Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Defamation Act: A Different Interpretation

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

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.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

354 responses to “Defamation Act: A Different Interpretation”

  1. Hants Avatar
    Hants

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

  2. Donna Avatar
    Donna

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

  3. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    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/

  4. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    Another one.

    http://www.worldcourts.com/ccj/eng/decisions/2006.03.16_Barbados_Rediffusion_v_Mirchandani.htm

  5. Walter Blackman Avatar
    Walter Blackman

    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?

  6. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ 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….

  7. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    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!

  8. Walter Blackman Avatar
    Walter Blackman

    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.

  9. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    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!

  10. nextparty246 Avatar
    nextparty246

    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.

  11. nextparty246 Avatar
    nextparty246

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

  12. David Avatar
    David

    @Dee Word

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

  13. Walter Blackman Avatar
    Walter Blackman

    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

  14. WARU Avatar
    WARU

    “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..

  15. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    “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!

  16. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    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…

  17. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

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

  18. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    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?

  19. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    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.

  20. WARU Avatar
    WARU

    “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.

  21. Lexicon Avatar
    Lexicon

    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…

  22. David Avatar
    David

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

  23. WARU Avatar
    WARU

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

  24. WARU Avatar
    WARU

    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.

  25. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ 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

  26. SimpleSimon Avatar
    SimpleSimon

    @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.

  27. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

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

  28. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ 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?

  29. SimpleSimon Avatar
    SimpleSimon

    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.

  30. SimpleSimon Avatar
    SimpleSimon

    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.

  31. Robert Goren Avatar
    Robert Goren

    @ 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.

  32. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    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).

  33. SimpleSimon Avatar
    SimpleSimon

    @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.

  34. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    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.

  35. Donna Avatar
    Donna

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

  36. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    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?!

  37. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ 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.

  38. TheOGazerts Avatar
    TheOGazerts

    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.

  39. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ 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.

  40. SimpleSimon Avatar
    SimpleSimon

    @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?

  41. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

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

  42. Donna Avatar
    Donna

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

  43. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    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!

  44. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    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 !😁

  45. SimpleSimon Avatar
    SimpleSimon

    @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.

  46. SimpleSimon Avatar
    SimpleSimon

    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?

  47. WARU Avatar
    WARU

    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.

  48. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ 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

  49. Walter Blackman Avatar
    Walter Blackman

    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.

  50. Lexicon Avatar
    Lexicon

    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 …

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading