Defamation Act: A Different Interpretation

Submitted by Grenville Phillips II

Under this act, anyone who revealed genuine cases of corruption, with incontrovertible evidence, could be found guilty of defamation and punished accordingly. However, the Act protects politicians if they talked about it in parliament*

 

I will say it again, Grenville needs a legal advisor, and not only to serve as AG in any unlikely Cabinet of his. If there is incontrovertible evidence of the imputation made, the defense of justification will absolve any defendant in a defamation action, And there are defenses even to criminal libel-

 

 

T

he defence of comment and the defence of privilege (whether absolute or qualified) shall extend to a prosecution for criminal libel as they respectively extend to an action for defamation.

      – Jeff Cumberbatch

I note that Jeff Cumberbatch is querying my understanding of the Defamation Act, which has led David to cast aspersions on my motives. Please note that I am offering myself only once more to the public as a politician, and I will not tarnish my reputation by lying to the public. Let me try to engage Jeff in an honest discussion.

I claimed that the act was cleverly written to allow a person, who is speaking the truth about an allegation of corruption, to be charged with defamation. Jeff disagrees. So Jeff, let us present and discuss evidence rather than make disparaging remarks.

1. Defence of Truth

I refer to sections 7.1 and 7.2.

  1. (1) The defence in relation to an action for libel or slander known before the commencement of this Act as the defence of justification shall, in relation to any action for defamation brought after the commencement of this Act, be known as the defence of truth.

(2) Where an action for defamation has been brought in respect of the whole or any part of matter published, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of any of the charges contained in such matter and the defence of truth shall be held to be established if such matter, taken as a whole, does not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to any such charges which are proved to be true in whole or in part.

My interpretation is that someone accused of defamation for, say, accusing someone of corruption, may use a defence of truth. (7.1) However, the defence of truth supported with incontrovertible evidence may not work if the plaintiff’s reputation is materially injured (7.2).

I am suggesting that by not allowing truth to be a absolute defence, a loophole has been introduced in the Act to find people, with truth on their side, guilty of defamation. Jeff, do you have another interpretation.

2. Qualified Privilege

I refer to sections 11.1 and 12.

  1. (1) Subject to this section, the publication of any report or matter referred to in the First Schedule shall be protected by qualified privilege.
  2. The defence of qualified privilege shall be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant in making the publication complained of was actuated by malice.

My interpretation is that if, for example, an allegation of corruption with incontrovertible evidence was made at a public meeting (First Schedule 12.1), then its publication is protected by qualified privilege. However, the defence of qualified privilege can be defeated if the publication was found to be actuated by malice.

I am suggesting that by allowing malice to trump truth, a loophole has been introduced in the Act to find people, with truth on their side, guilty of defamation. Jeff, do you have another interpretation.

354 comments

  • Appreciate the feedback Walter.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Walter,

    Two points: anonymity does not stop action for libel, all it does is make the search to identify the alleged offender slightly more difficult. Second, an online offence can be prosecuted in any jurisdiction where the offending article is read. It does not have to be in Barbados.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Barbados’ laws cannot be taken seriously…they were written with the intent to ..MISINTERPRET..

    For years people have complained that lawyers who practice in that blighted supreme court ALWAYS misinterpret laws, very few are skilled enough to give valid interpretations…it is the way the laws were written and ratified as is…combined with joke lawyers who practice and you get a recipe for misinterpretation…the Judges are no better…hence EVERY CASE is ending up at the CCJ….for valid interpretation of the law..

    If a case is lasting nearly 40 years…ironically it is a defamation case still ongoing last time I checked …..but the misinterpretation of the law..among the other corrupt reasons ….keeps that case in the supreme court indefinitely….unless the CCJ untangles that mess the lawyers and Judges created…they will all just abandon the case because their pockets are full….and those affected by the ongoing case will get no closure..

    The same violation befalls:

    land cases

    personal injury cases

    family cases

    criminal cases

    Barbados has a problem…the more they are told about that problem and WARNED TO FIX IT the more they RESIST because they want to keep everything exactly as is…

    Fruendel turned really, really nasty when the CCJ tried to warn them…

    Like

  • Hal Austin

    If what you are saying is true with respect to the prosecution in any jurisdiction for people who libel others … then why hasn’t the government of Barbados taken steps to prosecute the owner, operator and distributor of the social media blog Naked Departure libelous information?

    Liked by 1 person

  • WARU

    You know if this law was passed in the US that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would challenge the constitutionality of this law … like it did with Bush Patriot Act … where certain aspects of the Act was repealed because of its unconstitutionality…

    Like

  • Does the old legal maxim “the greater the truth, the greater the libel” have application after the passage of this Act?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Walter

    To expand on your point, many on the blog do not appreciate what a powerful tool it can be. Instead they allow their inflated egos and false sense of importance to get in the way.

    #wip

    Liked by 1 person

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Jeff
    From the Merriam Webster dictionary:
    “Definition of reputation
    1a : overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general
    b : recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability
    has the reputation of being clever
    2 : a place in public esteem or regard : good name
    trying to protect his reputation

    I note that this definition holds that reputation is independent of truth… it is solely related to the esteem, regard, judgement, and recognition of the public.

    However your explanation of the defamation statute argues that reputation is a matter of the court’s regard for the truth rather than public perceptions. Why is this legal definition of reputation so at variance with the meaning of the word in plain English?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Very well presented at 10.11 pm Grenville.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Yes Lexicon…the law was vey badly drafted and should be repealed…

    ah would like to know which lawyers dead or alive drafted that piece of trash…

    Like

  • Hal Austin December 14, 2018 6:08 AM

    “@Walter,

    Two points: anonymity does not stop action for libel, all it does is make the search to identify the alleged offender slightly more difficult. Second, an online offence can be prosecuted in any jurisdiction where the offending article is read. It does not have to be in Barbados.”

    Hal,
    Two phrases above jumped out at me:
    “action for libel”
    “online offence can be prosecuted”

    I am not a lawyer, so I would like to innocently ask: If defamatory material is published on BU, who is going to be the primary target of the defamation suit? The blogger, or the publisher? Nextparty246 says it is the publisher.

    After the publisher has selflessly utilized time and other resources to provide a forum for education and discussion on national issues, is it fair or responsible for any of us to repay the publisher by exposing BU to the risk of being sued?

    I do not think so.

    All bloggers understand that they are free to express their ideas without resorting to ad hominem attacks and defamation. Yet some of us often find ourselves having, in the strongest terms possible, to condemn a particular blogger or two for writing defamatory remarks on BU.

    Why is this?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Walter
    I am not a lawyer. I do know that in an allegation of libel, the author, editor, publisher and distributor are all liable. In the real world, they are all covered by the publisher’s insurance. An editor is responsible for every word published in her/his publication, including advertisements. I spent a working life battling such cases and negotiating with insurance companies. In the UK editors face the threat of imprisonment – and they do jail editors.
    In the case of BU, we have allowed a practice of personal abuse and outright lies to substitute for objective critique. Why lots of offenders get away with murder is that taking legal action is expensive in the most competent of jurisdictions. In the UK to launch action starts at about £20000; in Barbados you run the risk of dishonest lawyers, long delays in the court s and corruption of the process. Then, in case of victory, to discover the offender does not have the means to pay – maybe a family home, if that. I believe in some case it may be worth it to make some elderly wo/man homeless as a penalty for their irresponsibility.

    Liked by 1 person

  • David December 14, 2018 6:57 AM

    “@Walter

    To expand on your point, many on the blog do not appreciate what a powerful tool it can be. Instead they allow their inflated egos and false sense of importance to get in the way.”

    David,
    Many on the blog reflect some of the characteristics prevalent in the general population. That is why it is going to be extremely difficult for Barbados to recover from this crisis quickly.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Some lawyers are vehemently complaining that the Supreme Court at Manor Lodge and Cane Garden are not FUNCTIONING ADEQUATELY….just spoke to one of the few good ones the island has…

    what is Mia and Marshall the AG planning to do about this state of affairs…will complaints have to be made to the relevant INTERNATIONAL BODIES about these CLEAR VIOLATIONS of the RIGHTS of people with cases that were MALICIOUSLY LEFT to linger in the supreme court….

    AND…certain lawyers can ACTUALLY SEE…the violation of human rights in REMOVING cases from court the system WITHOUT CLOSURE…after 10 years…

    Mia and Marshall are BEGGING TO BE HAULED up on human rights charges….ah done begging politicians to stop doing SHITE to their OWN people.

    Like

  • @ Walter
    Yet some of us often find ourselves having, in the strongest terms possible, to condemn a particular blogger or two for writing defamatory remarks on BU.
    Why is this?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Probably because wunna need to get a damn life…
    this is the 21st Century Boss…
    What the Hell is wrong with a bit of defamation?

    It is not like the defamed are forced to sit quietly in a corner and take it.
    The same damn way that Bushie can defame Hal, He has EVERY right …AND opportunity, to put the facts on the table and show up Bushie to be a scallywag…

    It actually WORKS.

    There are few BETTER ways to get at the truth than to insert a bit of hyperbole –
    You will SEE how fast the truth comes out when persons are ‘defamed’.
    Wunna know how many times Bushie has been scandalised, abused, attacked and misrepresented…?

    Check how Caswell handled initial attempts to nullify his contributions here on BU…
    BY OPENLY EXPLAINING HIS ACTIONS and thinking…. Now he is a highly respected (by Bushie) SENATOR and his attempted detractors continue to be nobodies…

    Truth and honesty ALWAYS comes out smelling like a fresh rose
    …BECAUSE it has not a shiite to hide.

    The ONLY persons who are afraid of being ‘defamed’ are those who DO have (maybe different) secrets in the closet …or who are not prepared to expose their CLEAN life to public scrutiny.
    …In which case, they should keep their heads low…. and out of public affairs.

    Meanwhile, there is nothing sweeter than a bit of defamation….
    …and BTW…
    Hal is an idiot still….

    Liked by 1 person

  • “I believe in some case it may be worth it to make some elderly wo/man homeless as a penalty for their irresponsibility.”

    ya such a nasty old tw*t, that is why it is NEVER going to happen..

    Walter…don’t mind Ha, Ha….

    Like

  • Bush Tea December 14, 2018 7:51 AM

    “@ Walter
    Probably because wunna need to get a damn life…
    this is the 21st Century Boss…
    What the Hell is wrong with a bit of defamation?”

    Bush Tea,
    I know very well that this is the 21st Century Boss…
    So what the Hell is wrong with a bit of Barbadian politicians “thiefing” billions of dollars and making you and the rest of the Bajan people suck salt for eternity?
    So what the hell is wrong with you wrapping yourself in sackcloth and ashes, and fighting a brassbowled pitchfork at the Garrison with a rusted, bladeless whacker?

    The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind…

    LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  • Hal Austin

    What Bushie fails to understand or acknowledge is the fact that once your reputation is damage it is difficult to recover it …so there ought be consequences to be had for such distasteful behaviour… Your reputation my friend is of the utmost importance so you ought to guard it with all you have because one it is damaged you are prone to attack from all sides… Listen! Do you remember what Jesse Jackson son said when he was accused of corruption…? I guess not well he said “give me back my reputation…”

    Like

  • Once they repeal that shite defamation legislation to STOP defamation laws from being abused and misused by government ministers, lawyers and business people for self enrichment purposes …using real, imagined or contrived accusations of defamation to also HIDE THEIR MANY CRIMES….just because the law is there to abuse……ya will get less instances of defamation…..

    Like

  • “the defendant may allege and prove the truth of any of the charges contained in such matter and the defence of truth shall be held to be established if”

    Let us hold here for a moment. If truth is an absolute defence as we both agree that it should be, then why, after proving the truth of a matter should there be the qualifier “if”.

    @Mr Phillips, you may not be aware, but section 7(2) is an amendment of the former position where there were multiple defamatory imputations contained in a piece. At common law, the defendant, in order to rely on truth as a defense, had to prove the substantial truth of EACH imputation, There was an amendment in England in1952 that permitted the defense of truth to succeed even if ALL the imputations were not proved true, so long as those not proved true did not materially injure the claimant;s reputation, having regard to those which were proven true. This was adopted in Grenada and Guyana.

    So if the imputation had been that the claimant was a liar, a thief and pedophile, and the defendant were able to prove the truth of liar and thief, but not pedophile, then the claimant’s reputation might still have been injured, if you accept that these imputations are listed in ascending order of depravity. What this amendment did not do, and which has now been corrected by the legislation in Barbados (1996) and Jamaica (2013) is to allow the defendant to bring all the imputations to the table. Under the English amendment, if the claimant thought that the defendant could not establish the truth of one of the imputations, then he or she would sue on that one imputation only. and a defense of truth would fail accordingly. Now, if that is attempted in Barbados, the defendant would be able to say, “No,no, I did not only make one imputation, I made three, and I can establish the truth of the worst ones, so your reputation is not materially injured”.

    I notice that you have extracted a part of the section only. This is heretical to legal interpretation, The entire section, no, the entire Act should be read as a whole in order to construe the meaning of a provision. I have reproduces section 7 (2) below.

    “Where an action for defamation has been brought in respect of the whole or any part of matter published, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of any of the charges contained in such matter and the defence of truth shall be held to be established if such matter, taken as a whole, does not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to any such charges which are proved to be true in whole or in part.”

    Like

  • Bush Tea

    Even when a man is accused of child sexual abused and is found not guilty in a court of law …he would never be regarded in the same light in the minds of some people…

    Like

  • Take for example the case of a politician being called a whoremonger associate and man of low morals…let’s further assume said politician decided to sue the detractor in order to reclaim his reputation…then during the case multiple video and other photographic evidence was offered to show the pol in the company of women scantily clad doing dances and other provocative acts for him and others….thus it was proven he was as claimed…what then do the public think of him other than being a lascivious hypocrite…what reputation does he now have to be injured!

    @ DPD, Brilliant!

    Liked by 1 person

  • pieceuhderockyeahright December 13, 2018 3:40 PM
    “@ Grenville Phillips
    Some years ago, when de ole man started this with de grandson, one would have played by “the Rules” and like you, be circumspect in what one wrote here on this blog.”

    Hal Austin December 14, 2018 7:43 AM
    “@Walter
    I believe in some case it may be worth it to make some elderly wo/man homeless as a penalty for their irresponsibility.”

    WARU December 14, 2018 7:51 AM

    “ya such a nasty old tw*t, that is why it is NEVER going to happen..

    Walter…don’t mind Ha, Ha….”

    WARU,
    I am not minding anyone.

    However, it is quite possible that Hal’s statement was not really directed at you or me.

    Like

  • Does the old legal maxim “the greater the truth, the greater the libel” have application after the passage of this Act?

    @ Mr McDonald, this maxim belongs to the era when libel was a crime, principally because it could result in a breach of the peace. An individual in those times, about whom an imputation was made and that he knew to be true, would not wait on the law but would swiftly draw his sword to avenge his reputation.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Ha, Ha is being Ha, Ha…a lowlife and he knows it..

    …the legislations that cause such confusion deliberate and otherwise have to be REPEALED so the legal system can START FRESH…as things stand, nothing is moving, literally, because of such badly written laws……

    or let me put it a better way…laws that are CONFLICTING WITH MODERN TIMES…cause these problems which makes them very badly written laws….these legislations need to be upgraded and dragged into the 21st century….

    Like

  • Thanks Jeff for showing an even better example of WHY…laws need to be UPDATED ON THE REGULAR…so they do not conflict with the times…

    Like

  • I note that this definition holds that reputation is independent of truth… it is solely related to the esteem, regard, judgement, and recognition of the public.

    However your explanation of the defamation statute argues that reputation is a matter of the court’s regard for the truth rather than public perceptions. Why is this legal definition of reputation so at variance with the meaning of the word in plain English?

    @ Peter, there is no variance really. Your reputation is indeed what others think of you, but where it can be established by “incontrovertible evidence”, to use Mr Phillips phrase, that that reputation is otherwise, then the presumption that the claimant has a good reputation (the public perception) is shown to be misguided and ought not to subsist.

    Like

  • Section 12 shows that truth is not an absolute defence since there are instances where it “shall be defeated”. What is this thing that prevents truth from being an absolute defence. It is if the motive in publishing the truth is found to be malice

    @ Mr Phillips, Qualified privilege is not truth. These are different defenses. According to section 12

    The defence of qualified privilege shall be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant in making the publication complained of was actuated by malice.(my emphasis)

    Qualified privilege excuses defamation because it is in the public interest that there should be occasions on which reputation should give way to the exigencies of the occasion. That is however subject to the publisher not acting out of malice and using the occasion for a different, self-serving purpose…

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Jeff
    We do not agree. The statute states that truth is a defense only if it
    “… does not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation…” it does not refer to what the plaintiff’s reputation “ought” to be.

    Like

  • Why should it matter what the motive for revealing corruption is Jeff? If someone stole $50M of a $100M contract, and the whistleblower had their house foreclosed as a result of the increased taxes to pay for the additional $50M bribe, then who cares whether his motives were justice, anger, revenge, or malice. He has blown the whistle and should be rewarded not criminalized.

    So, for the record, a person who publishes genuine cases of corruption, with incontrovertible evidence, can be found guilty of defamation under the 1997 Defamation Act.

    @ Mr Phillips, now here is a clear example of wishfulness turning into assertion. Motive is irrelevant if the TRUTH is established. And GUILT is for criminal offenses, although one may be LIABLE for defamation if sued successfully.

    Liked by 1 person

  • We do not agree. The statute states that truth is a defense only if it
    “… does not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation…” it does not refer to what the plaintiff’s reputation “ought” to be.

    @Peter, earlier this morning at 8:23 am, I patiently explained the etiology of the section that you quoting in part only. Defamation was not created by the Defamation Act1996, but is rather a creature of the common law, dating back to earliest times. That is why you will not find a definition of qualified privilege or malice or truth in the Act, these have all already been determined by common law precedent.

    Liked by 1 person

  • are quoting*

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ David BU

    The submission did generate a lengthy exchange of views,each looking through different lenses. If that was the intention ,generating a lot of heat and no light,then the mission was accomplished. But for those of us who treat all experiences as a learning and teaching opportunity ,it was.

    @ Grenville II

    I still concur with Jeff as at that point of the debate. I do not think any further truth emanated from what followed. In the final analysis it is what the judge and jury determine on that particular day. Even then all kinds of administrative hickups can be contrived to frustrate the winning party. C’est la vie.

    Like

  • @ walter
    ‘Truth’ is a funny thing.
    What REALLY is this ‘TRUTH” that Jeff so blissfully promotes as “that will can absolve accusations of defamation”?
    That is just shiite talk boss…

    It is essentially what the court finds to be ‘true’.

    Now put that into the context of our court system…. and HONESTLY tell Bushie what outcomes you will expect.
    Bushie has no time for such shiite games boss….BEEN THERE and DONE THAT.

    .. and the bushman hardly reads contributions from the dribbler nowadays,
    the lukewarm dribble is unpalatable…. i.e…
    +++++++++
    …let’s further assume said politician decided to sue the detractor in order to reclaim his reputation…then during the case multiple video and other photographic evidence was offered to show the pol in the company of women scantily clad doing dances and other provocative acts…
    +++++++++
    What nonsense.

    Suppose NO video turns up…. does THAT mean the accusation was untrue?
    Suppose the video is challenged as fraudulent? …and the accused can afford better experts?
    “Suppose ain’t got no ‘no’s”…
    If the videos existed then there would be no damn need for a case … just send them to Naked Departure and matter fixed…

    DPD could really hush when he has nothing to say…

    In the FINAL analysis, given our shiite court system, partisan politics, brass bowl attitudes, and albino-centric predispositions, CASWELL’s approach trumps all the others – and PARTICULARLY the existing idiotic court system that is currently failing us.

    Caswell approaches the issues UP FRONT and DIRECT with his accusations….
    Those who have legit explanations can then feel free to EXPLAIN and defend their actions.
    Those who are guilty can continue to revert to the protection of the shitty laws that THEY conceived…
    But they LOOK guilty to all sensible onlookers… and their reputations are accordingly adjusted.

    …and the rest of wunna can continue to wallow in the stupid brass-bowlery while the scams get bigger and bigger…

    Before long we may just learn that the Taliban are behind the new private sector agency running the damn airport …and that innotech is in control of our water purification processes….

    BBBBB’s

    Liked by 1 person

  • Grenville,

    I would appreciate it if you would show me exactly when I celebrated????????

    I only meant that I wished Jeff had made it simpler for me. I was not in the mood for legalese.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Jeff
    I have no doubt that you understand the etiology. I am disturbed, however, when the legal meaning of common English words like reputation and malice deviate so markedly from what they mean in plain English.

    Liked by 1 person

  • What nonsense.

    Suppose NO video turns up…. does THAT mean the accusation was untrue?
    Suppose the video is challenged as fraudulent? …and the accused can afford better experts?
    “Suppose ain’t got no ‘no’s”…

    If the videos existed then there would be no damn need for a case … just send them to Naked Departure and matter fixed…

    DPD could really hush when he has nothing to say…

    @Bushie, so a hypothesis is nonsense because you can add other assumptions to it? I thought more highly of you,,,mistakenly so, I might add!

    Like

  • LOL @ Jeff
    Presumably you also know how much Bushie cares how or what you think or thought of him….
    Bushmen with whackers could care less….
    However,
    If you and DPD can speculate with ridiculous hypotheses …what is to stop Bushie from taking it to its logical conclusion…?

    Liked by 1 person

  • ‘Couldn’t care less’ not ‘could care less’ Bushie. That is a foolish American adaptation. Could care less means that you must care some. Couldn’t care less means you don’t care at all.

    Sorry but that a pet peeve of mine.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ PLT at 9 :46 AM

    Plain English is not plain at all. When one seeks to settle a dispute in court,the legal definition matters; and even then the judge can define what the law meant to say. Why do you think Barrow advised that if one wants justice one does not go to Coleridge Street?. Why do you think that there is summary executions in the under ground justice system?

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    There “ARE” not “IS”.

    Like

  • Bush Tea December 14, 2018 9:34 AM

    “@ walter
    Caswell approaches the issues UP FRONT and DIRECT with his accusations….
    Those who have legit explanations can then feel free to EXPLAIN and defend their actions.
    Those who are guilty can continue to revert to the protection of the shitty laws that THEY conceived…
    But they LOOK guilty to all sensible onlookers… and their reputations are accordingly adjusted.”

    Bush Tea,
    Let me see if I am reading you correctly.

    One person approaches an issue up front and directs defamatory “accusations” at another person.
    If the accused person is innocent, then he/she would naturally “have legit explanations”. Once they have these legit explanations, they can then proceed to “feel free to explain and defend their actions.”
    That is the only recourse left to the innocent accused and the defamed. The guilty accuser has no price or penalty to pay for defamation. His/her utterances and actions are risk free. Yeah, right. Are you sure that you are living in the 21st century?

    According to you, if the accused person is guilty, they can go to court and seek protection under the law. Even if the law finds them “innocent”, they will still “LOOK guilty to all sensible onlookers… and their reputations are accordingly” tarnished.

    As a simple-minded Bajan would ask: “You head good?”

    Like

  • I have no doubt that you understand the etiology. I am disturbed, however, when the legal meaning of common English words like reputation and malice deviate so markedly from what they mean in plain English

    @ Peter, If so, then you will be shocked by the meaning of fair comment. or comment as we now call it in Barbados –

    After citing Campbell, Lord Esher MR asked what was meant by ‘fair comment’ and answered: ‘What is the meaning of a ‘fair comment’? I think the meaning is this: is the article in the opinion of the jury beyond that which any fair man, however prejudiced or however strong his opinion may be, would say of the work in question? Every latitude must be given to opinion and to prejudice, and then an ordinary set of men with ordinary judgment must say whether any fair man would have made such a comment on the work . . Mere exaggeration, or even gross exaggeration, would not make the comment unfair. However wrong the opinion expressed may be in point of truth, or however prejudiced the writer, it may still be within the prescribed limit. The question which the jury must consider is this – would any fair man, however prejudiced he may be, however exaggerated or obstinate his views, have said that which this criticism has said of the work which is criticised? If it goes beyond that, then you must find for the plaintiff; if you are not satisfied that it does, then it falls within the allowed limit, and there is no libel at all.’
    .

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Jeff,
    You are correct… I am shocked 😳

    Liked by 1 person

  • Donna December 13, 2018 8:48 AM on the Grenville Phillips Column.

    Grenville,

    I have read the convoluted language and the ‘loophole” you highlighted. I think that they are referring to proving only part of the allegations rather than the whole. I will read it again, as I often have to with legal language, when I am more in the mood. And I will check in for Jeff’s opinion. Give him time.

    Jeff Cumberbatch

    @Mr Phillips, you may not be aware, but section 7(2) is an amendment of the former position where there were multiple defamatory imputations contained in a piece. At common law, the defendant, in order to rely on truth as a defense, had to prove the substantial truth of EACH imputation, There was an amendment in England in1952 that permitted the defense of truth to succeed even if ALL the imputations were not proved true, so long as those not proved true did not materially injure the claimant;s reputation, having regard to those which were proven true. This was adopted in Grenada and Guyana.

    So if the imputation had been that the claimant was a liar, a thief and pedophile, and the defendant were able to prove the truth of liar and thief, but not pedophile, then the claimant’s reputation might still have been injured, if you accept that these imputations are listed in ascending order of depravity. What this amendment did not do, and which has now been corrected by the legislation in Barbados (1996) and Jamaica (2013) is to allow the defendant to bring all the imputations to the table. Under the English amendment, if the claimant thought that the defendant could not establish the truth of one of the imputations, then he or she would sue on that one imputation only. and a defense of truth would fail accordingly. Now, if that is attempted in Barbados, the defendant would be able to say, “No,no, I did not only make one imputation, I made three, and I can establish the truth of the worst ones, so your reputation is not materially injured”.

    Grenville,

    I repeated the same comment on this thread and was ignored but being a forgiving person I am still open for business. I have no legal training but I am going cheap. I am sure Jeff will attest to the fact that I would be an improvement on what you currently have at your disposal even when I am not firing on all cylinders. You need to bring yourself down a few pegs. You may be an expert engineer but that does not translate into all other areas.

    Like

  • Walter,

    There is a saying in Barbados – “Wuh dey crucify Christ so who is you?”

    The things I heard about myself used to make my head spin until I came to really put that saying to use. Now I don’t give a damn who says what unless it is true. And if it is true I try to improve myself in that area to make it untrue.

    Take my foolish advice. Get over it and prove yourself again. After all – WHO IS YOU????????

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Mr Blogmaster this is related on the legal side but otherwise unrelated to this topic but alas here it is.

    Last night I started to write a post with high indignation re US Senator Orin Hatch saying he doesn’t care that a sitting US president had broken the law…I was confonded that we (most politicians and the populace) have become so freaking attached to our desired social desires that even people who u expect to FULLY protect the rule of law are willing to subvert principle at this altar of self gratifiction.

    I write now because I saw another news report that he now says he regrets y’day remarks.

    BS…he said what he really felt y’day…today is BS clean up day.

    I caution my fellow Bajans to not dismiss this type of political pandering as alien or possible in BIm as clearly many of our pols have long adopted Hatch’s nonsense.

    And also note that in the state of Wisconsin recently and North Carolina some years ago as memory serves…a REPUBLICAN Senate and Assembly SPECIFICALLY passed laws to enshire their control of power and LIMIT actions of a new governor when they realized they were going to lose the elections…

    And it seems the governor or new congress have no ability to rectify that…can u believe that BS…

    So when a republican senator who chaired the freaking judicial committee of the damn US Senate for years frankly says that he does not care about presidential infelicities …believe the man…his republican kith and kin across the US nation are working hard to ensure only THEIR laws and rules apply.

    @ Jeff, almost like BushT above …only his assumptions count…with the Bushman it’s a good laff but for elected officials to be acting with this level of impunity it’s absolutely no joking matter.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    …or IMPOSSIBLE in BIm…

    Like

  • In Michigan also, DPD. It is being done in Michigan also.

    Like

  • To be fair I think the Democrats did it once before as well.

    Like

  • Have there been any defamation cases in Barbados that we can discuss ?

    Like

  • Mia had one, I believe, and Ms. Ram.

    Like

  • In response to the suit, CBC said the words complained of were true in substance and in fact and that they constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest.

    https://barbadostoday.bb/2013/09/03/judge-tells-lawyers-its-time-to-get-on-with-mrs-ram-cbc-libel-case/

    Like

  • Donna December 14, 2018 7:13 PM

    “Walter,

    There is a saying in Barbados – “Wuh dey crucify Christ so who is you?”

    Take my foolish advice. Get over it and prove yourself again. After all – WHO IS YOU????????”

    Donna,
    I have said it before, and I would say it again, public education is not to be undertaken by the faint-hearted. I can tell you up front that I am not here to get over or under “it”, nor to prove anything to anybody.

    You have made no reference to anything that I have written. However, since my objective is to be always clear in my writing, your feedback makes me believe that I have been somewhat deficient in getting over some major points on this issue. I am going to take this opportunity to make myself clearer.

    After Columbus invaded the Caribbean at the end of the 15th century, the Spaniards treated the Caribbean colonists with murderous brutality and scorn. The colonists complained to Columbus, but as one historian put it, “instead of punishing the oppressors, Columbus punished the oppressed.”

    The same attitude displayed by Columbus over 400 years ago is displayed throughout the Caribbean (Barbados included) on a daily basis. Victims of abuse, incest, rape, robbery etc are made to believe that something is wrong with them. It is their fault. Rather than receiving support, the “oppressed” are punished twice. Hardly a word or rebuke is focused on the “oppressor”.

    I deliberately portrayed myself as the oppressed victim of defamation on this blog. I deliberately identified PieceUhDeCock as the well documented “oppressor”.
    I showed that, out of the blog’s total population, only two persons (the blogmaster, and Grenville Phillips had so far brought some heat to bear upon “the oppressor”.

    Then, I waited to observe who would be the first out of the gates to display the Columbus attitude – to come after me, the oppressed, and not say a word of rebuke to PieceUhDeCock, the oppressor.

    My list so far:
    Bush Tea
    Donna

    Strange bedfellows, don’t you think?

    Like

  • @ Walter
    One person approaches an issue up front and directs defamatory “accusations” at another person.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    You know full well that there will be a different approach taken to those who choose to live private lives, and those who undertake PUBLIC responsibilities. As Bushie stated, anyone who has issues with being under the microscope just NEED to keep out of public affairs.
    However, those who CHOOSE to participate in public service MUST be open to serious SCRUTINY.
    You CANNOT expect to enjoy the perks and powers of office …and avoid the RESPONSIBILITIES that come with it.

    As to your conflict with Piece, (and the Watchman) …get over it boss.
    That is NOTHING compared to what you could expect if you were to jump fully into the political fray.
    Unless you can learn to treat such attacks as water off a duck’s back … stay in private business and see if you can earn a few dollars…..

    As Donna said, they crucified Jesus – and all he did was heal the sick, and preach the gospel.
    ( well …Perhaps he should NOT have provided the wine …. who knows?)
    If they murdered the Son of God…. who the hell are you to complain about a few barbs from Piece..?
    Or even from stinking Bushie?

    Hal?

    Steupsss…
    Man up do Walter….

    Like

  • RE My list so far:
    Bush Tea
    Donna

    Strange bedfellows, don’t you think?

    YES! AGREE WITH YOU 100% Strange bedfellows INDEED!

    DONNA SOUNDS LIKE A HIGH SPIRITED SEXY WOMAN
    ON THE OTHER HAND BUSH SHITE HAS BEEN KNOWN TO ASK A MAN TO GET BEHIND HIM. HE HAS ALSO ENGAGE IN VASELINE TALK
    Strange bedfellows INDEED!

    Like

  • Bush Tea,
    I am running this experiment, not you.
    Your name is on the list already. I have no intention of putting it down twice.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @Donna, no doubt Democrats have done their fair share of political shennnanigans, however, in the last 20 to 25 years in US they have been badly outstripped in gerrymandering and blatant political bias by Republicans.

    This is not the space for lots of long talk on that So suffice to say that a recent article highlighted that the state of North Carolina in US if measured on the same scale (Electoral Integrity Project) as other systems in the world then that state’s electoral process would rank it alongside countries like Cuba, Venezuela and Indonesia…. digest that: the citizens in the United States of America in NC are exposed electoral to a state controlled system of the type associated with authoritarian nations. That in no JOKE.

    This is the same state that now has to redo one district election because a Republican stuffed absentee ballots to give his candidate victory and was apparently doing so for many election cycles…

    In Bim, this 30-0 result tells its own tale and of course we have to be very vigilant as we try here o BU.

    @Walter, the Bushman says it clearly (assumptions and all) when he voiced: “anyone who has issues with being under the microscope just NEED to keep out of public affairs.”… I don’t grasp the need for one to support you or decry @Pieces…

    I was here when you guys had your bassa-bassa and as I understood the issue which the Davemeister moderated ofgline there was some past greivance which Pieces wrongly associated to you. After the moderation there was some sorta apology he offered and life continued.

    Since then of course he has lambasted your backside at times but he has also given you praise…so what’s with this perspective that you are some victim of terrible defamation from him..others have smacked you also!

    Incidentally, from your first posts here you came across as a brother with whom one bothers at their own peril…it was YOU senor who regaled us of your tribulations and trials in the young Dems and how you were upbraided (ran out) for being too ownwayish …or so I understood from those remarks of the time.

    All that to say thst any man who warns us of his strong temperament and gives examples of how it affected him and others around him, and who acts as verbally ‘in your face’ (e.g., PieceoftheCOCK ) as you do should REALLY, REALLY NOT portray himself as a VICTIM…leave that for powerless lil lisping laddies and lasses …fah real!

    BTW, from his writings here @Pieces would be very much a VICTIM too based on his trials and tribulations at the hands of powerful people…

    So I concur with the others…get on with it, you absolutely do have something meaningful to offer so carry on smartly to that end…brickbats come to ALL public personas!

    Like

  • Hi Jeff:

    You are simply proving my point, but doing your best not to reveal that to the ‘gallery’. You wrote.

    “Motive is irrelevant if the TRUTH is established. And GUILT is for criminal offenses, although one may be LIABLE for defamation if sued successfully.”

    Let me repeat your last phrase for the gallery: “although one may be LIABLE for defamation if sued successfully.”

    And who is that “one”? It is the whistleblower who made the accusation of corruption with incontrovertible evidence.

    Here is why this is important. Let us say that a lowly whistleblower has evidence that a well-respected QC lawyer, who earned $5M last year, received a $100,000 bribe.

    If the unrepresented whistle blower makes the accusation, and is in-turn accused of defaming the QC, then he can easily be tricked into admitting that he was motivated by malice. Therefore, the QC is likely to simply repay the $100,000 bribe. However, the whistle blower may have a judgement of 3 times the QC’s annual earnings, or $15M against him in the defamation claim.

    So, the Defamation Act discourages persons from revealing corrupt practises.

    Like

  • Enuff: Let me try and resolve this unknown issue. What do you think that I have done to offend you?

    Like

  • @Dee Word

    A democracy is suppose to have checks and balances. No one man is an island the saying goes.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler,
    As I said before, you like to play that you are daft, so I am going to humour you.

    You entered this discussion on December 14, 2018 at 11:17 pm.

    Before that time, I had already informed all readers on BU that I had set up an experiment, using the experience of defamation which I endured on BU, as a means of highlighting a rather interesting attitude that Barbadians display towards victims.

    I made sure that I described the instances of defamation as “documented”. That means there is no doubt that they occurred. The records are there.

    I cast myself in the role of the oppressed victim, and I identified PieceUhDeCockYeahTight (please take note of the full name) as the villainous oppressor.

    In Barbadian society, when wrongs are brazenly committed, very few people are courageous or interested enough to take a stand against the perpetrators. For the purpose of this experiment, that expected small percentage of courageous men has been represented by the blogmaster, and Grenville Phillips.

    The fascinating aspect of this exercise surrounds the predictable behaviour of many Barbadians who can be counted upon to disregard the wrongs committed, and to focus their ire, irritation, advice, and anger on the oppressed victim. Not a word of rebuke is directed at the oppressor. This is what I called the Christopher Columbus attitude. It is in this area that you decided to spectacularly make your contribution.

    I have not defamed anybody, yet you could not help but to focus your attention on me and to write my biography above. Not a word of rebuke or censure was aimed at the wrongdoer. You have admirably displayed the predictable Columbus attitude, and by so doing, have joined others who have shown a similar mindset:
    Bush Tea
    Donna
    de pedantic Dribbler

    Like

  • “Mia had one, I believe, and Ms. Ram.”

    Rams dead chickens case with Nation has been in the Supreme Court for nearly 40 YEARS….

    Mia has two defamation cases I have seen so far, Owen has one or two also….they know they do shite and sue people to cover their tracks and get some money…misusing the damn court and have cases stuck in there for years…because those cases most often take decades to resolve and still never get completely resolved.,, remember shitehound lawyers and judges looking to make more than anyone else. .

    Someone needs to bring a lawsuit about the cases stuck in the supreme court by lawyers and Judges deliberately. ..those cases CANNOT be thrown out of court without closure, they are only in the court because the Judges allowed the lawyers to do as they like in their courtrooms, because they are all friends and business partners and THEY COLLUDE AGAINST THE PEOPLE WITH CASES…so how could the Mia government in good conscience take these cases out of the supreme court without closure when it’s the lawyers AND Judges caused those cases to be stuck in there….to begin with.

    There is a very good example of one of Haynes former little pissant lawyes, lying to a Judge and causing the case to become stuck and unfinished over a year now, no court date and that case should have been closed out nearly 2 years ago…

    ….does Mia really think Claimants are going to sit by and watch CGI Insurance and Haynes run these cases into 10 years and get them thrown out the court so they don’t have to pay compensation and don’t EXPOSE PETER HARRIS AND LESLIE HAYNES.worldwide….and the nasty things they have done to injured people, using the supreme court.well they better think again…just saying, it will come up as a human rights violation because that is what it has always been, misusing the supreme court to violate injured people, old people and other people’s human rights..

    Like

  • “Motive is irrelevant if the TRUTH is established. And GUILT is for criminal offenses, although one may be LIABLE for defamation if sued successfully.”**
    *Let me repeat your last phrase for the gallery: “although one may be LIABLE for defamation if sued successfully.”

    And who is that “one”? It is the whistleblower who made the accusation of corruption with incontrovertible evidence

    Good morning, Mr Phillips, I am beginning to tire of this discussion since I am unable to convince you. As I told Peter yesterday morning, the law of defamation is not discretely contained in the Defamation Act but also has a history of judicial precedent since mediaeval times. For one to gain a full and proper appreciation of the law of defamation, it would require close study of these decisions and the way in which they influence the law today.

    My point above is not a substantive one, but rather a simple one of terminology. “Guilty” and “accused” are words normally used with criminal offenses and not with civil actions as suits for defamation are. The corresponding words are “liable” and “sued for” respectively. Of course, in Barbados, it is entirely possible for defamation to be a criminal offense-

    Liability for criminal libel shall extend to charges contained in matter published (a) by means of broadcasting; or
    (b) in permanent form.

    Let me iterate, a whistleblower who produces admissible and incontrovertible evidence of the truth would not be sued “successfully” for defamation!

    Like

  • Have there been any defamation cases in Barbados that we can discuss ?

    In addition to those already mentioned, there have been quite a few reported, Hants. Some of the names of the parties below might be recognizable-

    Barrow v Caribbean Publishing Company

    Richard Haynes v Victor Johnson

    Husbands v The Advocate

    Lionel Craig v Tommy Miller

    Henry Forde & Bernard St John v Neville Maxwell

    Like

  • I could have added another two – Oliver Jordan v Barbados Advocate and * Nikita Marshall v The Nation* (on the defense of triviality)

    Like

  • If the unrepresented whistle blower makes the accusation, and is in-turn accused of defaming the QC, then he can easily be tricked into admitting that he was motivated by malice. Therefore, the QC is likely to simply repay the $100,000 bribe. However, the whistle blower may have a judgement of 3 times the QC’s annual earnings, or $15M against him in the defamation claim.

    So, the Defamation Act discourages persons from revealing corrupt practices.

    @ Mr Phillips, I do not accept that one can “easily be tricked into admitting that he was motivated by malice” if he or she was not. In defamation, the malice that defeats qualified privilege is either an intentional or reckless disregard for the truth or an excess of privilege,that is, by communicating the defamatory imputation to a party who does not have a corresponding legal moral or social duty in receiving the communication. Having already pleaded that the statement was made without malice, it would have to be a “genius” advocate who could persuade a party to recant this on the stand -especially where there exists “incontrovertible evidence” in support.

    It just hit me.Would I be correct in assuming that you are desirous of “whistleblowing” on local corrupt practices and are trying to cover the legal bases before doing so?

    Like

  • Finally, a $15 million dollar award for defamation in Barbados is but a vain imagining. The law requires that damages should bear some relation to awards in personal injury cases-section 27 (2)

    (2) In directing the jury as to the quantum of damages which may be awarded, the judge may direct the jury that they may have regard to the quantum of damages awarded in personal injury cases.

    Like

  • “As I told Peter yesterday morning, the law of defamation is not discretely contained in the Defamation Act but also has a history of judicial precedent since mediaeval times. ”

    I could swear we tried to explain this yesterday.

    As long as the archaic laws are NOT upgraded, the same issues will persist and ya will still be on BU complaing about the same misinterpretation of law issues…30 years from now.

    So it’s useless complaining…until such time that ya actually get real lawmakers who will UNDERSTAND that LAWS..and….LEGISLATION…must be UPGRADED ON THE REGULAR to avoid the current problems.

    Like

  • Nextparty

    “The law forces you into the silence because of consequences to be had for doing the right thing”

    Whistle Blower

    A state police in this very state reported the corruption he saw taking place in the State Police Department, and the State Attorney General Office told him to find a lawyer ( the very office that was supposed to represented him with respected to the claims he made of
    Corruption in the State Police Department) and added to the slapped in his face he was reassigned under a bridge 2 hrs away from where his lived…

    Like

  • Thanks for taking the time Jeff, looking forward to read what you have for us this week.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Lexicon…which state was that ….?….?

    Like

  • Why I asked, some states, like Barbados, still got laws EMBEDDED in the 17th to 19th centuries with new laws legislated but STILL surrounded by archaic legislation.., which creates all manner of conflicts when people are trying to do the right and legal thing.

    Like

  • @ Jeff
    “As I told Peter yesterday morning, the law of defamation is not discretely contained in the Defamation Act but also has a history of judicial precedent since mediaeval times. For one to gain a full and proper appreciation of the law of defamation, it would require close study of these decisions and the way in which they influence the law today.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    You must be careful to understand that your level of expertise and even comfort with this degree of almost mystical confusion as you so correctly explain above – is NOT replicated across the society.

    In Bushman’s language, what you explained above is that…

    “…the law is a lotta RH shiite tied up in outdated concepts which allows Judges and lawyers (especially the unethical lot of retrograde vipers that we have in Barbados,) to do whatever the Hell suits their particular fancy.

    End of bush language translation.

    This is exactly what Grenville is saying – except he is trying to apply engineering thinking to shiite legal language.
    ..but not stinking Bushie …. He just leads with the whacker…
    LOL
    ha ha ha

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Walter Blackman December 14, 2018 10:02 PM. “The colonists complained to Columbus, but as one historian put it, “instead of punishing the oppressors, Columbus punished the oppressed.”

    Since your objective is to be always clear in your writing you ought to have written the colonized. Not the colonists. The colonists, in this case the Spaniards, were the colonial oppressors, the indigenous people and later the African enslaved people were the colonized. The colonists are the white people who came. The colonized are the indigenous people and the African forced laborers.

    Instead of studying something “useful” I had nothing better to do but to study A’Level English and History. Lolll!!!

    I trust that I am not seen as an oppressor. In real life people who know me think that I am real, real nice. perhaps even too nice.

    Like

  • GP
    Offend me? Boss I left the ring long time, sat back and watch the legal expert unmek you, as expected. #noegotisthere

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Simple S
    In real life people who know me think that I am real, real nice. perhaps even too nice.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Part to meet you in the ZR stand today?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Bajan men on the whole are massively insecure. Stupssseee!!!

    You should hear what they say about me in private life (some of it true, but exciting, lolll!!!) and on this blog too.

    I agnore it. I neva get vex nor offended.

    Water offa a duck’s back.

    I will NEVER NEVER EVERcsue anyone for defaming me.

    Have better things to do with my time than to spend it defending myself against idiots and liars.

    Have better things to do with my money than to pay a lawyer.

    Bajan men, especially those in public life, need to learn how to chill.

    If somebody tells you that your mother used to work at Bush Hill, so what. She still raised you well, and she lived to be past 90, so defeating the allegators.

    Like

  • Look fellas, your testicles will NOT fall off, nor will the madam deny you your privileges just because someone calls you a derogatory word for homosexual, or calls you a thief or child molester.

    LEARN TO CHILL.

    Like

  • @ Simple Simon

    Re: “Since your objective is to be always clear in your writing you ought to have written the colonized. Not the colonists. The colonists, in this case the Spaniards, were the colonial oppressors, the indigenous people and later the African enslaved people were the colonized.”

    That comment is the result of you digesting history as the white man taught you.
    The Europeans believed the indigenous population they found living in the Caribbean were savages, and enforcing their way of life on these indigenous people were the Spaniards’ definition of colonisation. That is rubbish and far from the truth.

    You should read more updated history.

    Like

  • Walter Blackman,

    Have the police ever come to your door because someone reported that you threatened to kill your six week old baby? Has the Child Care Board called you for reports of abuse of your year old child? Have rumours of your abuse spread like wild fire to your workplace and church? When something like that happens to you talk to me about defamation.

    Walter, after seeing us together for all these years EVERYBODY knows that I would use my body to shield my son from a bullet. (Never mind that since he is a teenager I sometimes feel violent myself. LOL)

    THE TRUTH HAS A WAY OF COMING OUT.

    I am not blaming you for being annoyed about defamation. I am saying that it happens to us all and we all have to deal with it. Put it in perspective, brother and take my name of your list. I know how it feels and I know how I got over it. I am simply trying to help you to do the same and get over it.

    That is, if you want to get over it.

    P.S. I cannot berate Piece or anyone else because I cannot remember what was said and I am not in a position to know if it was in fact defamation.

    PEACE be unto you (and not Piece).

    Like

  • @nextparty246 December 15, 2018 1:05 AM “You are simply proving my point, but doing your best not to reveal that to the ‘gallery’.

    Who are you calling the gallery? According to Wikipedia the gallery is:

    Peanut gallery – Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_gallery
    A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest and ostensibly rowdiest seats in the theater

    If you hope to be elected please refrain from referring to the people as the gallery. Call the people, the people. That way nobody will be offended.

    Please note as well that “the people” has a significantly different meaning from “those people”

    The people is a good phrase. Those people is a bad phrase. A very, very bad phrase.

    WORDS HAVE MEANING.

    Be guided.

    Like

  • DPD,

    I am very well aware that the Republicans are hellbent on ruling forever. There are more Democrats than there are Republicans and it is getting worse for them by the day. Democrats have no need to pull those shenanigans at this time. The Republican is a dying breed, predominantly old, white and male and women who are obedient to their husbands.

    Like

  • Words also reveal a whole lot about the person who uses them.

    Like

  • Simple Simon,

    Defamation is just a fancy word for telling lies on people. Is that not an everyday occurrence in our lives???????? Boy, if I let that bother me still I would be six feet under. The best day of my life was the day I realised I no longer cared if men found me attractive and the second best day was when I realised I no longer cared what the world thought of my character.

    No, scrap that – the best day of my life was the day I realised that I am only one of several billion people on this earth. We need to humble ourselves. Who the hell are WE?!

    Like

  • @ Walter
    Bush Tea,
    I am running this experiment, not you.
    Your name is on the list already. I have no intention of putting it down twice.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    LOL
    Boss, you could put um down ten times….
    You are at the back of a VERY long line of jokers wid Bushie’s name on some ‘list’….

    Lotta Shiite…..
    Ever heard of ‘touch not the Lord’s anointed…?’
    Don’t waste yuh ink….

    …and rest assured, Bushie will continue to whack….
    and if it requires a bit of ‘libellous defamation’ from time to time…. (according to Jeff’s shiite laws)
    SO BE IT…..

    Bushie’s ultimate objective is a nice smooth lawn ….and that is not achieved by kowtowing to shiitey devil grass – just because it got deep roots… Bushie will whack every shiite – GOOD AND BAD …. the good grass will grow back MUCH stronger, and the shiite weeds will die off…

    Donna is right AGAIN….
    Good material NEVER shy away from deep scrutiny. in fact, It is APPRECIATED
    since it leads to deep introspection and EVEN BETTER material.
    Shiite material tends to be paranoid about criticism and whacking…..
    When you see what a whacker does to dog shiite. this is not surprising…

    Take a rest Walter …and learn to take you whacking in the spirit with which David(BU) takes his from Hal the idiot.

    Like

  • A great morning to all of Barbados and that includes the defamed, the defamers, and the rest of you..

    I thought I was a sensible man, but I am completely lost with the legal argument. Sadly, I am unable to contribute.

    I find myself liking folks on on both sides of the various exchanges (without understanding what was said).

    See you elsewhere. Have a great day.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Donna
    Defamation is just a fancy word for telling lies on people.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wrong!

    Defamation is a legal concept that seeks to limit what can be said to impute ill on a person’s character.
    If you say that a fella is a thief – and you cannot prove this to the satisfaction of a court (in which that fella may be an officer -or even the minister in charge) then your ass is guilty of libel.

    Conversely, if you lie on a fella – but that fella cannot AFFORD a lawyer to go through the long, mystical and expensive process of proving that you lied, there is no damn defamation on your part…
    So…
    It is just a LOTTA shiite designed to protect the crooked and the wealthy.
    OK?

    The fancy word for lying on people is LIAR.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Bush Tea December 15, 2018 8:40 AM “Part to meet you in the ZR stand today?”

    Oh shoot!!! Dun gone to town and get back home a’ready.

    Sorry to have missed you.

    Maybe next week?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Simple
    Maybe next week?
    ++++++++++++++
    Bushie will try to wait….
    Sounds like a market date…. ???
    LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  • True. It does depend on who can afford a lawyer. The scales of justice are not balanced in this imperfect world.

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @Walter, alas I was not playing daft here…I simply did not enlist in your “Columbus experiment”.. I am not overly fond of taking part in social focus groups based on weird modelling of A-type, power hungry, caucasian, males as the base metric 😂😂

    I have also said from the git go of our debates here that I like your passion, integrity and determination so if you want to add me to your totally mal- contrived list of detractors then proceed apace my brother. For the record I have wholly and vigorously disagreed with @Pieces in these BU spaces but I also think that that brother is also a tour de force…actually just as I think YOU are.

    But that’s life ain’t it…I am going to lambaste Bushie and Grenville shortly 🤣🤣 and the Blogmaster will steuuupse offline and say quietly to himself “wha da man Grenville do you at school” (because he thinks I critique that brother too much)…. and the Bushman calls me lukewarm because I lit a few fires in his backsides in the past…on BU if you do…a strong naysaying of a blogger you are damned forever…regardless of the many other times you have sang the praises of said blogger…

    …why we so tho!

    Come on.. as others have said if you open yourself to public view as we all do here then our words/persona will be taken apart …that’s life.

    I do not critique you or anyone here with any malicious intent..surely some do but not most…lets get real, pls!

    Run another suitable experiment Mr Scientific Measurement Guy and send me the survey doc …I may enroll if I think it’s not out to sea 🤣.

    Have a great holiday with family and friends if I don’t have the opportunity to probe discoveries with you again…and I do genuinely mean that…no daft playing or maliciousness intended….as the ladies said…we all need to lighten up!

    Liked by 1 person

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @Bushie, gee I am all talked out…I will need to get back to your defense of Grenville another time.

    And to @Dean Jeff, I join the Blogmaster’s thanks for your definitive and educational responses here….

    So two snarky remarks to add to that 🤣…

    1.I thought you were describing yourself when you spoke of a “genius” advocate persuading the plaintiff to recant 🤣 …and then 2…I was CONVINCED that it WAS you when you fleshed out (I think so anyhow) “[are] you desirous of “whistleblowing” on local corrupt practices and are trying to cover the legal bases before doing so?” 🤣🤣.

    Poor jokes aside Mr Phillips appears to be playing games with words…no one of his extensive experience in the corporate world should be parsing WORDS from an Act (or a contracr or any detailed document) as he is and attempting to build a case as he is…

    Also WHEN in Bim has ANYONE EVER been awarded such outlandish sums in a personal libel claim..but I noted his LANGUAGE of “three times” the QC’s salary…IDENTICAL to his choice of language in his Solutions Legal Reform doc…Dean Jeff, you are dat genius advocate indeed..the brother does appear to be lining up his ducks…as the Blogmaster previously suggested !😁

    Like

  • @de pedantic Dribbler December 15, 2018 10:14 AM :Also WHEN in Bim has ANYONE EVER been awarded such outlandish sums in a personal libel claim.”

    True. true. We all like to talk a lotta big talk, but I bet not a fella in Barbados can settle a $15 million damages claim. We like to pretend a lot, although some ‘o we know that we gine end up in the almshouse, just like our parents and grandparents did, if like one of my old people we have a final illness that lasts for 9 years and 2 days (no the elder did NOT end up in the almshouse)

    @de pedantic Dribbler December 15, 2018 10:14 AM “but I noted his LANGUAGE of “three times” the QC’s salary…IDENTICAL to his choice of language in his Solutions Legal Reform doc.”

    I noticed that too, and I did NOT vote for Solutions Barbados, PRECISELY because of that language.

    So there.

    Just the take of a

    Simple Simon.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Bushie:

    It is now 11:41 and you have not yet brought my Saturday morning pudding and souse.

    Why not?

    You expect a person to “work” effectively on a sweet potato stewed in its skin, a banana, an avocado pear and a cup of coffee?

    Like

  • It is ok for Grenville to “line up his ducks” but he needs a legal advisor..

    …Jeff’s advice is sound..

    engineering and law are TWO VERY DIFFERENT WORLDS.

    Like

  • @ Simple Simon
    After our scheduled meeting next Saturday in the market….
    you will very likely be singing a different tune with respect to Bushies’ pudding…
    …and your souse.
    and…
    Based on you diet, you seem completely capable of doing the necessary wuk…
    …despite your age…
    LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  • SimpleSimon December 15, 2018 8:29 AM

    “@Walter Blackman December 14, 2018 10:02 PM. “The colonists complained to Columbus, but as one historian put it, “instead of punishing the oppressors, Columbus punished the oppressed.”

    Since your objective is to be always clear in your writing you ought to have written the colonized. Not the colonists. The colonists, in this case the Spaniards, were the colonial oppressors, the indigenous people and later the African enslaved people were the colonized. The colonists are the white people who came. The colonized are the indigenous people and the African forced laborers.”

    SimpleSimon,
    To be honest, I was using the generalized interpretation of colonists, meaning the inhabitants of the colony.
    A stricter definition might indeed refer to colonists as the “foreigners” inhabiting the colony. In any event, I take your point that using “the colonized” would have created a sharper, clearer, unambiguous message.

    Thank you for the suggestion.

    Like

  • Simple Simon

    We must first understand the psychology of the colonists before we ask ourselves how could another human being treat another human in such an animalistic fashion … until we learn that the justification for European Chattel Slave was erected on the philosophy that the black man was not fully human, or in fact the colonists regarded him of as Subhuman. And this philosophy or ideology still resonates within certain elements of the white society until this very day …

    Like

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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