Grantley Adam Memorial Secondary School Saga – Every One is Wrong

Submitted by Observing

The recent saga at Grantley Adam Memorial Secondary School has raised much passion and opinions. However, I put a different spin on it today. Everyone’s wrong.

Vendors are allowed to sell at the discretion of the management of the school. If management says not today, not here, not now, then that’s what it is. A process must be followed for order to obtain. The vendors who still sold or came onto property despite being told not to were wrong.

The Principal is the chief cook and bottle washer at the school. He would have been aware of prior arrangements with vendors (i.e. precedent). He sits with the Board to make decisions (i.e should advocate for the good of his students and teachers). He was the one who communicated any decisions to vendors. Yet, he diminished his post to a security guard sitting at a gate running children away. Leaders solve problems. The Principal is wrong.

The Chairman / Board
A Board’s job is to ensure the Minister’s policies are carried out. The Minister via the government is “vendor friendly” and all about “entrepreneurship”. Also, any manager must take into consideration the conditions of the situation he/she manages. Clearly this chairman does not (uh wonder why). Any Board that is comfortable seeing their school dragged through the mud in the press, seeing children agitate and advocate, seeing average women losing money and up to now says nothing….They have have to be wrong.

The Ministry
In an eloquent written press release the Ministry sided with the school. The rule of law must obtain. But, while the rule of law obtains the problem remains. If the Ministry wants to duck behind the law and dodge the REAL issues in this saga, it is clear that they are rightly wrong.

The media
Papers must sell! And so we plaster photos of children on a fence, a Principal with an umbrella and a vendor in tears. BUT, wait a minute. Has the media reported on the connection between the chairman and the canteen concessionaire? Have they outlined the prior arrangements with vendors which sets a precedent? Have they researched or focused on the genuine concerns of the student or look at the impact on the school? Nope. Why bother about these things….papers must sell! The media is wrong.

And lastly the canteen.
Competition drives quality and price effectiveness. The students determined they wanted nothing to do with the canteen. By surreptitiously cutting out the competition without adjustment to operations or communicating with the clients (students), a revolt was all but ensured. I wonder who stands to benefit when the canteen profits. A canteen that’s comfortable being boycotted by students, watching them choose to be hungry, and insisting that the vendors MUST go HAS to be wrong.

When everyone is wrong…when communication goes wrong…when decision making starts wrong…when the motive is wrong……..The children suffer.

Everyone is wrong.


  • “I don’t talk about what I read pon wikipedia or cut and paste, but what I know from experience.”

    Yeah Enuff 68…we still waiting…


  • See what I mean about the idiocy–“pensioners’ money was stolen”. #jesustakedewheel


  • @enuff

    The PM’s position that she couldn’t ring fence the pensioners BEFORE the debt restructure was final because of a constitutional restraint is valid? Was it a fall back position? Would it not have made for better communication to advise upfront that pensioners would have been address post restructure? Where was the challenge with such an approach?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Enuff and the current administration reminds me of a man who diligently pursues a woman until he catches her and then realizes she wants more than a one night stand.

    It seems as if the 30-0 catspraddled both the BLP and the DLP.
    One group took it licks and performed a vanishing act, the next group appear to be completely unprepared for the win. With their starts and restarts, shaving and scalping, incompetence hidden by a claim of sabotage, someone need to remind Mia , it’s governing, it’s managing and not the damn box-step
    bring feet together
    step forward with left foot
    step to right side with right foot
    step backwards with right foot
    step to left side with left foot
    bring feet together
    continue redo process from start.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @enuff

    You must be following the matter brought by BIPA to challenge government’s change of terms to the bonds?


  • David

    You of all people know (by my IP) that I am no insider or operative of the BLP, so stop asking me what the Mia/government should or should not have done. I commented on what I read in the newspaper, not what I got in a room up in Bay Street as some keep trying to project. On your query, maybe they could have; who knows why they communicated the news the way they did. The fact remains that bad investments were made and while others have to wait, persons over 60 have been promised two lump sum payments. People getting their income tax returns (first time in years) and the government just had to reduce corporate tax from 30% to between 1.5% to 5%; but we are busy talking about pensioners getting robbed–the melodrama and hysterics read well I guess. Ah still keep asking muhself what is the expertise, experience and knowl/edge of the blowhards? I bet when the cheques start turning up, the Salemites gine say the colour of the ink should be another colour? But who last laugh, laughs best.


  • @enuff

    Who is we? You need to learn how to ignore. You are asked questions because you have pro BLP positions which does not necessarily mean you are an insider.

    Liked by 1 person

  • David
    I am not referring to you, the use of Salemites at the end of my submission is instructive.


  • But what is not so fking amusing about the pensioners “takedown” by the govt is how the govt on one with the stroke of a pen give away million of dollars in tax waivers and then on the other hand unilaterally take away millions of dollars inlocal investors money who owed the govt nothing expect to place barbados interest first by lending govt their hard earned savings
    And what even burns the most that govt up to present time has never issued a statement or in the good name of transparency reveal the names of those receiving tax waiver
    Also one would have thought out of the best interest of country govt would found a legal way of recovering some of these tax cheaters assests in one form or another
    But No !govt took what govt belived was the easy way out then proceeded to raid the local investor piggy bank
    Wuh god dam who punish people for the benefit of cheaters

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Barbadostoday
    “Just before 1 p.m. on Tuesday, outspoken attorney Douglas Trotman emerged outside the school to speak with the two vendors who have continued to ply their trade despite new restrictions that prevent them from serving students during school hours.”

    I give up…
    Can you stop vendors from plying their trade during school hours?


  • The Real face of Mia is being revealed and it is ugly
    Cant help but remember when she took govt to task about the vendors plying their business in front of downtown stores
    My God what a bold faced hypocrite


  • 3> Mariposa 3>
    Giving thanks that I am not spending the holiday with Mariposa…..
    If the Good Lord wanted to punish Caswell, he would sit him at a table with Mariposa …
    3> Mariposa 3>


  • What Holiday? What giving thanks?

    Who belives Mia cares ?


  • Theo. Caswell must be thankful. Not So?


  • @Hal Austin November 21, 2018 11:31 AM “First, Ms Moe went down to the school, talked to the stakeholders, then ruled in favour of the principal.”

    How can Ms. Moe rule “in favour of the principal” when the principal is NOT in conflict with anybody?

    Why are we pretending not to know that the decision to ban vendors is the decision of the politically appointed board, that it is a BLP decision?

    Is the principal making money, or hoping to make money off the canteen+


    Then the criticism must properly be directed towards those who can see further than B or D.

    And in this case B.

    B decision.

    B’s must take the licks.

    And “yes” I voted “B” on May 24.

    But I certainly did not vote for this nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Mariposa November 21, 2018 5:52 PM “who owed the govt nothing expect to place barbados interest first by lending govt their hard earned savings.”


    “Lending” money to the government was NOT an act of patriotism.

    The investors were too cheap to spend their own hard earned money, and were catching at the high interest rates.

    Patriotism what???



  • @ Theophillus

    This Stoopid Cartoon item here builds on your comments from 4.30

    Do enjoy the (US) thanksgiving holiday


  • Who can see NO further than B or D


  • Simple Simon if what you say about the investors being stupid
    Does it give govt a unilateral right to steal or do as they dam pleases with the investors money without their knowledge or consent
    You people got some nerve to be blaming investors when in fact all blame should be pointed at the thief large and incharge known as present govt
    What mitigated gall for you or any one to suggest or insinuate that the investors are deserving of having their savings stolen to pay govt debt
    Don’t u have no god dam shame . once you condone govt actions it also makes u one of them liken to being a thief

    Liked by 1 person

  • So…Enuff 68…did the pensioners ever get their chicken feed thrown at them by the Mia Borrows Bert plan on Friday or Monday or whichever days yall keep making up.

    Ah see the lico victims that Mia Borrows swore she will get justice for ARE AFRAID her Bert plan will also rob them the justice Mia Borrows promised….aint that a thing..

    “The organization representing policyholders and investors of the collapsed Clico International Life Insurance Limited is asking the High Court to shield bonds set aside for its successor company from the Government’s bond restructuring process.

    The Barbados Investors and Policyholders Alliance (BIPA) is asking the High Court to prevent any possibility of the Government altering the terms of the bond which had been set aside for its successor company – New Life Insurance Company (NLICO).

    BIPA president June Fowler said when her organization and the Clico judicial managers appeared in court this afternoon, the matter was adjourned for two weeks so BIPA officials can get documents from the lwayers of the judicial managers that were pertinent to the case.

    “The judge also wants to have other parties present . . . so he gave us two weeks to December 7 when we should have everything in place,” Fowler told Barbados TODAY.

    “The NLICO bond that was set aside to pay the EFPA [Executive Flexible Premium Annuity] policyholders, we are seeking to determine that that bond should not be included in the BERT [Barbados Economic Recovery and Transformation] programme. It should be separate from the other bonds that the Government is restructuring. So we are challenging that,” she explained.”


  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    Given that BIPA is challenging the ERNIE & BERT Law change that gave the holders of bonds a compulsory reduction of their interest yields AND A PERNICIOUS CUT OF THEIR PRINCIPAL, why is it that not one other lawyer has gone to court to contest this illegal action INCLUDING MARIPOKI s DLP lawyers and ambulance chaser Douglas Trotman or Garth Paterson’s crew?

    Imagine that LIME SHAREHOLDERS PUT LIME IN COURT for the very same thing as it relates to the compulsory reduction in the value of their retirement holdings AND NOT A FELLOW ENT CHALLENGING MUGABE???

    She has to be like the Witch of Endor WOW!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Mariposa

    What was your expectation of the prime minister? She is obviously a politician …


  • Then we I say Mia Borrows tief the old vulnerable pensioners money…Enuff in Wonderland wants to catch an attitude, just look at the measures the Clico victims will now have to take…not to also be robbed like the pensioners, under the Bert plan.

    Ah have no clue what gets into the minds of these supporters of political leaders.




  • That won’t frighten too many of us.


  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @ Nineofnine

    You made an earlier statement about personal savings will be next.

    But the fact is that they were first.

    Cause between the bank’s teifing through bank charges every month and ATM charges and now the Mottleyian regime changing the law to refuse to pay back your principal, your investment is no longer secure.

    In short, we are well badword for the next 5 years

    Liked by 1 person

  • Piece,
    Yes, this is current, the rabbit hole can/will if it need further far-reaching prangs.
    Dire situations require dire measures.
    The video below shows the script and blueprint for any foreseen financial issues.
    Change the names, dates and countries and weigh the possibilities it happening in our domain.


  • @Donna November 22, 2018 10:36 AM “That won’t frighten too many of us.”


    Especially those of us who have only 53 cents of personal savings


  • So we can consider this matter settled and move on……..


  • @Observing “He was the one who communicated any decisions to vendors…The Principal is wrong.”

    Nope. The principal was NEVER wrong. Nor was he “the one who communicated any decisions to vendors.”

    According to the Saturday Sun of November 24, 2018, page 4, right hand column, third paragraph down “Jean Mayers [Ms. B.] had been selling on the school’s premises for close to 30 years, BUT RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM THE NEW CHAIRMAN, DR. JONATHAN LEWIS JUST BEFORE THE START OF THE NEW SCHOOL YEAR IN SEPTEMBER , INFORMING HER THAT SHE WOULD NO LONGER BE ACCOMMODATED”

    But I heard and read all kinds of libellous things about the principal, when all along the FOOLISH decision was a BLP board decision. And I have not heard a single negative thing said about Mr. Lewis and the BLP board.

    Wunna lucky that the principal is a good Christian man, and decided to exercise forbearance to the allegators and did not have one of his lawyer relatives sue wunna left right and center.

    Under Barbados law a principal cannot give a board instructions.

    But a board can give a principal instructions.

    It was a bad political decision which was why a politician had to rise from her sick bed to correct the bad BLP board decision.

    In addition did not a board just last week fire Mr. Tudor of the Barbados Agricultural Management Company claiming that Mr. Tudor was “insubordinate?”

    What would have happened to poor Mr. Francis if he had ignored/disobeyed/circumvented the Grantley Adams board.

    Would he also have been found insubordinate as well and given a letter firing him after more than 40 years of hard labour?

    Until such time that boards are appointed strictly on MERIT we will continue to have foolish decision making.

    So “NO” the principal was NOT wrong.


  • And the lesson for today Sunday 25th November, 2018:

    “You can lead a horse to water, but your CANNOT make him drink.”

    Here endeth the lesson.


Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s