← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Submitted by Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right

How Dictatorships Commence – a Case Study

A few days ago Grenville Philips, the erstwhile leader of Solutions Barbados posted a link to this Hitlerian Bill at

https://www.barbadosparliament.com/bills/details/284

It is an 83? Page document that de ole man just decided to read cause well I ent got muffin to do…

It is an interesting document and even it its introduction is a Freudian slip I.e. its reference to a “regime”. But as I continued to read as I HOPE WUNNA WILL, I found, there, hidden away from the eyes of the average bajan SHEEPLE, our local equivalent of Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933!

It took de ole man a like time to find the text of that 1933 Enabling Act in English but here is the short version for those of you “who give a badword”

…The Enabling Act 1933 gave Adolph Hitler plenary powers. It followed on the heels of the Reichstag Fire Decree, which abolished most civil liberties and transferred state powers to the Reich government. The combined effect of the two laws was to transform Hitler’s government into a legal dictatorship.

The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (“Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich“)…”

So us bajan sheeple continue merrily along, blindly drinking the coolaid under “Mia Cares” REGIME lulled by our cuhdear statement “Give She 100 days Cause She Only Just Start” 

You dead right “she only jet start”

So de ole man will do the following provide a passage from the pernicious Enabling Act of 1933 which can be seen at http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/Eact/enablingact.html and also mention its counterpart Act, Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State of 28 to underscore the direction that we are going in IF MIA’s 2018 BILL IS PASSED

“The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:”

Does this easy-peasy “Constitutional Amendment exercise” sounds familiar to wanna sheeple? Bless wanna cool-aid drinking, happy go lucky spirits.

“…Article 4 The Enabling Act 1933

Reich treaties with foreign states that affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation. The Reich Government shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties…”

And then the corresponding Article from Mottley’s Bill of Despot Rights.

“……Article 4.2 of the Despot Rights Bill 2018

“…In the exercise of its functions under this Act, the Commission may not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.

As well as “…Article 6.1 of said Despot Rights Bill 2018

“…The Commission may enter into such written agreements,

arrangements or memoranda of understanding with a law enforcement agency, including a foreign law enforcement agency, as the Commission considers necessary or desirable for the discharge or performance of its functions.

Like a Triple Canopy “Law Enforcement Agency” but I digress..

“…Article 1 of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State of 28, 1933 which reads …§ 1

“Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

But then let us read “Article 15.1 of the 2018 Chill sorry Bill …An investigative officer has, in carrying out his functions, the powers of a constable to arrest any person whom he reasonably suspects has committed an offence punishable by imprisonment under this Act or under any other

enactment that assigns responsibility for investigations to the Commission. 2018 Bill Part II?

And article 17.1 of said Chill Bill sorry …the judge may issue a warrant authorising an investigative officer to enter and

search the premises for the material and to seize and retain any material, that, in the opinion of the investigative officer, is of the kind described in paragraphs (b) and (c).

SO LEH WE SAY DAT De Honourable Blogmaster got a server, or a laptop, or a smart phone or anything that de investigating office, in his opinion, want to put he hands pun, poor David BU ass is grass CAUSE DE 2018 Integrity in Public Life say so.

So let us move to  “…Article 16.1 of said Despot Rights Bill 2018 OR what is being called the Integrity in Public Life Bill 2018 WHEN READ CAREFULLY SHOWS THAT IT HAS OUSTED THE CONSTITUTION OF BARBADOS

Among many of its clauses which abrogate the rights of Bajan citizens and residents it reads “…An investigative officer may apply to a judge in Chambers for an order, to be called a production order, requiring a specified person to give the officer access to material specified in the application; or produce the material specified in the application for the officer to take away, within 7 days from the date on which the order is made or such other period as the judge determines would be appropriate in the circumstances.

Further affront to the constitution is enshrined in “…The Commission may, if it thinks fit, receive oral or written evidence, but it is not bound by the rules of evidence in the Evidence Act, Cap. 121, and it may take into account opinion evidence and such facts as it considers relevant and

material.

What the France is “opinion evidence”? You mean that if Waveney Bannister feel that in his opinion that Andrew Pilgrim should get lock up, OR PUDRYR, get set up by Senator Williams or he son or any such madness that “opinion evidence” going be the undoing of either party?

But let us read a little further 

”…An investigative officer has the function of carrying out investigations in relation to ANY MATTER, WHETHER OR NOT INVOLVING AN ALLEGED OFFENCE, in respect of which the Commission exercises functions under this Act or ANY OTHER ENACTMENT …”

I don really believe that the Honorable Blogmaster going publish this document but if he does, And does not truncate it cause it exceeds the word limit like George Brathwaite’s articles,  we can expect fellows like Enuff, ONE OF THE MANY EMISSARIES of the saviour and champion of “ye isle of Barbadoes”, will come here to talk bout how dis is a paranoid interpretation of this Travesty

Watch how they continue obfuscating this serious matter with their equivalencies about how the campaign promise of a $500K fine FOR CORRUPTION, get whittle down to a measly $10K 

But remember that “Mia Cares”.

But what is worse is that petty men like Bishop Atherley and other principled fellers like Edmund and Ralph WILL REMAIN QUIET and knock pun de table in the HoA when de bill get laid, much like how, at the signing of The Enabling Act of 1933,  “non-Nazi members, surrounded and threatened by members of SA and Schutzstaffel or the SS…” kept quiet

AND SO, IT BEGINS!!!


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

318 responses to “See How “Mia Cares” with her Hitler Styled Bill for “Integrity in Public Life 2018…”


  1. PODRYR – get a life. You have NO IDEA what Nazi Germany was like. Grow up, go swimming with a friend if you have one..


  2. PDYR of “not one F..cking seat”
    I propose that you help create the Monster
    So shut to f..up.you getting what u deserve
    You drank plenty of the koolaid
    Now yuh belly hurt and yuh trying to spill yuh guts
    Please dont say it is buyers remorse
    30- 0 wuhloss suck it up to experience yuh never too old to learn
    As they say the grass always look greener on the other side till it is time to cut it
    Phew to you ole man you got nuff free time at hand to enjoy the bumpy ride
    Watch you now. Hee hee errr

  3. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    This is the fastest invocation of Godwin’s Law that I have ever come across on BU or elsewhere. Reductio ad Hitlerum is not a sound analytical strategy.

  4. Are-we-there-yet Avatar
    Are-we-there-yet

    David;

    Congrats for releasing this PUDRYR “masterpeice”
    Hope some real BLP and non-BLP lawyers analyse it carefully on this blog.


  5. @AWTY

    Don’t swallow the koolaid. Has BU ever blocked a submission?

    #contrivedoppositionisnotopposition

  6. Are-we-there-yet Avatar
    Are-we-there-yet

    David re your 7:54 am post

    How would I know? But I take your word for it.

    I know you have never blocked any of my submissions but mine are typically harmless milquetoast ones.

    That hashtag you invoked above is most interesting and could signify some very interesting scenarios.


  7. Not a whimper from any compromised media house. Expect a major scandal that will show the MIA Mottley government is no different by December 2018. Penalty from $500,000 to $10,000 I feel this is bad reporting.

  8. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @PLT, but does Godwin’s law measure any accuracy or relatability to the Hitlerian concepts!

    “Reductio ad Hitlerum” is emotive and can be considerably over the top but if the author is moved to make such a comparison then he surely sees in as “a sound analytical strategy” and clearly an effective stylistic one too.

    Now that we have been drawn in and opined on the style points one hopes a close examination of the draft doc can proceed apace…why such a bill, does it address the real concerns of integrity investigations or serves to chill the freedoms of Bajans!


  9. Piece

    Good Morning to you.I don’t care 2 wuk-ups what enuff,45,miller,and the other boxy lickers say -‘eternal vigilance must be our watchwords.

    This was one of my biggest worry about ‘watch muh’ Mugabe Mottley.With just a little power and influence (see office of the A.G.) she was dangerous but with all this power with this 30 all seats she is like an off the chart hurricane or earthquake.

    Yuh ain’t see nuffin yet is what I am thinking when I look at the lil ‘mouth open ready to eat’ sheep that she is surrounded by.

    I hope I am proven wrong – but as they say ‘the past is a prelude to the future’..Examine the past if you can .


  10. An article like this one will show the true leanings of those who would claim that they have no dog in this fight. They are like ducks in the water, on the surface they appear calm but under the water they are paddling frantically.

    It is sad when we can only treat the Mariposa’s, Fractures, Enuff, Lorenzos, and ‘the’ Artaxes as having an honest position. They fly their flags wear their colors, and their hearts are painted on their sleeves. You don’t have to guess where they are or where these folks are coming from.

    Then we have those who seem as uncommitted and non-partisan, but listen to them carefully when they speak. No long sermons, just the knife in the ribs and they move on. They are more red or blue than the declared partisans.

  11. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @Tom Foolery said “Penalty from $500,000 to $10,000 I feel this is bad reporting.”

    The Nation published a full page article deploring this change a week ago.


  12. @Dpd
    Sniff, sniff
    You caught the smell.

  13. Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right Need to Go Swimming Avatar
    Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right Need to Go Swimming

    I have a few minutes yet before I leave for the day sooooo.

    @ 45Govt

    And you have no idea what Ebola is like, nor HIV AIDS, but you read bout it, so your point is?

    And I is going to the sea in trufe heheheheh

    Steupseee

    @ Mariposa

    Wunna does really get de ole man tired doah.

    Now I am talking to the more intelligent of you this morning who has crafted this response.

    The objective was TO GET RID OF EVERY EFFING ONE OF YOU, and that was done.

    If you look at my campaign you will note that I had and have supported the “Third Movement” which is neither B or D duopoly but country first.

    Since I became aware that if one was lax with that give one of you a “chance mentality” too many of you fvckers would have gotten back in I WAS PRECISE IN CRAFTING THAT NOT ONE EFFING SEAT 30-0 strategy.

    The Almighty can use a jackass to deliver his message and I have seen that Mia Mottley is His de Facto Balaak.

    As WILL ALL OF YOU in time.

    There is nothing that she can do to stop this Train, she is but a tool. SO EITHER SHE UPS HER GAME OR ….SHE TOO WILL PASS!

    @ Peter LT

    So what if de ole man had said Vlad or Emperor Hirohito, or even Idi Amin Dada how many of the readers rather the sheeple would have been able to identify with the parallels of Lenin or other despotic precedence?

    Would you?

    Of those other parties did any of them have a specific enablng Bill that provides the parallel to bring home this point?

    Do you know how many people will now go to that document and read it…and become aware as any astute reader should of the fact that embedded in a simple Integrity in Public Life Bill are powers that set up men to be more powerful than a police office who, merely on suspicion that you have committed a crime CAN GET YOUR ASS LOCKED UP?

    Have you read it yet?

    Look all of us would love to get a little pick to support ourselves post the Domonic abour Party but not at the FVCKING EXPENSE TO OUR COUNTRY!!

    I promise you that I am going to go through this Act with a fine tooth comb and ef you feel dat 500 comments pun de last regime document was too much to prosecute den WTCH MUH NOW.

    I be the ingrunt bajan who loves country and feels that GOOD MEN SHOULD STAND UP and speak out on injustice as opposed to holding your pokies and whimping like the effeminate menses that wunna is

    Causing one wuman now has taken wunna balls and got wunna bullers sucking pooch.

    Read the effing document and you will see why de ole man livid.

    And I ent going stop being livid until dem straighten up and fly right

    Capiche?

    Now when me bading suit is?

    Steupseeee


  14. Awaiting Comissiong response on this Third Reich issue
    He is the go to representative and suposedly Master in chief on all matters to guard barbadians rights.


  15. @PUDRYR
    On point.
    I have to reread and fully digest, but you have made a very persuasive case.
    Some hearv are like the lobster in a pot of water on a burning fire. They will be cooked and on someone’s plate.

    Keep on reaching brother, your audience are the lobsters outside of the pot and the free range chickens. This is for you brother..(don’t take it the wrong way 🙂 – str8t)



  16. Seems to me that this ‘Commission’ is like no commission we have set up here in Canada. Further seems to me that this commission is a separate legal body answerable and accountable to no one, not even the courts of Barbados. I will be staying right where I am. No extended 4 months vacation in Barbados.

  17. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ T.Inniss July 1, 2018 8:59 AM

    “Piece
    Good Morning to you.I don’t care 2 wuk-ups what enuff,45,miller,and the other boxy lickers say -‘eternal vigilance must be our watchwords.”

    Pre May 24th there were Fractured BLP, NationNewspaper BLP, Ms Oral Many Pussies and her gang of bi-polar cretins making up the pool of DLP yard-fowls.

    Now we have another reincarnated idiot who has not learned anything from the mauling and utter defeat, disgrace and soon abject breakup of that current version of the DLP party of deceitful dangerous destructive liars and pretenders.

    Who are you calling boxy lickers? Are you referring to the over 100,000 voting Bajans who not only showed you the back of the Cabinet door but also placed a barricade to the entrance to both houses of Parliament with the sign:
    ‘No entry for at least the next 5 years to any member of the DLP’ or until it changes, in toto, its current lot of leaders and rid itself of the parasites and vermin living in its dog house on George Street’?

    Do you really feel that the same way the Stuart and his goons were brought down that the BU vigilantes fighting in the real People’s Army would not do the same to Mia and her hangers-on?

    Check out BU’s motto and see what the likes of Pieces and his ‘true’ friends are all about.

    “Piece of the Rock Yeah Right” is no Johnny-come-lately hopping on the bandwagon of truth and justice.
    Neither did he keep friends with you prior to May 24th; and he certainly does not want to be in your company today; just seeing your back would do quite fine, thank you!

    Now, shoo fly and return to the dilapidated cesspool on George Street for your daily fix of yard-duck excreta.

  18. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @DPD
    I’ve read both this proposed legislation as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act (all 157 pages) which passed both houses of Parliament back in 2010, but which the DLP administration refused to have proclaimed into law by the GG even though they had written it and voted for it. https://www.barbadosparliament.com/htmlarea/uploaded/File/Bills/2010/Prevention%20of%20Corruption%20Bill,%202010.pdf

    The DLP legislation also had a clause guaranteeing the independence of the Commission: “7. In the performance of its functions the Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any authority or person.” So did they have Hitlerian pretensions as well?

    The DLP legislation did not have explicit rules to admit hearsay evidence as does the BLP legislation. I can see the reasoning behind admission of hearsay evidence because the corrupt often get valid evidence thrown out on such technicalities.

    In regard to the wide ranging purview of the Commission, that also existed in the DLP legislation: “(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Commission shall perform any other function which it considers necessary for the purpose of carrying out its functions under this Act.”

    I agree, of course, that the reduction in fines from $500k to $10k makes a mockery of everything that the BLP campaigned on. If Mia passes the bill with fines any lower than $500k she will have proven herself to be a charlatan and a liar.

    My analysis of the bill, in comparison to the preceding DLP legislation as well as other integrity legislation across the region and elsewhere, leaves me with the conclusion that we should correct the fine levels and pass it into law as soon as possible. I do not see any place where it is unconstitutional, but I am open to rational arguments which show how it might unduly compromise civil liberties and fundamental freedoms.

  19. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    Sorry, that should have been addressed to PODRYR of course.

  20. Freedom Crier Avatar

    Wunna Din Lisen…A Vote For B Is A Vote For D…

    I am only one Voice however I have been Studying this Topic Socialism/Communism for some Years…

    If we do not Recognize the System that is Causing the Stench and Decay on our Island at all Levels we will always be Stuck on the Issues… Spinning Top in Ka Ka! While we are Focused on this Stench of the Sewage Problem meanwhile the Government is about to Enact an Unconstitutional Law over the Bajan Populace to make Barbados a Police State. This Disease is Threatening the very Fiber and Fabric of our Nation…. Now The Real Possibility of a Police State after Barbadians has been so Patient with this Government….

    SOLUTIONS BARBADOS POSTIONAL STATEMENT on PROPOSED Amendments to the Police Act Cap.167
    Tuesday February 06, 2018
    For IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    BRIDGETOWN –

    We have read with grave concern, a copy of the Police (Amendment) Bill 2017 which is now before the Senate.
    This Bill, would amend the Police Act Cap 167 to increase the statutory powers granted to the Attorney General,Commissioner of Police and the Police force, to among other things, allow the minister and the Commissioner of Police the power to establish cordons and curfews in Barbados, without a state of emergency being declared, as required under section 25 of the Constitution of Barbados.
    Solutions Barbados believes that to Vote on this amendment is a rushed, thoughtless approach this government is using to bring a Rights Shattering Law to this country. In its current format this government appears to want to reinvent this country as a Police State. This government is seeking to breach the Constitution of Barbados, and trample our constitutional rights and freedoms, by empowering the Police Force to restrict our rights and freedoms at will, without the authority of the Governor General or Parliament as was the traditional practice.

    This bill, if it is passed and accented to by The Governor General, Her Excellency Dame Sandra Mason, will become Law in Barbados.
    There are only 4 sittings of the Senate left before Parliament is automatically dissolved on March 5th.

    HERE IS AN OUTLINE OF WHAT THIS POLICE AMENDMENT ACT 2017 WILL ALLOW IF IT BECOMES LAW:
    It will allow the Police Commissioner and the Minister to impose curfews in certain areas of Barbados for up to 2 days at a time, and to oblige all persons within the curfew area to return to their homes and premises, and remain indoors during the curfew hours.
    It will allow the Police to command all businesses in a curfew area to close and remain closed.
    It will allow the police to command all social gatherings in a curfew area to come to an end.
    It will give the Police the ability to search all premises within a curfew area without any search warrant, once a Police officer has reasonable suspicion that any arrestable offence has been committed, is in the process of being committed, or is about to be committed.

    It will allow the Police to stop and search any person without a search warrant, once a Police officer has reasonable suspicion that any arrestable offense has been committed, is in the process of being committed, or is about to be committed.
    It will allow the Police to stop and search any motor vehicle, once a Police officer has reasonable suspicion that any arrestable offence has been committed, is in the process of being committed, or is about to be committed.

    It will allow the police to require any person in the curfew area to remain stationary, and refrain from carrying out any activity.
    It will impose steep fines of up to $10,000, and prison sentences of up to 3 years for even using offensive language to a police officer carrying out his duties during such a curfew.

    To say that this amendment is excessive, would be an gross understatement. This bill would grant the Police unfair and abusive powers, based not on specific legal requirements, but on officers judgement, which is arbitrary, and impossible to define in law.
    There is no definition in the amendment for the terms “reasonable suspicion” and “About to commit an arrestable offence” used extensively within this amendment. These two conditions which provide the police force with unreasonable and unconstitutional powers to establish curfews and corridors in any area across Barbados, are left up to the interpretation of the Police alone. What one person considers is “reasonable suspicion”, or “About to Commit an arrestable offense” another may not. How can these two conditions be clearly defined by any Court of Law?

    In addition to these, there is a definition for the term “Serious Violence” which is now defined as an occurrence involving the discharge of a fire arm, or the use of “an offensive weapon” which results in, among other things, “A disturbance of the Peace.”
    There is a new definition for the term “Offensive Weapon” to include: Any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to a person, or intended by a person having it with him, for such use by him or some other person. And any article or device made or adapted for use, for causing damage to any property or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him, or by some other person.

    Essentially, under this amendment, an offensive weapon could be a rock, or a gutter perk, or piece of wood. As long as the person carrying it intended to use it to cause harm or damage.

    Who determines if such a person really intended to use said gutter perk or a piece wood he was carrying as a weapon? Perhaps he is a carpenter walking home from work?

    Therefore, under this act, a member of the force or the rank of Inspector can establish a cordon in an area for up to 8 hours to investigate why a piece of wood is being carried as it may be deemed an act of “serious violence.”

    To reiterate, the Police commissioner can with the written approval of the Minister impose a curfew in any area, for a period not exceeding 2 days at a time, where an incidence of “serious violence” has occurred, or may occur in the future. What determines if an incidence of serious violence may occur? There needs to be clearer definition of Terms. We call upon the Minister or the Commissioner of Police to further define terms of reference to give a better understanding of a possible anticipated incident.

    More importantly, any political rally small or large being held in an area, the minister could for instance decide that he thinks that “Serious Violence” may occur in that area, and he can institute a curfew in that area for up to 2 days at a time.

    This legislation would not be of such serious concern, had it not come as rushed piece of legislation mere weeks before an election. It would not be of such serious concern, if it did not have such ambiguous terms, such as “reasonable suspicion” and “about to Commit an arrestable offence” and “May Occur”.

    Presently, curfews can only be established in Barbados during a state of emergency under our constitution. But this amendment would allow curfews to be established by the Minister and the Commissioner of Police at will, anywhere in Barbados, without the approval of the Governor General or Parliament.

    We vehemently appeal to the Senate to halt the voting process on this legislation to allow for Public debate. We appeal to the Governor General, Dame Sandra Mason, an extremely competent legal professional, and the legal head of state of this country, to reject this bill, should it be sent to her for ascension.

    This is a dangerous piece of legislation, coming at this time as they are no penalties or punishment to the persons concerned regarding misuse of the legislation by rouges Commissioners or Person with challenges with their moral compass. While we support the efforts of the government to address the crime situation facing Barbados, this is not the way to do so.

    If this legislation is passed and becomes Law, and Solutions Barbados forms the next Government, we will immediately repeal this dangerous piece of legislation and restore the rights and freedoms of the people of this nation as guaranteed under our Constitution

    https://i.imgflip.com/1tfn1v.jpg

  21. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    It is important to remember that this legislation is specifically aimed at persons in public life, not the man in the street. Persons in public life are defined as:
    1. Members of the House of Assembly and the Senate
    2. Members of Cabinet
    3. Permanent Secretaries and Officers of Related Grades
    4. Heads of Departments within the Public Service
    5. Chairpersons of Boards, Commissions, Corporations or other Entities established by statute
    6. Chief Executive Officers, Managers or Executive Heads of Boards, Commissions, Corporations or other Entities
    established by statute
    7. Magistrates
    8. Members and staff members of the Commission

    In the course of its work the Commission will of course have to investigate those who are suspected of corrupting persons in public life, persons who manage to buy state assets at bargain basement prices for example… even when such suspicions are based initially on hearsay evidence.

  22. Are-we-there-yet Avatar
    Are-we-there-yet

    PLT

    Way to go!

    At last a rational analysis by someone with a non partisan background who has apparently compared the new BLP draft with similar legislation throughout the region, some with a history of being on their statute books for more than 10 years. I await some identifiably DLP legal comments on the PUDRYR submission, but more excitedly those of our Legal Luminary who could, by the power of his reputation and legal chops, clarify, assuage or amplify the unease in the draft legislation eminating from PUDRYR’ s understandings.


  23. On another note how does it look that on Tuesday Arthur holder blp rep for St Michael central making prouncements as Speaker and supposedly ‘objective office holder’ and then on Wednesday morning he making noise about criminally charged young men found with guns and ammunition.

    Whatever the merit or not of his argument,is that a good look.I think Mia really has to consider transferring that position to Glyne Clarke.All in the family anyway,and since there is no opposing voices they can do whatever the hell they want – as it seems they are doing already.


  24. It compares nicely with Michael CARRINGTON.


  25. If Michael Carrington is the bar, then all is already lost.


  26. It is not the bar, his action is precedent setting.

  27. Are-we-there-yet Avatar
    Are-we-there-yet

    T’inniss @ 10:47 a.m.

    Grateful if you could post links to Arthur Holder’s two statements or, at least references to where the statements are available on line, giving the context in which they were made.


  28. @ bajans who wrote ” No extended 4 months vacation in Barbados.”

    If you are a Canadian citizen you have nothing to fear.

    You can go to the Canadian High Commission for “protection”.


  29. “It is important to remember that this legislation is specifically aimed at persons in public life, not the man in the street. Persons in public life are defined as:”

    I too am seeing this act as AIMED directly at corrupt politicians and government ministers and should include and embrace their bribers and conspirators in the minority community as well, it is defined who those in public life are…

    , unless Mia is planning a slick cross over to the public which is totally uncalled for and should and will be met with resistance.

    Seeing as these criminals in parliament have immunity…a commission with such powers will be able to bring them all down…as things stand, currently, such powers outside the parameters of the court are only granted to the local arm of the London privy council chaired by the GG..as written in the constitution..

    ah smell Simmon”s fingers in that drafting of a commission with limitless powers for the above scenario. although it appears that these commission members will also be policed..

    we will see where this goes…and that fine for corrupt ministers, politicians and their co-conspirators needs to be brought right back up to 500,000…that is her first mistake

    ..playing slick will see Mia’s ass thrown right out of that parliament in the next 5 years…her choice.

    As Enuff said, the bill has not yet been tabled, so let’s watch..

  30. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @ bajans who wrote ” No extended 4 months vacation in Barbados.”

    Unless bribery of a person in public life is on your agenda you do not have anything to fear. Even common corruption like slipping a Ben Franklin to a Customs officer does not appear to be covered by this proposed legislation.


  31. Thank you Theogazerts @ 11:01 .I tell you blind partisanship is really blinding.Imagine referencing Michael Carrington matter to address the point made when the two are like night and day.Steupes.

    Are we there yet -the article is on the back page of today’s Sunday Sun.


  32. Did you call for CARRINGTON’s resignation? Your yardfowl colors have been exposed on the blog from day 1. The political class have members from both sides. We wait for the structural changes promised to the governance system. To be fair to Mia it has been one month and she has made the right noises, hell of a lot more than Stuart but again, we wait for the substance.

  33. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    The DLP legislation did not have explicit rules to admit hearsay evidence as does the BLP legislation. I can see the reasoning behind admission of hearsay evidence because the corrupt often get valid evidence thrown out on such technicalities

    The refusal to admit hearsay evidence is not merely a “technicality”, Peter. It is inadmissible generally because it is unreliable and ordinarily has no real probative value with regard to the issue or face in question. There are exceptions however.

  34. Freedom Crier Avatar

    David July 1, 2018 7:54 AM

    @AWTY

    Don’t swallow the koolaid. Has BU ever blocked a submission?

    Ah Boy????????????????

    http://images.clipartpanda.com/laugh-clipart-9c448AKcE.png

  35. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @Jeff Cumberbatch, you are entirely correct of course… I was being argumentative… but I’m delighted that my unwarranted assertion has tempted you into this fray.

    The language in the proposed legislation does not even mention hearsay evidence; is says that the proposed Commission is “not bound by the rules of evidence in the Evidence Act, Cap. 121, and it may take into account opinion evidence and such facts as it considers relevant and material.” Given that this is the most substantive objection given by PUDRYR in his screed I want to as you what in your opinion is “opinion evidence” (see what I did there) and can it have real probative value?


  36. David/BU

    I read some of your rantings and watch your ‘prime defender’ stance since this blp govt got in – and I shake my head sadly.

    Why are you so heavily invested in Mia ‘watch muh’ Mottley that you feel the urge to denounce and pronounce and make strange,harsh statements about contributors who you deem to be pro-dems.

    WHO OR WHAT IS THIS DAVID OR BU? Someone seems to have taken over his mind,body and soul.Someone please call an exorsist please!


  37. You would have seen nothing that is inconsistent with how the blog treated David Thompson or Freundel Stuart in the honeymoon period.

    Also, there is nothing preventing you from posting comments as you are now or submitting a writing to outline a concern. Don’t come on BU with you BS, your panty will be exposed.


  38. You have been warned many times to desist from posting 3000 word copy and pasted comments. It is up to you to show consideration to the blogmaster’s request.

  39. Freedom Crier Avatar

    So We are Back to that again David?…So Much for ‘Well Well & Cut N’ Paste At Your Service’.

    When is you next Commie Sing Song Blurb which is usually a Repeat of his Previous Articles mixed into a Communist Callaloo Stirred and Brewed by BU?

    Can’t Wait!!

    http://img.overdoz.ir/uploads/Sms_Tanz_Joke_Telegram_www_overDz_IR.png

  40. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    Given that this is the most substantive objection given by PUDRYR in his screed I want to as you what in your opinion is “opinion evidence” (see what I did there) and can it have real probative value?

    @ Peter, Opinion evidence is evidence given by an individual on a matter on which he or she is not recognized as an expert by the court. For instance, a medical doctor speculating on whether an item of evidence is admissible or not…or a lawyer seeking to diagnose a medical condition.The probative value would be negligible to zero.

  41. bajanfreeparty Avatar
    bajanfreeparty

    Crooks want to ACT LIKE LAWMEN

  42. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    My analysis of the bill, in comparison to the preceding DLP legislation as well as other integrity legislation across the region and elsewhere, leaves me with the conclusion that we should correct the fine levels and pass it into law as soon as possible. I do not see any place where it is unconstitutional, but I am open to rational arguments which show how it might unduly compromise civil liberties and fundamental freedoms.

    Well written, Peter, I too am concerned with the reductions in the originally proposed fines. In the world of corruption, a $10, 000 bribe is at best risible! No one would seriously offer or accept that!


  43. @Jeff

    Is a heavy penalty not included in the laws to punish being found guilty in possession of an illegal firearm but the maximum never enforced by they court?

  44. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    @Jeff

    Is a heavy penalty not included in the laws to punish being found guilty in possession of an illegal firearm but the maximum never enforced by they court?

    @ David, As the recent (Thursday) decision of the CCJ illustrates, sentencing is exclusively a judicial power, Parliament may set a maximum but not mandate a sentence or set a minimum penalty. So the amount expressed in the Act would be the MAXIMUM penalty the court may impose. In most cases they will go lower.


  45. Therein is the rub.

  46. Freedom Crier Avatar

    Was it Written into the Bill or Not?

    From Piece… “People of Barbados”

    Wunna really read this Integrity in Public Life Bill?

    “…Production orders
    An investigative officer may apply to a judge in Chambers for an order, to be called a production order, requiring a specified person to give the officer access to material specified in the application; or produce the material specified in the application for the officer to take away, within 7 days from the date on which the order is made or such other period as the judge determines would be appropriate in the circumstances.”

    Wunna really comprehend what is purportedly an Integrity in Public Life Bill is in fact Goebbels being implemented in Barbados?…
    This Commission effectively supplanted the Royal Barbados Police Force in fact its officers are even more powerful than an RBPF officer

    One section reads “…An investigative officer has the function of carrying out investigations in relation to any matter, whether or not involving an alleged offence, in respect of which the Commission exercises functions under this Act or any other enactment…”
    “Wunna understands what that means?

    You see the powers of the Commission to seize what it wills and to commit for incarceration on an officer’s suspicion…”
    “…officer has the function of carrying out investigations in relation to any matter, whether or not involving an alleged offence,..”
    This is the regulations of a police state!!!

    Whether or not involving an alleged offence?”
    You kidding my ole ass?
    Why would a commission be allowed that type of power?

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/b7/ed/73b7ed40af3a6d185a2051ae46102654.jpg


  47. A whole setta crazies.


  48. All thieves , liars and bullshiters would have a problem with Integrity


  49. @enuff

    The brevity of your remark betrays a concern?

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

    Trending

    Discover more from Barbados Underground

    Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

    Continue reading