[Barbados Underground] Yes Jeff, Charles Herbert faces a monumental task, not least because he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion. The social meaning of the case has become about the history of race relations in Barbados, so although the court case is supposed to consider the evidence dispassionately, I am not certain that a jury will lack bias
@ John,
With the exception of Boxing Day and New Year’s day, all UK bank holidays are on Mondays – makes for a long weekend.
@Greene, you started with a chuckle so I presume you are joking with “…not a bad analogy except one is a criminal matter and the other appears to be a regulatory one”.
In your world breaking regulations is a regulatory offense but not a criminal offense… Amazing world you inhabit!
Can you please clarify why the regulator would forward a file to the police dept for action other than to bring a possible criminal case?
If you had the regulatory code book handy I would ask you to distinguish (in this CLICO matter) where the sanctions permissible were administrative only and not punishable under criminal law…but that’s a query for our law Dean surely.
…but we all should be aware that law authorities have recourse to indict most business transgressions under CRIMINAL law because invariably the person’s misdeeds go well beyond any administrative wrongdoing which may mandate only fines and things like suspension from further corporate givernance etc …BECAUSE said person has also generally broken any of various criminal statues….starting with fraud.
This case seemed to follow that script…
Similarly like the Enron execs matter or more recently the Wells Fargo affair.. Both instances were regulatory codes of accounting and banking were breached but also where criminal statues were broken.
Thus, I don’t follow your reasoning atall!
I gone.
@Hal Austin: With the exception of Boxing Day and New Year’s day, all UK bank holidays are on Mondays – makes for a long weekend.
Wow! Good Friday celebrated in Monday – only the British.
Anyway Hal, Tom Adams tried regulating bank holidays similarly and the backlash from the union that was closely aligned with Errol Barrow as he was at the time, was too much to bear and it reverted to the hodge podge that it now is.
@ Fearplay
I did not mention other holy days such as Xmas or Easter.
Pacha…check this out.
Our point has been AGAIN PROVEN…ya got a shite education system in the Caribbean, racist and ugly, designed by slave masters….and ya still think ya arrive when ya got a shite degree…when all the knowledge YA NEED…is LOCKED AWAY in that mentally enslaved mind… through centuries of brainwash.. …..get rid of the shite education system…use the knowledge ya were gifted with…from birth..
We know why the leaders are dumb, but the population can make their own changes, access their own knowledge ..it is just waiting to be tapped into..
“News > Education > Education News
NUS president attacks education system as ‘institutionally racist’ as she steps down
Exclusive: Universities must increase number of black academics and black texts, says Shakira Martin
Eleanor Busby Education Correspondent
2 days ago
Shakira Martin, the president of the National Union of Students, say more needs to be done to tackle racism ( NUS )
The president of the National Union of Students has attacked the education system for being “institutionally racist” as she steps down from the role.
Universities must do more to ensure black women and working-class women reach positions of power and feel comfortable in them, Shakira Martin, the National Union of Students (NUS) president, said.
Speaking to The Independent, Ms Martin urged institutions to introduce more texts by black writers and to recruit more black lecturers as a way increasing diversity.News > Education > Education News
NUS president attacks education system as ‘institutionally racist’ as she steps down
Exclusive: Universities must increase number of black academics and black texts, says Shakira Martin.”
Hal Austin
June 29, 2019 10:34 AM
@ Fearplay
I did not mention other holy days such as Xmas or Easter.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Lovely shot!!
Not a man moved!!
… or woman!!
“if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”
it was beautifully phrased
++++++++++++++++++
Translated into simpler English, no collusion, no obstruction!!
Mueller gets to appear on 17th July!!!
Suspect it will backfire!!
@ Greene June 29, 2019 8:41 AM
“DPD,
quote——preparing a FALSE invoice to deliberately misrepresent material facts is FRAUD—–quote
all i will say is that you have the right church but the wrong pew. so lets agree to disagree
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Greenie, don’t you think all these ‘allegations’ of fraud and criminal deception could have been avoided if the ‘certified’ CFO Thornhill had simply written the cheque(s) payable to Leroy Parris, Esq; or even to “PIS” instead of Thompson Associates?
After all, according to your line of reasoning, it was a ‘genuine’ payment in the form of a gratuity due to Greenverbs and not legal fees as invoiced to facilitate the extraction of money from CLICO in its most challenging hour of financial need.
CLICO was on the verge of financial collapse. How can a board of management (charged to protect the interests of all stakeholders) approve a gratuity payment to a senior employee and allow it to take priority over the company’s statutory obligations like NIS, PAYE deductions and its contracted insurance liabilities?
Why don’t you read the Companies Act and acquaint yourself with the statutory obligations of directors?
Why don’t you consult the Anti-Money Laundering piece of legislation and figure out if the billing of legal services presumed to have been provided by Maurice King QC should not be considered as fraudulent in its purest juristic form?
Barbados is a ‘failed state” deliberately caused by the ‘decisive’ acts of corrupt black politicians including OSA, Thompson and Fumble Stuart; all bullshit graduates of the UWI.
@Kim
You could have added that the invoice was falsely labelled to hide the nature of the payment i.e. some payment to Maurice King who denied he rendered services to merit the billing.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 1:18 AM Barbados Underground wrote:
>
A Wise Third Party Movement ONLY needs to selectively choose which of these infractions they promise the public they will prosecute when they get into the House of Assembly.
Once the broadcast those actions, among others, dem gone clear.
“You could have added that the invoice was falsely labelled to hide the nature of the payment i.e. some payment to Maurice King who denied he rendered services to merit the billing.”
David BU
This is a silly discussion, especially when you take the facts into consideration. Therefore, let us not concentrate on if Leroy Parris is guilty or not guilty of committing an offence……… let’s examine at the facts.
The fact is, and according to correspondence from CIL, Parris was due a $10M gratuity.
CIL made a payment of $3.333M to the law firm Thompson & Associates, based on an invoice that described the rendering of services relating to “four different legal matters in detail and the “fees” or “retainers” for each.”
It was subsequently discovered that the $3.333M payment was actually to the benefit of Mr. Leroy Parris and related to partial payment of a “gratuity.”
In other words, CIL owed Parris gratuity, which, probably at the time, could not have been paid under normal circumstances for one reason or the other. Hence, an invoice was prepared, using the company’s law firm to facilitate this payment, under the guise of rendering legal services, perhaps to circumvent the circumstances under which the $3.333M would have been normally paid (e.g. payroll system).
Why would Parris have to engage in the falsification of an invoice to receive money he is entitled to? Was it a case where CIL was at the time undergoing financial difficulties and was only paying certain service providers and Parris saw the falsified invoice as an opportunity to get some of his money before the company went “belly up?”
Whatever the reason, what Parris did was wrong.
David BU
Do you recall an incident involving in December 2010, Michael Cook, who was employed as CLICO’s messenger/driver?
Apparently being upset after “Mr. Parris tell me that my years I got in at CLICO don’t count and that I got to start over,” he decided to take matters in his own hands by stealing $1.3M in cash and cheques he was supposed to deposit to the company’s bank account.
Cook burnt the cheques and kept the cash to refurbish his house, purchase accessories for his car and give his two “lady friends” houses.
Under the circumstances where Cook feared he would lose 15 years gratuity that was rightfully his, he decided to steal from CLICO.
Are those individuals who are arguing Parris was correct, willing to extend similar sympathy to Cook?
The only difference between Parris’ and Cook’s situation was that CLICO handed Cook’s matter over to the police.
@Artax
Clico/Parris is often coloured by emotion. The facts are clear however.
Isn’t the facts clear that Mark Maloney was a big time crook when the DLP was in power?
Now the the BLP is in the same Mark Maloney is clean as driven snow.
There are so many crooks in Barbados that they become convenient to each others and forgiven once everyone back is scratch.
Barbados is equally as corrupt as TT and GT.
@ Artax June 30, 2019 10:39 AM
“Why would Parris have to engage in the falsification of an invoice to receive money he is entitled to? Was it a case where CIL was at the time undergoing financial difficulties and was only paying certain service providers and Parris saw the falsified invoice as an opportunity to get some of his money before the company went “belly up?”
Whatever the reason, what Parris did was wrong.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And downright illegal in any law abiding jurisdiction!
Such a ‘wrong’ was not only a blatant act of fraud and criminal deception but also in breach of the Income tax Act, the Companies Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
But who cares in the Banana republic of Bim where the enforcement of laws applies only to cases involving petty thefts like that of a can of corn beef or a nail clipper set made in China.
Disgraceful…they are now all seen worldwide as CRIMINALS…nothing can change or upstage that label, except for the human trafficking label they worked so hard recently to MAKE SURE THEY GOT from signing agreements with slave traders.
They gone quiet now, but wait.
The reasons given for withdrawing the case against Charles Herbert by the DPP was lack of evidence and not in the ‘public interest’. But what is the concept of public interest?
Are we going to debate this philosophical idea on BU? Where are are our legal theorists? Our political scientists? Our journalists? Our keyboard warriors?
Hal in simple terms, the money wasted trying to prosecute with no chance of a conviction that is what is not in the public interest. Now think about that for a second….from what most post on this blog they would fry Herbert given the chance, so there must be no evidence at all that anyone would convict on or the prosecution would have moved forward as it has for the other two.
There was $500K of evidence or was that imaginary?
My hope is the remaining two get their day in court. And the specifics of this case are made public. There have been so many assumptions, beliefs and plain ignorance. Drug smugglers are not in the business of getting caught, yet we have had several recent busts where the authorities were acting on “tips”. From afar it smells like rival warfare. Whether these two are found guilty or innocent, is this an isolated incident or are there links to other seizures.
“My hope is the remaining two get their day in court. And the specifics of this case are made public. There have been so many assumptions, beliefs and plain ignorance.”
NorthernObserver
I agree with your above comments.
But, let’s be FAIR and look at this issue from a different perspective, despite we may be ACCUSED of supporting the white man…. and any means necessary to prevent him from “getting locked up.”
Did Charles Herbert represented himself in Court?
NO!!!………. Queen’s Counsel Andrew Pilgrim was his lawyer.
So, are we suggesting Pilgrim is not a “good enough” lawyer to argue Herbert’s case by presenting the facts in such a manner, to prove the prosecution did not have enough evidence to convict his client…….. causing the DPP to drop the charges?
Or are we suggesting the DPP and Pilgrim were in “cahoots”……….and (as some seem to be suggesting)……. together with intervention from the government, to pressure the Court into “freeing” Herbert because he is a “white-man”…… at the expense of the other two accused?
How do we know whether or not Pilgrim will get the charges dropped against Christopher Rogers……….and likewise Verla DePeiza as the legal counsel for Walter Prescod?
Let’s say “for argument’s sake” Prescod was convicted.
Seeing the direction in which the arguments seem to be heading, will Enuff’s “pick-a-noise crew,” FOR EXAMPLE, argue Prescod was convicted because he is a “poor black-man” and a “scape-goat” for the white-man……… and Mariposa or Greene argue government intervened “to get he lock up” because Verla is a DEMS?
Are we not discounting or showing a lack of faith relative to Verla’s ability as a lawyer, if we keep assuming Prescod “gine get lock to rh up?”
Another thing…… there are those contributors among us who, on a daily basis, complain about the low standard of journalism exhibited by the Nation and Barbados Today. They also opine that journalists often do not report in-depth on serious matters such as this case, economic or political issues. Yet, not being present in Court during the case, they are making assumptions based on the articles written by the same “same sub-standard” journalists they often complain about.
Look, doan mind me, yuh……………… I is are appallingly igrunt.
Enuff’s “pick-a-noise crew,”
Best laugh I had all day.
You must admit that the case here is following the script that some suggested. I hope that at some time in the future, the convincing evidence that provided the sharp razor to cleanly sever CH from his crew will be made public.
Until then the “pick-a-noise crew,” and salemites will clamor for equal justice.
I ask again: The reasons given for withdrawing the case against Charles Herbert by the DPP was lack of evidence and not in the ‘public interest’. But what is the concept of public interest?
Are we going to debate this philosophical idea on BU? Where are our legal theorists? Our political scientists? Our journalists? Our keyboard warriors?(Quote)
@Artax
Personally, once charged, I would have liked all 3 to have appeared in court. And for the case to have been completed by now.
The rest remains much conjecture. You have stated some scenarios, I could add several more. Hopefully, the evidence in court will answer questions, and politics is not a factor, either tied to the accused or who represents them. Now that CH is gone, possibly the factual evidence will become more important.
@Northern Observer
A damning observation when you comment âhopefully politics is not a factor â.
@Blogmaster
it was in response to Artax, who had offered up political angles, among the many available.
“There was $500K of evidence or was that imaginary?”
lol…what 500K…ya hear from those in the know that it was 3 million dollars worth of cocaine that mysteriously turned into 500K of marijuana that is why we were getting 2 different stories about 2 different drug busts on the same day when it was only one bust..lol…so yes the 500K…it was imaginary…but the cocaine was not, heard that it ended up right back on the streets…anyway…
Artax…only now seeing this post..
“WURA
……..I don’t believe we’re on the same page. Perhaps you are “over-sensationalizing” this issue.
Why would Vernese Brathwaite be “effectively GAGGED” and “prevented from even discussing” the circumstances under which Parris and Thornhill were changed………….. unless the case remains under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion?”
If she was a civil servant…she is still on the taxpayer’s payroll…she still has to observe the SECRETS ACT…she did her job by notifying the relevant authorities…and was shut down…so who is she going to be talking to about the Parris theft of funds from Clico or the illegal sale of the their scam policies..which i believe she was more concerned about…the illegal criminal act by Parris and the clico board of directors…there is still a 128 million dollar lawsuit against them all lingering in that blight for a supreme court..
WURA
It’s clear you don’t know anything about………….. or understand the “Official Secrecy Act.”
The secrecy act is basically legislation to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of official information or state secrets by certain government employees……….. in the interest of national security.
Pray tell, how do executives of an insurance company contravening an order from the Supervisor of Insurance not to sell new policies……… affect national security?
I’ll give BU a bit of history relative to the CLICO affair…….. as follows:
The Supervisor of Insurance (SOI) was empowered to regulate the conduct of all insurance companies operating in Barbados, including limits on their exposure and thus ability to settle their debts, what business they can offer, their officers, actuaries, accountants and brokers under the Insurance Act (the IA) and the Exempt Insurance Act (the EIA).
In 2002, SOI, the late Carlos Belgrave, wrote the Registrar of Co-operatives instructing that office that the Executive Flexible Premium Annuities (EFPAs) being proffered by CLICO could not be marketed to credit unions. This letter was largely ignored and the Supervisor of Insurance, though concerned, appeared to lacked the legislative authority or fortitude it seems to take any further action.
Again, in February 2009, the Supervisor of Insurance ordered CLICO International Life’s (CIL) management to stop selling its Executive Flexible Premium Annuities (EFPAs) to companies, credit unions and institutions. In fact, the company was told by the Supervisor’s office to “cease and desist from marketing the product until a review was completed,”…………. which was also ignored.
Another order was issued in August 2009, prohibiting CIL from selling new policies. CIL once again ignored this order and sold over 800 new policies. Ms Brathwaite, as Deputy SOI, was more concerned with CIL contravening the order from the SOI. Hence, the reason why she asked the Commission of Police to investigate the matter.
The order did not have anything to do with “Parris theft of funds from Clico”…….. that was a matter for CLICO to refer to the police.
If your mentioning of “Parris theft of funds from Clico” is a reference to the famous Thompson & Associates’ invoice……. as revealed by Deloitte’s forensic audit………… it is important to note the audit was conducted AFTER Vernese was sent on “special leave.”
Why would Vernese be “shut down” from discussing the circumstances under which Parris and Thornhill were changed………….. unless the case REMAINS under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion?
Artax…am dealing strictly with the fact that the lady was sent on PAID LEAVE for well over a decade, she may still be on paid leave AT TAXPAYER’S EXPENSE…and no one can say WHY…..
A 128 million dollar lawsuit against the clico crooks….may give ya a clue.
We should not think of this judicial theatre from the point of view of justice, but as part of the moral-free state policy. You can ignore the word “moral-free,” if that’s too cynical.
I can only repeat myself. Herbert’s release was a great decision by the government because Herbert did not work against the new government.
So there was no reason to lock him up.
How did the government release Herbert? When has the DPP job become a government employee?
“Artax…am dealing strictly with the fact that the lady was sent on PAID LEAVE for well over a decade, she may still be on paid leave AT TAXPAYER’S EXPENSE…and no one can say WHY….. A 128 million dollar lawsuit against the clico crooks….may give ya a clue.”
Hmmmmmm……….
My problem with you is your INCONSISTENCY.
Would it have been much easier for you to simply ADMIT when you’re wrong, rather than trying to manipulate the “discussion” with irrelevant nonsense?
Are you referring to the $128 million lawsuit the Barbados Investors and Policyholders Alliance (BIPA) filed in 2013 against CLICO to recoup lost money for its members?
If so………….. how does this BIPA law suit “fit into your equation,” when it was FILED in 2013………..
……………and Vernese was sent on special leave in 2009 or there about……. according to you, “just to shut her up about the Leroy Parris Clico thefts,” to “effectively gag” her and to “prevent (her) from even discussing” the circumstances under which Parris and Thornhill were charged?
What does the law suit have to do with what you’re referring to as “Parris CLICO thefts?”
Are you suggesting government ANTICPATED BIPA would have filed a $128M lawsuit against CLICO in 2013 and sent Vernese on leave in 2009 “just to shut her up about the Leroy Parris Clico thefts?”
Are you also suggesting Vernese would have been essentially on paid special leave, 4 years prior to the law suit……. and 6 years after it was filed…….. “just to shut her up about the Leroy Parris Clico thefts?”
Perhaps you may want to explain.
That is YOUR PROBLEM…. PERIOD..you always try to make it about who is posting as opposed to the facts surrounding the criminality or the corruption or the PEOPLE WHO PRACTICE SUCH…
..i don’t need to be consistent about anything, when i knew about the whole damn issue for years, call it first hand knowledge.. so i do not even need to read the same posts over and over …since reading it for years, ya supposed to be able to regurgitate it verbatim…
the issue is taxpayers money being wasted for about 10 years sending a civil servant on leave for exposing an insurance company’s scam against policyholders…no one can explain that …including you.
@ David July 2, 2019 10:35 AM
The DPP is not an independent person, but a subordinate of the Honourable Attorney General and thus of the Government. It is therefore incomprehensible to me why the woman has not yet brought charges against Inniss and why other DLP ministers have not yet been subjected to harshest interrogation.
In addition, the Prime Minister embodies the will of the people by virtue of her 29:1 rule in parliament. In other words, the Honorable Prime Minister represents the will of the people. And the people pay all public servants.
If one combines both aspects (sovereignty of the people and representation by the Prime Minister’s leadership), all state power is derived from the Prime Minister herself. Anyone who acts against the Prime Minister agitates therefore against the will of the people and therefore no longer operates within the boundaries of the democratic state.
The position of DPP is protected under the Constitution.
If the DPP bring charges against those who accepted bribes, those who paid the bribes will be exposed.
Therein lies the problem.
Anyone want to bet that BLP members and supporters could be involved ?
My friend
FIRSTLY, you implied Vernese was sent on special leave “way before 2008,” which I said could not have been true, since she was sent on leave in 2010, AFTER she asked the then CoP Dottin to investigate CIL contravening the SOI order not to “sell new business.”
SECONDLY, you then implied she was sent on leave to keep her quiet about the circumstances under which Parris and Thornhill were charged for contravening the SOI order not to sell new policies.
I simply ASKED why would they have to “gag” her, because if the case is ongoing, it would be sub judice.
THIRDLY, you mentioned something about her being “gaged” because of the secrecy act.
I simply asked you since the secrecy act is basically legislation to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of official information or state secrets by certain government employees……….. in the interest of national security, pray tell, how do executives of an insurance company contravening an order from the Supervisor of Insurance not to sell new policies……… affect national security?
FOURTHLY, you implied Vernese being sent on leave had something to do with the $128M law suit.
I simply asked if you were referring to the $128M law suit BPA filed in 2013 against CIL to recoup insurance money for its members……. and if so, how does it “fit into your equation,” especially when Vernese was sent on special leave in 2010, 3 years BEFORE the suit was filed……. or if government anticipated the law suit was forthcoming and sent her on leave.
INCONSISTENCY????
RE: “That is YOUR PROBLEM…. PERIOD..you always try to make it about who is posting as opposed to the facts surrounding the criminality or the corruption or the PEOPLE WHO PRACTICE SUCH…”
Firstly, if you believe it’s a matter of me “always try to make it about who is posting,”……… that’s YOUR PROBLEM…….… I would only QUESTION what you post, in the interest of CLARITY…….. or if I believe it isn’t FAIR……. if it is MISLEADING the forum……. inconsistent…… or the evidence proves otherwise.
Secondly, you have NOT PRESENTED ANY FACTS as it relates to this issue…….. just your usual comments based on CONJECTURE rather than KNOWLEDGE………. and ASSUMPTIONS to “sensationalize” a simple issue of a Deputy Supervisor of Insurance who was sent on leave shortly after the asked the police to investigate why CIL contravened an order from her department not to sell “new business”……….
……… in an attempt to make us believe you had the “news scoop” even BEFORE the issue BECAME public. Then, when trapped, you reacted by trying to INSULT your way out of the “web of lies and deceit” you weaved yourself into.
RE: “..i don’t need to be consistent about anything, when i knew about the whole damn issue for years, call it first hand knowledge..”…… if you had “first-hand” knowledge,” how come the reasons you gave for Vernese being sent on paid CHANGED each time I highlighted an inconsistency or impracticality in your comments?
And I NEVER made any attempt to EXPLAIN why Vernese was sent on paid special leave……. IT WAS YOU……… and those explanations CHANGED each time after I questioned you about them.
Now, you finally ADMITTED that NO ONE COULD EXPLAIN WHY Vernese was sent on paid special leave…….. when you could have done so from the onset.
My friend, just a little friendly advice………….. quit trying to portray yourself as one who KNOWS EVERYTHING.
Post the FACTS and the TRUTH and no one would have reason “try to make it about you.”
@ David July 2, 2019 12:14 PM
In Barbados, everyone is hiding behind paragraphs where the whole world knows that in this banana republic they are afraid to accuse and condemn former ministers of the DLP, almost as if the black DLP ministers were untouchable “high whites” from the old plantation age.
No wonder all international investors run away screaming. Who would like to invest in a country that offers no rule of law?
If one combines both aspects (sovereignty of the people and representation by the Prime Minister’s leadership), all state power is derived from the Prime Minister herself. Anyone who acts against the Prime Minister agitates therefore against the will of the people and therefore no longer operates within the boundaries of the democratic state.(Quote)
@Tron
You are clearly an expert on constitutional law. Wow! Plse tell me which college you learned the above?
Art….enuff with the bullshit…ya can talk clarity as much as you want, i post what i know is NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE PEOPLE…..you just want to one up and show up everyone lije an idiot…….last time you did that you were willing to THROW A MATURE BLACK WIDOW who was assaulted hy a white sexual predator tourist…under the bus…because YOU CANNOT HANDLE FACTS DEALING WITH CRIMINALITY AND THE CRIMINALS WHO PERPETRATE…crimes.
Ya made yaself EMBARRASSED WITH THAT…and still you learned NOTHING..
AND ….you cannot MAKE ME do anything different…WHEN WHAT I DO WORKS…
Ah guess ya will just have to keep making yaself MISERABLE READING MY POSTS……while i carry on merrily getting results..
@Tron
you may equally ask why has the DPP not proceeded against ICBL?
Indeed.
@NO
It should be obvious. ICBL is a big player in Barbados with many government contracts.
“.last time you did that you were willing to THROW A MATURE BLACK WIDOW who was assaulted hy a white sexual predator tourist…under the bus…because YOU CANNOT HANDLE FACTS DEALING WITH CRIMINALITY AND THE CRIMINALS WHO PERPETRATE…crimes.”
My friend…..I
WHY NOT PRESENT MY CONTRIBUTION TO PROVE IT.
But then again, YOU CAN’T …… yuh know why…………because YOU ARE A NOTORIOUS LIAR……. you ADMITTED to PURPOSELY LYING in this forum………
………. to “making things up just to make things interesting.”
I don’t want to show up anyone as an idiot……… you’re quite EFFICIENT in doing that ALL BY yourself….. I ASKED you SIMPLE QUESTION, which perhaps MADE it bit EASIER for you to EXPOSE yuh stupid self…..wid shiite like the secrecy act…..
You’re the real EMBARRASSMENT to igrunt yuhself…….and BU, with all the LIES and FRAUDULENT shiite you post to this forum……….. like arguing Rolerick Hinds was the duly elected representative for St. Thomas based on him erecting a billboard near his constituency office….. and when SimpleSimon made you aware of your error, rather than ADMITTING you were WRONG, you “said” people in the constituency told you so.
Now, after giving 4 different erroneous versions of why Vernese Brathwaite was sent on special leave…… which were all PROVEN to be questionable……..you FINALLY ADMITTED to NOT KNOWING the REASON WHY.
And how about your relative that had a serious case of “walking pneumonia” and had to get a continuous “build-up” of fluid withdrawn from his lungs….. which was DISMISSED AS RUBBISH by Georgie Porgie. And you responded by implying GP’s medical expertise was more or less….. “outdated,” and against the background that recent medical information gave explanations similar to that of GP’s.
Yuh mean wid ALL dem several relatives being doctors before many of us were born…… one uh dum kun tell yuh dat youh did talking shiite?
And THIS is my ALL TIME FAVOURITE…… you mentioning a RELATIVE that have 20 CXC CAPE subjects.
YOU believe you have the RIGHT to come to BU with your stupid shiite and people should ACCEPT it WITHOUT QUESTION?
NO… HEEEELLLLLLL…..NO!!
ANYTIME you come to BU with ANYTHING contribution that’s IMPRACTICAL, I’m GOING to ASK you for an EXPLANATION….. and if your explanation is ILLOGICAL……I’m going to ASK for a FURTHER explanation.
The ONUS is on you to EXPLAIN or NOT……..
But, “ah guess (IT’S YOU that) will just have to keep making yaself MISERABLE READING MY POSTS,”……. and judging by your RESPONSES…… it seems “WHAT I DO WORKS”….
……”while I carry on merrily getting results”…………..which is getting you to CONTINUOUSLY PROVING to BU you’re a FRAUD and LIAR.”
Let BU observe you miserableness when you respond to this one.
Lol…sure…ah want to see how ya are going to MAKE ME CHANGE MY STYLE……that gets results…
Something ya will NEVER UNDERSTAND…never..
Wuh i aint got nothing to prove to a dumb nitpicker who would prefer see a white tourist sexually assault a black woman…and denigrate that woman …cause YA DON’T KNOW ANY BETTER…
is that miserable enuff for you…
Hahahahaha
Okay, but surely you must be HONEST enough to ADMIT I’m “a dumb nitpicker” who has been successful in EXPOSING your LYING ass…….”ah want to see how ya are going to MAKE ME CHANGE MY STYLE……that gets results…”
I NEVER EXPECTED you to REPSOND by bringing FACTS to CORROBORATE your accusations…….
…………you would RATHER ENGAGE in a FUTILE ATTEMPT to DENIGRATE me……by mentioning I “would prefer see a white tourist sexually assault a black woman,” ………..when you KNOW it’s NOT TRUE….AND YOU CAN’T PROVE IT!
Every SCHEME your mind THINKS of is NOTHING but evil all the time……and I’ll demonstrate the EXTREME you’re PREPARED to go…….. just “TO GET (your ‘IMAGINARY’) RESULTS.”
Since what I’m about to disclose has been RECORDED in a public forum………. I’m sure you remember those UNSOLICITED emails you sent to a PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, in which YOU made certain MALICIOUS ALLEGATIONS against CGI.
You PREVARICATED when ASKED certain PERTINENT questions and REFUSED to PROVIDE the SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION as EVIDENCE to SUBSTANTIATE your allegations.
It was also reported that YOU subsequently “cut and pasted” details from the said individual’s publicly available work email address….. and USED ideas and opinions expressed on BU (as is your wont)…….. along with what you conjured in the imagination of your thoughts (as you are known to do)…………..
…………. to “made up things just to make things interesting,” and posted the “information” to BU as though it was LEGITIMATELY SENT from the individual’s email account.
I do not have ANY reason to disbelieve this account of what transpired…….. because you’re a known LIAR and FRAUD.
Why would you engage in these DISPICABLE types of practices????
…………….”cause YA DON’T KNOW ANY BETTER….”
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.