of Insurance, Vernese Brathwaite, filed a complaint urging the police to probe the sale of 800-odd life policies by CIL despite a prohibition order from her department and criminal charges under Section 185 of the Insurance Act, Cap 130 were filed in the magistrates’ court against Leroy Parris and Terrence Thornhill for contravening an order by the Supervisor of Insurance in August 2009, which prohibited the company’s subsidiary CLICO International Life Insurance (CIL) from selling new business.

    Vernese Brathwaite was subsequently sent on leave.

    What was Hal Austin’s response?…………..as usual and for purposes of self aggrandizement and prove he is always correct, Hal Austin moved the goal posts to imply he was correct and dpD wrote nonsense:

    “Hal Austin January 12, 2018 at 7:03 PM #: First, a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT SUPERVISE an INSURANCE SECTOR. No MAN or WOMAN is THAT PROFESSIONALLY or INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED to. So, I am BLAMING the SYSTEM, not an individual.”

    Loading…
16. 

    NorthernObserver

    January 16, 2018 at 2:43 pm

    
    

    @HA
    they should have investigated 2 years ago, when people began bailing and it was well known the DEBT they were amassing (ed) was beyond sustainability. Not unlike Sagicor, they have their fingers in so many global pots, the health in one location is not a reflection of overall health.

    Loading…
17. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 3:00 pm

    
    

    (2): The DISHONESTY of Hal Austin continues.

    I believe criminal charges should be filed against Hal Austin for pretending to be a journalist.

    The fake journalist went on to criticize the judicial managers and the forensic audit:

    “Hal Austin January 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM #: I have read the judicial review on a number of occasions, but they have NOT made any ALLEGATIONS of CRIMINALITY against a NAMED individual, nor have they PASSED on ANY EVIDENCE to the DPP, other than the infringement of a supervisory instruction.”

    If Mr. Fake Journalist actually read the “judicial review on a number of occasions,” he would have known it was VERNESE BRATHWAITE who SENT a LETTER to then COP Dotting ASKING the POLICE to INVESTIGATE “the infringement of a supervisory instruction,” and after “several months of police investigation Dottin referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions Charles Leacock……..

    ……………and NOT the under the direction of the judicial managers through the forensic audit.

    In response to dPD, I made reference to the JM and forensic audit:

    “Artax January 14, 2018 at 12:44 PM #: Judicial management is essentially a PROCESS CONCERNED with RESCUING a “financially distressed” company as a going concern through the formulation and implementation of a plan to restructure the company. FOR EXAMPLE, if for reasons of mismanagement a company is unable to meets its financial obligations, a Judicial Manager is APPOINTED by the COURT to manage the affairs, property and business of that company, and PRESENT an INTERIM REPORT.”

    I also made reference to the Deloitte report which explained the specific reasons why the JM applied for leave to conduct a forensic audit, as follows:

    “Artax January 14, 2018 at 12:44 PM #:”
    “On April 14, 2011 the Supreme Court of Barbados (the “Court”) appointed Deloitte Consulting Ltd. as Judicial Manager (“Judicial Manager”) of CLICO International Life Insurance Ltd. (“the Company” or “CIL”) pursuant to section 57 of the Insurance Act of Barbados.”

    “On April 29, 2011 the Court issued a further Order, setting out the authority of the Judicial Manager. The Order dated April 29, 2011 required the Judicial Manager to file an Interim Report with the Court regarding the operations of CIL within 30 days. Accordingly, the Judicial Manager filed an Interim Report on May 27, 2011; the findings in that report were presented by the Judicial Manager before the Court on June 22, 2011.”

    “On July 8, 2011 the Judicial Manager submitted an Application to the Court setting out the basis for its recommendation that a forensic audit of CIL be undertaken by the Forensic & Dispute Services team of Deloitte & Touche LLP in Canada (“Deloitte & Touche LLP”) to assist the Judicial Manager in identifying, securing and reviewing the documentation available to support the inter-company balances and to identify related party transactions.” [Page 1, Forensic Audit Report as of December 5, 2011]

    The MAIN “OBJECTIVE of the forensic audit was to OBTAIN INFORMATION to ASSIST the Judicial Manager in its efforts to RECOVER the INTER-COMPANY ASSETS of CIL and REALIZE them for the BENEFIT of CIL’s creditors.”

    Loading…
18. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 4:05 pm

    
    

    Again, if the FAKE JOURNALIST had actually “read the judicial review several times,” he would have seen a copy of the JM’s application to the Court under the caption “Appendix A – Court Order dated September 20, 2011,” which outlined the SPECIFIC REASONS for THE forensic audit.

    The dishonest Hal Austin CHOSE to IGNORE the REASONS as OUTLINED in the JM’s APPLICATION to the court for leave to conduct the forensic audit, to present a GENERALIZED “text book definition” of a forensic audit, which was not applicable to the situation:

    “Hal Austin January 14, 2018 at 6:27 PM #: The main purpose of (A) forensic audit is a detailed examination of a firm’s financial health for regulatory purposes, which could include for presentation as evidence before a tribunal.”

    Surely anyone with simple comprehension skills would understand that there is a significant difference between [A] FORENSIC AUDIT, which is a generalized definition………

    ………… and [THE] FORENSIC AUDIT, which is defined by SPECIFICITY, (i.e. specific to the JM objectives). Hal Austin seems to be implying that a forensic audit MUST always CONFORM to the DICTIONARY DEFINITION, WITHOUT VARIATIONS to SUIT a SPECIFIC objective.

    (3): “Hal Austin January 14, 2018 at 6:27 PM #: However, if during the forensic audit they came across any suspicious evidence, or a prima facie case of wrong doing, they could (and should) pass the details on to the prosecution authorities ie the DPP, for further action..”

    I mentioned to Hal Austin what is expected of a forensic auditor and his/her obligations to the code of ethics that defines a FA’s professional conduct…… as it relates to DISCLOSURE (i.e. disclosing information to a third party and under what circumstances an audit could disclose the information).

    I referred to the Forensic CPA Society’s Code of Ethics which mentioned:

    (a): “A FCPA shall hold client information to the highest standard of confidentiality. An FCPA shall divulge all matters discovered during his or her investigation TO the client. He or she SHOULD NOT SHARE this information with OTHERS WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION and PERMISSION from the client.”

    (b): There are instances where disclosure is permitted, for example: (i) if AUTHORIZED by the CLIENT (ii) if AUTHORIZED by LAW [e.g. money laundering]. However, there are certain points to be considered if a FA determines confidential information should be disclosed.

    For example, the FA must CONSIDER whether all the RELEVANT facts are KNOWN and SUBSTANTIATED, to the extent it is PRACTICAL to DISCLOSE the information. If the situation involves UNSUBSTANTIATED FACT or OPINION, the FA is REQUIRED to USE his/her PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT to DETERMINE the TYPES of disclosures to be made. Additionally, the FA should CONSIDER the NEED to take PROFESSIONAL LEGAL ADVICE and/or consult with an appropriate organisation BEFORE disclosing any information.

    What is so difficult about the above explanations that a 4 year old cannot understand?

    Then the jackass introduces the FRC of the UK into the discussion…………

    ………. and implied I don’t know the difference between an ordinary auditor and a forensic auditor……..when I presented detailed explanations and web-site references to substantiate my points.

    But Hall Austin chooses to be difficult. This man is a pompous jackass pretending to be a journalist.

    Perhaps I “should pass this nut job’s details to the prosecution authorities ie the DPP,” for him to be charged for fraud (i.e. impersonating a journalist).

    Loading…
19. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 6:48 pm

    
    

    (4): “Hal Austin January 16, 2018 at 12:35 PM #: I repeat again, in the UK, the FRC is the disciplinary body for the accounting, actuarial and auditing professions. I worked with the organisation from its creation until my retirement;”

    Mr. Austin, why did you introduced the FRC into the discussion (for reasons that are beyond me), when references were made specifically to the code of ethics/conduct of professional accounting bodies?

    However, I mentioned as follows:

    “Artax January 15, 2018 at 4:07 PM #: The Financial Reporting Council in the UK is basically RESPONSIBLE for OVERSEEING the REGULATORY ACTIVITIES of professional accountants, auditors and actuaries by their respective professional bodies and developing corporate governance codes.”

    There aren’t any significant differences between our post……….so what exactly is your argument?

    But since you raised the issue re: “the FRC is the disciplinary body for the accounting, actuarial and auditing professions,” I’ll oblige you.

    The FRC comprises of the Accountancy & Actuarial Discipline Board (AADB), which is the “INDEPENDENT, investigative and disciplinary body for accountants and actuaries IN the UNITED KINGDOM.”

    If you worked with the FRC “from its creation until your retirement,” you would have known that, according to page 3 of the FRC’s “Accountancy and Actuarial Discipline Board: The Accountancy Scheme Review,” there are TWO DISCIPLINARY ARRANGEMENTS for the accountancy profession:

    2.1 Each of the six members of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) participates in the Accountancy Scheme. They are: the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS).

    2.2 The vast majority of ACCOUNTANTS in the UK and Ireland CHOOSE to TRAIN and QUALIFY under the auspices of one of the accountancy bodies detailed above and subscribe to be a member of such a body. MEMBERS and MEMBER FIRMS of the ACCOUNTANCY BODIES in the UK are SUBJECT to the RULES and REGULATIONS of the BODY of WHICH they are a MEMBER. EACH accountancy body OPERATES its OWN DISCIPLINARY ARRANGEMENTS to deal with COMPLAINTS of UNSATISFACTORY CONDUCT by their Members. They are PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for INVESTIGATING and DISCIPLINING their Members and, where appropriate, Member Firms.

    2.3 However, separate disciplinary arrangements exist for those cases which are considered to be a matter of public interest. Public interest cases are dealt with by the AADB, which operates independently of the accountancy bodies.

    Perhaps you worked at the FRC as a messenger, office assistant or clerk typist.

    Loading…
20. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 6:55 pm

    
    

    (5): “Hal Austin January 16, 2018 at 12:35 PM #: “Further, one does not have to be an ACCA qualified accountant to be ‘qualified’. Every university and college of further education in the UK offers courses in accountancy which do not compel students to take ACCA exams.”

    Mr. Austin, you are IGNORANT to the facts…….. and why the SPECIFIC FOCUS on ACCA? Where did I mention that in order for an individual to become a qualified accountant he/she MUST take ACCA exams?

    Sir, to become a CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT one must be a MEMBER of a professional accounting body…… and to become a member that individual must satisfy all the statutory requirements of that professional body, including passing the requisite courses and acquiring the mandatory period of work experience.

    No matter how many “courses in accountancy” an individual takes he/she CANNOT be CONSIDERED a chartered accountant UNLESS he/she is a MEMBER of a professional accounting body.

    Loading…
21. 

    NorthernObserver

    January 16, 2018 at 7:41 pm

    
    

    @Artax
    between AC and HA your fingers must be tired…..not to mention time researching.
    I think HA introduced FRC because that was the quoted body within the side story HA mentioned, the Carillion issue.
    Monday saw the announcement Carillion has financially collapsed, making millions along the way for all those shorting the stock. And bringing the unions singing for their supper, as they know who typically gets screwed in such scenarios. Hundreds on ‘under contract’ projects now hang in the balance across the globe. Naturally the politicos at every level are scrambling. And not just in the UK.

    Loading…
22. 

    Hal Austin

    January 16, 2018 at 8:00 pm

    
    

    Artax January 16, 2018 at 4:05 PM #

    “Hal Austin January 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM #: I have read the judicial review on a number of occasions, but they have NOT made any ALLEGATIONS of CRIMINALITY against a NAMED individual, nor have they PASSED on ANY EVIDENCE to the DPP, other than THE INFRINGEMENT OF A SUPERVISORY INSTRUCTION.”

    If Mr. Fake Journalist actually read the “judicial review on a number of occasions,” HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN IT WAS VERNESE BRATHWAITE who SENT a LETTER to then COP Dotting ASKING the POLICE to INVESTIGATE “THE INFRINGEMENT OF A SUPERVISORY INSTRUCTION.”…

    This has been discussed on a number of occasions on BU in regard to Mr Parris and I have said it was a problem in the Registry, not the supervisor or DPP’s office. But that case was a very specific infringement: the marketing of a product against supervisory advice.
    I am saying that everything known publicly about the supervision of the Clico business was flawed: from the investing in illiquid assets, such as property and residential real estate, to products such as its flawed Balanced Fund Investment Builder, based on the so-called investor obtaining a 100 per cent loan (strangely, the investor must first get a letter from his/her employer). Nothing is mentioned of surrender value, apart from resale.
    It is not an individual failure, but a problem with the regulatory system, something I have been banging on about for ages.
    These oversights occur simply because no single person can be the regulator of an entire industry; in a properly supervised insurance sector, the regulator/supervisor must be aware of the day-to-day decisions of the company, from the hiring of approved persons, to the design and marketing of new products and everything in between. It is team work.
    Being aware means not only being told, but being in a position to interrogate the company on its policies and actuarial assumptions BEFORE new decisions are made. It means being informed of and approving the private business activities of senior executives, especially where there could be a conflict of interest. It means questioning the company about the capabilities of intended hirings. If this were the policy, then the criticisms of Mr Parris would have been dealt with.
    This failure is one of regulation. In the Clico case, the regulator clearly was not on top of the job through no fault of his/her own.
    Finally, under a properly regulated system, a troubled (insolvent) company in the UK would be put in to administration (or even liquidation); in the US that process is covered under Chapter 11, which gives the company time to recover.
    If a company is put under judicial review and that authority does not include the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents, in other words, authority to find out what went wrong, then it is not fit for purpose. That is common sense. In fact, the need for a judicial review itself is flawed. The regulatory legislation should include investigatory powers. This is a drafting issue.
    Part of this appalling ignorance of understanding is passing exams by rote in haste to get on to the professional ladder, and not fully understanding the principles behind the policy.
    Let us take another example, an in-house lawyer. An in-house lawyer is an employee of the company, reporting to the CEO, but s/he is also still an officer of the court and has obligations as such. (Sometimes legal officers are not officers of the court).
    An independent auditor has obligations beyond the company, which employs and pays it. Institutional investors depend on the accuracy of their reports; individual shareholders depend on the accuracy of their reports; the tax man depends on the accuracy of their reports.
    An auditor’s wider responsibility is in the title ‘independent’. The continuing debate is if this is a satisfactory arrangement.
    Can a multi-national services company, which carries out such services as accountancy, auditing, consultancy, legal advice etc, carry out all those functions objectively? Are so-called Chinese walls enough? I say no.
    Quoting the Clico judicial management remit at me is bogus and circulatory; I am critical of the process as not fit for purpose. It was a waste of the court’s time and taxpayers’ money.
    I am saying that the failure to resolve the Clico disaster is a failure of regulation; and that failure is the outcome of previous light-touch supervision.
    The resolution of the Clico problem should be more simple: form a good company, to continue running what remains of the business; and a ‘bad’ company, to run down the old business.
    @Artax, I am not blaming you for your simplistic understanding of company finances; what I am critical of is the level of wider public debate.
    We all have bits of useless paper framed in our sitting rooms or offices which claim we are qualified in disciplines we know nothing about, but that is no indication of knowledge.

    As to fake journalist, I am really a ‘fake’ pensioner.

    Loading…
23. 

    NorthernObserver

    January 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm

    
    

    “I am saying that the failure to resolve the Clico disaster is a failure of regulation”. I respectfully disagree, the failure to resolve was due to political interference.

    Loading…
24. 

    Hal Austin

    January 16, 2018 at 8:26 pm

    
    

    NorthernObserver January 16, 2018 at 8:15 PM #

    We have had this discussion before on BU. I say no, it is a matter of professional integrity. If politicians interfere with the way you carry out your professional responsibilities you simply tell them to go away. If the worse comes to the worst, then you resign/retire.
    If you compromise on your professional integrity then you are at fault, not the politicians.

    Loading…
25. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 8:42 pm

    
    

    “We all have bits of useless paper framed in our sitting rooms or offices which claim we are qualified in disciplines we know nothing about, but that is no indication of knowledge.”

    Hal Austin has finally admitted that he does not have any knowledge of the accounting profession.

    Yuh see, it wasn’t that hard.

    You are just an arrogant jackass who comes to this forum giving the impression that because you live in the mighty UK, you have a superior knowledge of every and anything.

    Loading…
26. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 8:49 pm

    
    

    You are a very dishonest individual…… you did not quote my comment in its entirety

    “Artax January 16, 2018 at 3:00 PM #: If Mr. Fake Journalist actually read the “judicial review on a number of occasions,” he would have known it was VERNESE BRATHWAITE who SENT a LETTER to then COP Dotting ASKING the POLICE to INVESTIGATE “the infringement of a supervisory instruction,” and after “several months of police investigation Dottin referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions Charles Leacock……..

    ……………and NOT the under the direction of the judicial managers through the forensic audit.”

    Loading…
27. 

    Hal Austin

    January 16, 2018 at 8:55 pm

    
    

    Artax January 16, 2018 at 8:42 PM #

    Hal Austin has finally admitted that he does not have any knowledge of the accounting profession.(Quote)

    Hal Austin January 15, 2018 at 6:06 AM #

    I am not an accountant,……

    Again, I do not know anything about the accountancy professions in the US or Canada…….

    You are just an arrogant jackass who comes to this forum giving the impression that because you live in the mighty UK, you have a superior knowledge of every and anything.(Quote)

    I think you are now arguing for the sake of it. You lose the argument and resort to abuse. Typical.

    Loading…
28. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 10:09 pm

    
    

    Lose argument shiite. How could I lose the argument when you failed to address various issues I raised that proved you were incorrect.

    Instead, you DISHONESTLY did not quote my comments in its ENTIRETY in order to “create a straw man to knock him down” and to present your perspective that CLICO’s judicial management process was inadequate or flawed.

    My focus was primarily on the forensic audit and the reasons the JM gave for conducting the audit, irrespective of the dictionary’s broad definitions of a forensic audit, which you presented to say I don’t know anything about forensic auditing.

    Mentioning you do not know anything about the accountancy professions in the US or Canada is another shiite argument. Whether accounting is practiced is practiced in Canada, USA, UK, Barbados, Africa or the Middle East………. the PRINCIPLES REMAIN the SAME [e.g. international financial reporting standards (IFRS)]. The only difference between the financial statements of a company in Oman and one in Antigua is that former will be written in Arabic and the latter in English

    And there isn’t anyone in this forum that is as INSULTING and SARCASTIC as you are, especially when you’re challenged or proven wrong. You CANNOT engage in a SIMPLE “discussions” on BU unless you use DIATRIBE to BELITTLE and INSULT other contributors, while denigrating their professions.…… and in addition to your childish sarcastic remarks and your tendency to be always on the attack…… are a few of several other reasons why you’re not well liked in this forum. This is TYPICAL of you… it’s the TYPE of individual you are

    For example, “My only other concern is that if a professed qualified accountant could not differentiate between an independent audit and a forensic audit then his or her clients ought to seek advice elsewhere,” was a snide insult directed at me……when you CANNOT INDICATE where in any of my contributions I WROTE anything to SUGGEST I DO NOT KNOW the DIFFERENCE between the two professions. You introduced that “straw man to knock him down.”

    This is TYPICAL behaviour of Hal Austin.

    You should TAKE EXAMPLE from contributors such as Bush Tea, de pedantic Dribbler, WW&C, Georgie Porgie, Caswell Franklyn, Hants and NorthernObserver, etc………(even the ac consortium of yard-fowls) if they and any other contributor do not see “eye to eye” on an issue, despite they will “tell you off”……they do not “hold you in mind.” And they share ideas. Ask Caswell anything relating to trade unions……. he would always give an appropriate answer. Wuh shiite, I duz got it “ding dong” with Bushie, WW&C and dpD, yet we still “pass jokes” with each other and acknowledge excellent contributions.

    You on the other hand, must always exhibit an adversarial, arrogant, condescending and narcissistic attitude. You don’t share ideas…..you try to force your ideas down the throats of contributors…..if they resist, you call them names. You do everything, even resort to dishonestly manipulating topics just to prove you’re right and others are idiots.

    You are the only contributor to this forum that is QUALIFIED and has KNOWLEDGE of EVERY SUBJECT under the sun.

    Hal Austin you are a DESPICABLE INDIVIDUAL and I don’t think I’m alone in saying you won’t be missed if you ever decide to stop contributing to this forum. When ac goes into hiding for a few days….. some contributors ask of her whereabouts……..

    Loading…
29. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 10:10 pm

    
    

    Remember, Hal Austin…………..age alone does not make a man…… a man.

    Loading…
30. 

    de pedantic Dribbler

    January 16, 2018 at 10:19 pm

    
    

    @Northern re your 8:15 PM response to @Hal re : “I am saying that the failure to resolve the Clico disaster is a failure of regulation”, when you retorted “I respectfully disagree, the failure to resolve was due to political interference”…there really is no disagreement!

    I too share your perspective but after fussing with Hal on this I finally realize it’s saying the same thing…simply nuanced differently.

    Hal is hell bent on the poor regulatory angle whereas like you I believe it’s clear that there has been political control of the insurance supervisors for years….furthermore Hal offers a very facile perspective of resignation and/or refusal to say no…VERY facile.

    @Artax, was it YOU who called BushTea “acid”….whooa, you can throw some sulphur!

    Whatever happened to that old cliche: we can disagree without being disagreeable.

    Not to be preachy but how do you discuss PM Stuart’s ‘fabulations’ with your kids or young relatives, or for that matter the hundreds of fibs from the US Pres.

    There really is not a lot of daylight between their behaviour and the strong dismissive attitude read above…just saying, bro…just saying!

    Like him or not @Hal was a financial reporter for years in London. He could not have achieved that under false pretense so it’s amusing to say the least to berate the man as above….attack the idea and not the idea giver!

    Loading…
31. 

    de pedantic Dribbler

    January 16, 2018 at 10:27 pm

    
    

    And oh BTW😁…. I have previously accosted @Hal for his also rather disagreeable manner….

    His ‘that guyanese’ as a prefix of suffix when talking about the former DPP was one such example of acerbic style….

    So I presume the other cliche would be something like two wrongs never make one right…😎

    Loading…
32. 

    Hal Austin

    January 16, 2018 at 10:38 pm

    
    

    Artax January 16, 2018 at 10:09 PM #

    You are the only contributor to this forum that is QUALIFIED and has KNOWLEDGE of EVERY SUBJECT under the sun.

    You are the only contributor to this forum that is QUALIFIED and has KNOWLEDGE of EVERY SUBJECT under the sun.(Quote)

    Plse remind me: what have I claimed to be qualified in? Plse give me the topics that I comment on in BU, apart from finance/economics, socio-legal issues, social policy and, as a citizen, politics?
    As I have said before, I am not in a beauty contest and could not care less about being popular. All the topics I comment on, whether right or wrong, are based on my experienced and training. I try my best to be honest and polite.
    In case you do most realise it, debating is the sharing of ideas.

    Mentioning you do not know anything about the accountancy professions in the US or Canada is another shiite argument. Whether accounting is practiced is practiced in Canada, USA, UK, Barbados, Africa or the Middle East………. the PRINCIPLES REMAIN the SAME [e.g. international financial reporting standards (IFRS)]. The only difference between the financial statements of a company in Oman and one in Antigua is that former will be written in Arabic and the latter in English (Quote)

    This is why I have concerns about your arguments. Most jurisdictions have now transitioned to IFRS (I have mentioned this in the above contributions) with the exception of the US, which still uses GAAP.
    Plse explain the arguments surrounding the US refusal. Did you follow the discussions around the IFRS standards?

    Loading…
33. 

    Artax

    January 16, 2018 at 11:36 pm

    
    

    Mr. Austin

    Whether you care or not, I do not have a good opinion of you…….you are both a DISHONEST and despicable individual.

    I am NOT going to engage you EVER AGAIN in any “discussion” on any matter in this forum.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    January 16, 2018 at 10:19 PM #

    Not to be preachy but how do you discuss PM Stuart’s ‘fabulations’ with your kids or young relatives, or for that matter the hundreds of fibs from the US Pres.

    There really is not a lot of daylight between their behaviour and the strong dismissive attitude read above…just saying, bro…just saying!

    @ de pedantic Dribbler

    Why the hell would I discuss “PM Stuart’s ‘fabulations’ and the hundreds of fibs from the US Pres” with my “kids or young relatives?” and how is being “preachy” applicable?

    As usual, I have serious problems with comprehension when it comes to some of your contributions. And I’m not even going to waste my time trying to understand.

    Loading…
34. 

    NorthernObserver

    January 17, 2018 at 12:41 am

    
    

    @all
    This schoolyard banter of I won, is really of no matter?

    Most of the issues discussed within these halls, relate to life in Barbados, about the lives of Barbadians. In the end, the betterment of those lives is all that matters, it is the only win.

    Loading…
35. 

    Thomas Lynley

    January 17, 2018 at 5:34 am

    
    

    Barbados Underground is not a serious forum, because there is no serious discussions about issues, it’s all about personalities.
    If you are a BU favourite, many of the contributors rally around you. Woe if you’re not.
    De pedantic Dribbler is a yes man. He seems not to like Georgie Porgie and Artax. He agrees with anyone who attacks them. Just look at the ass kisser trying to push his lips as far as possible up Hal Austin’s ass.

    I read the posts of both posters and Half Austin kept shifting points and introducing new points to make it look like Artax was wrong.

    And de pedantic Dribbler, can’t you write plain simple English, I also have some trouble understanding what you write and usually scroll pass them.

    Loading…
36. 

    de pedantic Dribbler

    January 17, 2018 at 5:44 am

    
    

    Alas, @Artax as was our accord just a few days ago you definitely have comprehension problems.

    How you are unable to not discuss the actions of our PM or world leaders to your children and other young relatives is surely beyond MY comprehension.

    I presume then you also don’t use examples of top sportspeople a la a Messi or Serena Williams or even your alma mater stars the Brathwaites or a Frank Worrell to highlight good practices for success or avoidance of poor practices…clearly you are the only role model they need so discussing life through the lens of very topical issues/people is not needed…..SMH!

    Then again if the reference to MY being ‘preachy’ was lost and misinterpreted there should be little surprise re comprehension….😂😂…you are a classic senor!

    @Northern, one more tortured cliche…you can take the boy out of secondary school as he grows to be a man but you can never take the boy’s puerile behaviour out of the man!

    Life (for most people) is all about competition …just ask Stormy Daniels about that lil boy, winner-takes-alt, big head Don!

    Done wid the broken teeth old saws and poor comedy🤣, I gone.

    Loading…
37. 

    de pedantic Dribbler

    January 17, 2018 at 6:05 am

    
    

    Whooa, @Thomas please read this ONE then continue to scroll past my unintelligible drivel thereafter.

    For every doubting Lynley there is a wiser blogger.

    I presume persons lacking comprehension would not grasp that it’s hypocritcally absurd to blog about personalities in a post that does nothing more than bash personalities….And folks should take you with less than a pound of salt….hilarious.

    Incidentally, the discussion between Artax n Hal sans the personal vitriol was as solid on details as most chatter here… but that too would have been lost on you as obviously my past repeated tussles with @Hal.

    If bring polite is to be a YES man then I aim to be so guilty every post.

    Oh (per comprehension) that pound of salt comment is poor comedy suggesting you can be dismissed as no dietary intake should EVER include that overdose of ‘brine’.

    Loading…
38. 

    David

    January 17, 2018 at 6:30 am

    
    

    This is the silly season, expect broadsides from everyone. We have done this already.

    Loading…
39. 

    Artax

    January 17, 2018 at 8:07 am

    
    

    de pedantic Dribbler

    Greetings and salutations to you….. the exalted one……

    You KNOW that I’m ignorant and have comprehension problems.

    Why waste your valuable time focusing on me and what decisions I make with MY life (NOT YOURS)….. when you could focus that time and your supreme intelligence on the topics posted here for discussion…… and let me (and my kids and young relatives) wallow in my ignorance.

    Have I approached you for assistance that you’re making my problems a burden to you?

    Let it end here…..it’s simple….all you have to do is use the mouse or “arrow keys.”

    As the saying goes………when I dead…. duh en gine bury you.

    Loading…
40. 

    millertheanunnaki

    January 17, 2018 at 9:19 am

    
    

    @ Hal Austin January 16, 2018 at 10:38 PM
    “Plse remind me: what have I claimed to be qualified in? Plse give me the topics that I comment on in BU, apart from finance/economics, socio-legal issues, social policy and, as a citizen, politics?”

    You sound as if you ‘genuinely’ possess all ‘basic’ qualifications to be the BU polymath.

    It appears that the intellectually polygamous Hal, unlike some of us mere ‘shallow’ mortals, is able to comment on any topic under the Sun.
    And that “Sun” does not refer to the ‘gutter’ tabloid of British journalism with which you are most acquainted.

    It really boggles the mind why a ‘self-acclaimed’ reincarnation of Amenhotep in the ‘intellectual’ body of Hal Austin- the pharaoh of British journalism ‘specializing’ in all matters dealing with high-flying finance and new-age economics- can be so blatantly unpatriotic by not giving back to the land which ‘bred and nourished’ such supreme talents.

    So Hal, why are you all wrapped up in a blanket of uselessness in cold London when your country of birth needs you more than ever in its ‘finest’ hour of decision-making?
    Why are you allowing your ‘polymathic’ talents to end up in that sewer of futility while waiting for God?

    Please go back home and put those’ brand-new-original’ ideas of creating a Bajan version Canary wharf on River Road and Roebuck Street.

    Just remember, Mr. Austin, while you are cogitating on your next career move, the following admonition to people like you with Icarus-type perspectives:

    “To whom much is given, much will be required”.
    In “Basic” English it simply means ‘Noblesse Oblige’.

    And Hal you are always boasting about your ‘achieved’ talents and career successes.
    Now it’s pay-back time. Stop with the long talk and go home and walk the walk.

    Loading…
41. 

    Hal Austin

    January 17, 2018 at 9:33 am

    
    

    millertheanunnaki January 17, 2018 at 9:19 AM #

    It really boggles the mind why a ‘self-acclaimed’ reincarnation of Amenhotep in the ‘intellectual’ body of Hal Austin…..

    Just remember, Mr. Austin, while you are cogitating on your next career move…..

    And Hal you are always boasting about your ‘achieved’ talents and career successes……

    Loading…
42. 

    millertheanunnaki

    January 17, 2018 at 9:51 am

    
    

    @ Hal Austin January 17, 2018 at 9:33 AM

    Isn’t that a perfect summation of your daily rantings, the ‘ born-again’ polymath?

    We are sure Artax would do us a fine favour by ‘digging up’ forensically-sound evidence to support your prosecution as an intellectual fraud and liar.

    We only have to reproduce some of your long-winded ‘Notes from a Bogus Native Son’ and your superfluously arrogant daily drivel you expend your useless time submitting to the many blogs.

    Now who can be accused as being the A1 keyboard warrior and blog-patrolling terrorist?

    Now where is that ‘stolen’ idea of a Post Office bank you promised to implement before the foreign reserves run out?

    Loading…
43. 

    Sargeant

    January 17, 2018 at 10:36 am

    
    

    O’ for the good old days when people on the blog challenged each other to duels…….

    Loading…
44. 

    Hal Austin

    January 30, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    
    

    Sorry to -open old wounds, but here is a report from today’s London Evening Standard just for the record.

    “Construction firm Carillion went into liquidation on Monday 15 January EPA
    The head of the UK’s ACCOUNTING WATCHDOG took a pounding from MPs on Tuesday as the regulator admitted it had been secretly monitoring building firm Carillion for six months before its eventual collapse.
    FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL chief executive Stephen Haddrill told a joint session of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee that Carillion’s AUDIT signalled the beginning of the end for the business.
    Haddrill — whose organisation launched a formal probe into KPMG’s AUDIT work yesterday — told MPs that “confidentiality requirements” meant its monitoring of the company had to remain secret.
    A shocked Rachel Reeves, chairing the session, said: “If Ofsted had concerns about a school in any of our constituencies, parents would know about that. For investors in the company they have the right to know that you were actively monitoring a situation because you were concerned about it.”
    Reeves added that the FRC had “closed the stable door after the horse had bolted”.
    Haddrill conceded he thought the requirement for confidentiality in companies legislation “needs to be reviewed”. He also said the FRC had asked Carillion for more disclosures on contracts in 2015, saying they were “not as full as they should be”…….

    The FRC is probing the work of the AUDITOR on its assessment of Carillion as a going concern, its pensions accounting and the directors’ assessment of the outcome of the loss-making contracts which eventually torpedoed the firm. The FRC chief said there “must be enormous cause for concern about how the company was governed”……

    Loading…
45. 

    fildo music app apk

    February 1, 2018 at 8:56 am

    
    

    I blog frequently and I truly thank you for your content.
    This great article has really peaked my interest.
    I’m going to bookmark your website and keep checking
    for new information about once a week. I subscribed to your Feed
    as well.

    Loading…
46. 

    valentine week list images

    February 1, 2018 at 11:47 pm

    
    

    Howdy very cool web site!! Man .. Excellent .. Superb ..
    I will bookmark your web site and take the feeds additionally?
    I am happy to seek out numerous helpful information right here within the publish, we need work out more strategies
    in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

    Loading…