The Government’s regulatory interest in community safety can, in appropriate circumstances, outweigh an individual’s liberty interest. –US v Salerno [1987]

I suppose that one rational response by the current governing administration to a query by an individual charged with one of the offences stipulated under the amended Bail Act and thereby suffering a loss of pre-trial liberty, as to the reason for its draconian nature, could very well be, “Well, you and your ilk left us with little choice, didn’t you?” Bizarrely enough, treason and high treason are included among the offences, even though such charges are extremely rare.

With its pride deeply stung by an unacceptable rate of the murders of young men through the use of unlicensed firearms since its assumption of the reins of office; a phenomenon that culminated in the tipping point recently of the reckless Sheraton assassination, it could be reasonably expected that any administration would have reacted similarly.

For, argue as cogently we might that crime should not be politicized, in that no government can prevent someone who is hell-bent of taking the life of another from doing so, it also bears reminder, as I quoted in an epigraph to my column two weeks ago, “government’s first duty and highest obligation is public safety”. Hence, any sense of general civic insecurity will most likely redound to the disbenefit of the incumbent administration. And that is not A Very Good Thing, politically speaking.

Related link:

The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – The Tipping Point

So it was that last week, the current governing administration took to Parliament, for passage into legislation, a Bill to amend the Bail Act, Cap 122A. Mindful that the provisions of the Bill might conceivably infringe the Constitution, the preamble to the Bill read, inter alia, that it was to be enacted “in accordance with the provisions of section 49 of the Constitution”; namely, first, that Parliament may alter an aspect of Chapter III of the Constitution -the local Bill of Rights- by an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses, that is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the members of each House, and, second, that an Act of Parliament shall not be construed as altering the Constitution unless it is stated in the Act that it is an Act for that purpose. The Act expressly seeks to alter section 13 (3) of the Constitution, the guarantee of the right to personal liberty, that provides as follows-

Any person who is arrested or detained-

  1. (a)  for the purpose of bringing him before a court in execution of the order of a court; or

(b)  upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence, and who is not released, shall be brought before a court as soon as is reasonably practicable; and if any person arrested or detained upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence is not tried within a reasonable time, then, without prejudice to any further proceedings which may be brought against him, he shall be released either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions, including in particular such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he appears at a later date for trial or for proceedings preliminary to trial.

My Constitutional law professor, the late AR Carnegie, was given to arguing that there were in fact two meanings of the Constitution; that with the capital “C” referring to the text of the document, while that with the lower case “c” referred to all the practices, understandings and conventions that regulated the governance of the state.

That distinction may be relevant here. So that while it may be argued that the amendment is not un-Constitutional, because of the terms and mode of its enactment, one may nevertheless contend that it may be extra-constitutional if it offends certain well-established understandings of the compact of governance between the citizen and the state. Not of course, that this will suffice to invalidate the statute in a court of law, but it should at least require further enquiry as to whether any established assault by it on the liberty of the subject is morally justifiable.

Clearly, there is much wrong at first blush with a statute that mandates such a substantial deprivation of an individual’s liberty on a bare assertion. The Bill itself at least acknowledges its infringement of the guarantee of personal liberty, but it also arguably drives a ZR through the principle of the presumption of innocence, that golden metwand of the criminal law, as it has been described. In addition, by displacing the discretion of the judicial officer of whether or not to grant bail to an accused person in a particular case, it might have blurred the separation of powers, a doctrine that forms an integral part of our constitution, even though it does not find expression anywhere in our Constitutional text.

The draconian nature of this legislation does indeed merit further inquiry, although it might be justified if it is perceived to be a proportionate response to the evil that it seeks to eradicate, so long as it employs the least invasive means of infringing the fundamental right in order to do so In other words, the infringement(s) of fundamental rights may be justified if effected in pursuit of a nobler objective and the means of infringement employed are minimally invasive of those rights.

The clear objective of the legislation is to curb the present scourge of gun violence and mayhem, in itself a warranted and unobjectionable ideal. In this context though, I would be happier, as a liberal skeptic, to have been provided with some empirical evidence of the incidence of bailed reoffenders in the area of gun crimes. Three or four instances do not necessarily provide cogent evidence of a pattern sufficient to justify the annulment of a right so fundamental to the rule of law.

Is the law minimally invasive of the guaranteed rights? Ostensibly, it appears to place the acknowledged sloth of our local court system on the shoulders of the accused, by precluding an application for bail “unless a period of 24 months has expired after that person was charged”, although there are stipulated exceptions. The question arises whether these exceptions are sufficient to soften morally the plain infringement of the rule of law. Some might still consider this period too long by far and thus too textually invasive of the presumption of innocence to be deemed constitutionally pukka.

150 responses to “The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – A Disproportionate Reaction?”


  1. What are the special circumstances? Will the judiciary have the discretion to define them? If so I suspect we may see a whole lot of special circumstances.


  2. Theo

    how can our Constitution be “a bad cut and paste from a drawer in a cupboard in an empty office, somewhere in London” when there is no written Constitution in England?


  3. Jeff

    David

    If murder cases typically take about 18 months in the magistrate’s courts

    What sense does it make to talk about a 24 month question of bail denial?

    Is government not avoiding more fundamental questions relating to the justice system by opting to face an ephemeral political question of law and order?


  4. @Pacha

    The government is clearly responding to the fact several murderers and others charged with serious crimes are committing crimes while out on bail. At the same time we have to make the Court system more efficient.


  5. @ Greene,

    You must realise that once a fiction gets hold of BU, facts take a back seat. Barrow is the father of independence; Barbados is a Democratic Republic with a foreign monarchy; Barbados is in the North Atlantic; Barbados has 98 per cent literacy; Barbados punches above its weight; Barbados has the best judicial system in the Caribbean; our economic problems can be fixed with more foreign reserves alone; Bittcoin will rescue the economy; a home in the Heights and Terraces (former sugar plantations) make us posh; a law degree is a sign of progress. I can go on. Myth-making is our number one export.

  6. WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog Avatar
    WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    “TheOgazerts April 7, 2019 11:31 AM

    We have already established that the constitution was a bad cut and paste from a drawer in a cupboard in an empty office, somewhere in London.”

    It is indeed a bad cut and paste job by some long DEAD civil servant(s) in the privy council with a useless superiority complex…….you can guarantee that constitution was drafted sometime in the early 1940s in UK and just sitting there in that dusty old cupboard waiting to sail the slaveships Windrush to UK to get cheap labor and continue the terrorizing of black people born in the Caribbean under the UK flag….while making sure the dumb black leaders knew nothing about the 30 Articles of Universal Human Rights ratified in 1948….and even if they knew…they were not intelligent enough to stop the UK…

    AND…………made even worse by the 16 or 17 shitty amendments in the last 20-30 years by the miseducated idiots in parliament calling themselves lawmakers…


  7. Fool’s Paradise.

    Hmmmmm.


  8. @Waru,

    Thank you.
    I was about to explain to Mr Greene that it was not a group of Bajans who sat around and came up with “a sacred mandate from the gods.”. Some civil servant was told “write something and let us get these people out of our hair”.

    I am glad you were able to give him the bad news.

  9. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @Dean Jeff, you argue a very interesting and emotive moot that : “In other words, the infringement(s) of fundamental rights may be justified if effected in pursuit of a nobler objective and the means of infringement employed are minimally invasive of those rights.”

    These type words often fall above the signature of the most draconian, restrictive legislators in democratic societies .

    Very nice words that belie a ‘dictatorial’ intent.

    And @Mr Blogmaster u make some eye-popping remarks that cause a mental jolt of … really, do tell more!

    Other than the advent of social media how, pray tell, is present day “contact … with the political, social and economic spheres” so significantly “in a way we have never experienced on the island”.

    The dean alluded to the political symbolism or impact of this Bail Act with his reference to govt’s pride being stung but he or the govt has said nothing on how more timely investigations/bringing to trial
    and final judgements of cases would make the proposed new Bail Act irrelevant !

    In sum, why is it one wonders thsat significant steps are not legislated or operationally improved to have a more “… efficient processing of the court’s case load.”

  10. WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog Avatar
    WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    Yardfowls are shamefully dumb Theo…and bajan politicians/ministers/lawyers LIE A LOT….they have the population believing that Barrow drafted the Barbados constitution…Barbados is yet to have it’s own constitution…they were only ALLOWED to amend the constitution drafted by the UK…..

    And…lying Gollop has been all over the island for years telling bajans who know no better that he helped Barrow draft Barbados ‘ constitution…problem with that big lie is……he was not even a lawyer or teacher then…probably a damn carpenter…but yardfowls and the uninformed will believe any old lie from these demons…that is how they were able to rip off the country for decades…

    …stop believing their lies and giving them the power to steal…and u will see the difference…cockroaches cannot operate in light.

    Until their day and hour reaches…they will not get away with one more lie…she said “watch muh”….we watching.

  11. Vincent Codrington Avatar
    Vincent Codrington

    @ Theo

    Have you bought into that tissue of lies? How disappointing! Shame on you! A lie allowed to be repeated several times becomes the truth. May the Lord help us. The worst form of dishonesty is intellectual dishonesty.

  12. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    Three or four examples where the normative number of all murders per year is twenty-five is not enough to show a pattern? Then how many? Twenty-five, fifty? Let us suppose for a minute that the three or four are your kith and kin, then does the pattern emerge more quickly with a very small sample. But the lives of misguided young people can be discounted and require a very large sample of dead young Barbadians.

    @ Mr/Ms B McDonald@ 8:45 am, I do believe that you misunderstand the point I am making here. I am merely saying that if one is trying to justify the erosion of so fundamental a right to the rule of law as the presumption of innocence, then it should be justified by overwhelming evidence and not merely by a few incidents that bear a correlation to the thesis that giving accused persons bail permits them to murder others. Can we extrapolate from these that the grant of bail to an accused is automatically a license to murder?. It would equate to the establishment of apartheid in a jurisdiction simply because six white homes were found to have been burgled by black men…

  13. Vincent Codrington Avatar
    Vincent Codrington

    @ dpD at 1:46 PM

    I believe expressing your view in the last paragraph does make a difference. If the problem is that of a choked justice dispensing system ,then it follows that this should be remedied by improving the processes of delivering justice. The problem does not go away by adjusting the period after which granting of bail is mandatory.

  14. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    If Bajans think we will find security from ‘crime’ through giving up more rights to an elected dictatorship. Well, as the man says, we will loose both security and freedom (rights).

    OR “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

  15. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    We refer to the Constitution has a sacred mandate from the gods. How are we to view the Constitution in the context it can be changed?

    @ David,

    I might observe that it can be changed only because it allows itself to be (section 49)

  16. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    Is government not avoiding more fundamental questions relating to the justice system by opting to face an ephemeral political question of law and order?

    Ostensibly, it appears to place the acknowledged sloth of our local court system on the shoulders of the accused, by precluding an application for bail “unless a period of 24 months has expired…


  17. @Jeff

    To throw your inquiry back at you, where is the data to support? There is enough of the anecdotal floating around to suggest those awarded bail are not being deterred from committing crime. Until the dysfunctional court system is fixed the society must be held to ransom? Why does the Bar Association whose members are officers of the Court not show some leadership by calling out lawyers who compromise the justice system?

  18. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    @Dean Jeff, you argue a very interesting and emotive moot that : “In other words, the infringement(s) of fundamental rights may be justified if effected in pursuit of a nobler objective and the means of infringement employed are minimally invasive of those rights.”

    @ DPD, since it is not possible to preclude an erosion of the fundamental rights as permitted by the Constitution itself, the sole restraint available to the law ids too demand that any such erosion be proportionate; that is, that the goal sought to be achieved by the erosion is indeed a noble one in the public interest and that any erosion should be as minimal as practicable to achieve the stated objective.

  19. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    *is to demand….”

  20. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    To throw your inquiry back at you, where is the data to support? There is enough of the anecdotal floating around to suggest those awarded bail are not being deterred from committing crime. Until the dysfunctional court system is fixed the society must be held to ransom? Why does the Bar Association whose members are officers of the Court not show some leadership by calling out lawyers who compromise the justice system?

    David, Agreed that there is such anecdotal evidence. I am just saying that that evidence is far too slender a thread on which to hang the running of a rogue ZR over the presumption of innocence…simply give us the necessary empiricism


  21. @VC
    Not bought into.

    It would be folly to believe that men in all of the territories that became independent all thought of similar text. It is easier to believe that they modified text that was handed to them.

    Sometimes, I see phrases on BU that remind me of US history. There are paralells, but we should tell our history as it occurred.

    It took a few years of high school and Mr Jemmot before I encountered ‘West Indian’ history. There is no need to borrow snippets of US history.


  22. Why not speed up the justice system There is where govt can make haste with lightning speed advocating that the rights of the accused should not be hamstrung by lawyers playing fast and loose with the justice system against the best interest of the accused
    A case should not take more than a year to come to trial and full judgement rendered .


  23. @ Greene

    We must also be careful of Austin’s fiction also.

    Since I have been reading BU, I have never read a contribution in which someone said Barbados is in the North Atlantic. This is the dishonest things this old idiot does to discredit other contributors.


  24. Are we a contentious people?

    Is it pick a partner and then square-off?

    Even when you are supportive of someone they want a fight.

    A next strategy is to invoke mothers and husbands to score a point….


  25. Robert Goren you need to go sit in a corner and suck your thumb and fuh god sake resist reading Hal comments
    I most likely belive that Hal is a man with more knoweldge and experience about the world than you have in your pinky
    Stop being jealous and go suck yuh thumb in the meanwhile


  26. @ Mariposa

    It looks like you can’t resist reading my comments too. How do you know he has more knowledge and experience than me? Because you think so we should believe his lies?

    All I can do at this time is to offer you the same advice you gave to Donna and you pick sense from it.

    You must be the BU self appointed police.


  27. I will also bet that Hal has more travelling experience than you and have set amongst many leaders or financial advisors than you
    Take off your jealous hat and stop being a duffus


  28. The equator is the dividing North/South point on the earth. Barbados is in the Atlantic Ocean and it is North of the Equator. Where is Mr. Austin wrong?


  29. Okay, Mariposa, I’m sorry and I stand corrected.

    I did not know you knew on a personal level that you could make those assumptions.

    BTW, what proof do you have that I’m jealous of that man?

    Please share it with us.

  30. WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog Avatar
    WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    “A next strategy is to invoke mothers and husbands to score a point….”

    Truly the most stupid ass people to date…that level of stupidity can only be so embedded by decades of miseducation..


  31. To attempt to hide the inability to identify an appropriate sample size in support of the decision to amend the bail act in an effort to stem the real and rising tide of murders in Barbados by a risible comment about apatheid and a request for an “overwhelming” sample size is just unfortunate. The very nature of a bail application accepts that the sovereign can detain the subject until trial and the subject is still presumed innocent at trial. Bail or no bail. What is irrefutable is that the “overwhelming” sample size must of necessity be provided by more persons on bail for murder committing new murders. This is not a mere academic discussion. Lives will be lost. The judge will adequately instruct any jury on matters touching the presumption of innocence at trial. The political administration has the right and the duty to make these amendments to the bail act if the barbadian people are convinced that persons on bail for murder are killing other people.

  32. Jeff Cumberbacth Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbacth

    The political administration has the right and the duty to make these amendments to the bail act if the barbadian people are convinced that persons on bail for murder are killing other people.

    @Mr/ Ms McDonald, And the barbadian people are so convinced, you believe? Is there anything else you are persuaded that they are convinced of that the government has the duty to legislate on?


  33. A dysfunctional justice system + a dysfunctional govt = present 🎁 danger
    The justice system is so out of whack that not even Houdini magical tricks can put it back together again
    Govt is so clueless that veven with having11000.00 advisors and consultants the govt has to resort to chip tricks and political/ constitutional wrangling to fix social problems
    But one day coming soon when a big up shoots an individual one would see the political feathers of corruption flying in the air


  34. There was a shooting in Beckles Road
    How will govt feed all these gun toting individual after arrested and not freed on bail
    If we go by what is planned by govt ammendment and the numbers already totaled to the number of gun deaths
    Very soon our prisons would become over crowded and a call by govt for a new prison would be the rallying cry
    International Human rights violations includes over crowded prisons


  35. This is the result of a situation where the previous government did not see the need to fix the scanners at the Port Authority?

    #zerocredibility

  36. SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife Avatar
    SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    It troubles me deeply that a person ‘presumably innocent” can be held in the state’s custody for up to two years.

    And yes i voted for the BLP on May 24, 2018.

    And “yes” it would trouble me deeply if the Constitution was amended in this fashion by the DLP. Or by any party which had been elected by the people. And “yes” I have voted multiple times for both for the DLP and the BLP in the past. And I plan to continue doing so in the future.

  37. Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right Avatar
    Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right

    @ the Luminary Jeff Cumberbatch

    There are some 85 comments here on your recent article about the newly established Bail Act.

    Yet in all these comments by those here assembled nary a one has made any mention to something that you wrote.

    It follows the paragraph that says and I quote

    “…an individual charged with one of the offences stipulated under the amended Bail Act and thereby suffering a loss of pre-trial liberty, as to the reason for its draconian nature, could very well be, “Well, you and your ilk left us with little choice, didn’t you?” …”

    Many have commented on what amounts to a compulsory 2 year sentence by the application of this no bail at the discretion of the courts.

    Yet equally as bizarre is your sentence which begins and I quote

    “…Bizarrely enough, treason and high treason are included among the offences, even though such charges are extremely rare…”

    85 comments yet hot one fellow here has seen nor even commented on this comment that you made.

    And funnily enough not a fellow is going to dare call you a conspiracist or Tin Foil wearer.

    Why is that?

    Is it that only youand de ole man are seeing the appearance of TREASON AND HIGH TREASON being inserted in the Laws oc Barbados yet both people and sheeple have lost their vision?

    Do you mean to tell me that among 280,000 people ONLY TWO MEN CAN SEE THIS CLAUSE?

    OR MIGHT IT BE ALL READERS SAW YOUR CLAUSE AND ONLY 2 MEN HAVE BALLS TO COMMENT ON THIS BIZARRE INSERTION?

    By the time Mottley is done with you people ALL OF YOU DISSENTERS AND GOING TO BE LOCKED UP OR DEAD!!!

    ALL HAIL MUGABE!!!

  38. SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife Avatar
    SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    @WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog April 7, 2019 1:53 PM “…he was not even a lawyer or teacher then…probably a damn carpenter.”

    Actually he was a schoolBOY when Barbados’ Constitution was being drafted. ALL of the current Members of Parliament and Members of the Senate [except those few born before 1945] was either unborn of children in 1966, and so was I. A good number of them, their mummies and daddies had not yet met.

  39. SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife Avatar
    SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    @Caswell Franklyn April 7, 2019 7:59 AM “Let me quote Spock of Star Trek fame.”

    But Spock has never been a real-real person, and Barbados is not science fiction.

  40. SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife Avatar
    SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    @peterlawrencethompson April 7, 2019 10:07 AM “…political theatre that simply serves to distract from the panic in the Heights and Terraces.”

    Not panicking in these heights and terraces yet.

    Should we be panicking?

  41. SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife Avatar
    SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    @WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog April 7, 2019 1:53 PM “…probably a damn carpenter.”

    You have something against carpenters?

    My experience is that carpenters are some of the nicest, most competent people around. And Jesus was one.

    I arranged to meet a carpenter at 9:30 on Saturday. I got there at 9:17 and he was already there, with phone in hand calling to check in with me.

    Oh! That our “leaders” were as competent, as efficient, as hard working.

    We would then not need to an amendment to our Constitution which is very likely to breech the human rights of some accused.

  42. Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right Avatar
    Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right

    @ the LUMINARY Jeff Cumberbatch

    And de ole man will provide the Amendment so that all might see before I ask you three questions

    “…Insertion of new section 5A in Cap. 122A

    The principal Act is amended by inserting the following new section
    after section 5:

    “Bail in the case of persons charged with serious offences

    Subject to subsection (2), a person charged with

    murder;
    treason;
    high treason; or
    an offence under the Firearms Act, Cap. 179, which is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more

    shall not be granted bail unless a period of 24 months has expired
    after that person was charged…”

    Now I would ask you Luminary Cumberbatch, for the benefit of all readers here viewing your weekly column, if you could state the number of instances where TREASON & HIGH TREASON appears in the Barbados constitution?

    And, for the benefit of all readers, would you care to share with readers what you observe to be the punishment for TREASON & HIGH TREASON?

    My third questioner is really an outlier.

    Do you think that Senator Caswell Franklyn would have seen these two insertions, in this Act when he endorsed this act so wholeheartily?

    “Your honour counsel would be incapable of replying to this question because he would at best be speculating on the thoughts of Senator Franklyn at best…(said in my best Perry Mason voice…)


  43. Ole man PDYR bus fares gone up rent gone up any and everything that gets in govt way has a price rate of increased yuh fingerprints are on the smoking gun
    Cause yuh actions helped govt to firebomb the local economy
    Uh need to be locked up without bail
    Waiting for another stupid cartoon that depicts the The Tin Foiled Man
    Btw what happened to yuh brother in Arms Bush Tea i heard he is no more


  44. SOURCE: Boston Herald – A grandmother from Barbados is dead and two other victims sustained non-life-threatening injuries in a triple shooting on Mattapan Street late Saturday afternoon, Boston police said.

  45. Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right Avatar
    Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right

    @ ManyPussy

    Heheheheh

    You said and I quote

    “…Cause yuh actions helped govt to firebomb the local economy

    Uh need to be locked up without bail…”

    Girl that, if it were not a serious problem would got de ole man bawling.

    Girl if it was not for the dream OT TO RETURN BY WAY OF ANOTHER SIMILAR DESPOT CALLED HEROD, de ole man would be now incarcerated deah among wunna people and you sheeple for high treason

    Dem must be wondering how de ole man know all dem business.

    Whu if it was not for knowing Eddie and knowing people dat does play lawn tennis wid he, man all like now de ole man cudda been loss way in Dodds!

    Two years, no bail!! Whuloss.

    But you though, you got to be careful cause you preaching sedition heah pun Barbados Underground

    And girl I unnerstand dat dem does cut off your braids in dodds causing dem can be plait together and used as escape rope.

    Or to strangle seditionists like you as an anti Mugabe supporter

  46. Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right Avatar
    Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right

    @ ManyPussy

    I have several Stoopid Cartoons some wid de ole man

    http://imgur.com/NC0TClj

    but many more with you being featured front and centre as the yard fowl you are.

    But you would not know that would you?

    Yah impostor!! imagine dat you coming to Barbados Underground to impersonate yourself!

    Something is just not right about that.

    Multiple DLP members, assuming the same identity, to blog on the same Barbados Underground that wunna AG Adriel Nitwit, wanted to close down!

    You is de hardest!!!

  47. WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog Avatar
    WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    “You have something against carpenters?”

    No i dont, my Dad was one and very gifted too.

    Yardfowls are invited to now tell me about my Dad so i can tell them what for.

  48. SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife Avatar
    SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    I am sure that your dad was a great guy.

  49. SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife Avatar
    SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    I am doubtful whether the Constitutional amendments will work, although I hope that they will. The violence problem is sociological not legal, so it is unlikely that a legal solution will work. A wise old friend told me that if the only tool that you know is a hammer, then you see every problem as a nail

    Lawyers know law…

    So they sincerely believe that there is a legal solution to every problem…

    Sadly life does not work like that.


  50. What the government must do is to improve the rate cases are being tried at the same time. What we have now is too much of a focus on this amendment if it is the panacea of all ills.

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