Peter and Verla in Focus

The Donville Inniss trial in the USA suffocated the local newsfeed in recent days and prevented the blogmaster – absent the noise – from sharing thoughts about other matters. Now that we have touchdown in the Inniss matter with the predictable verdict being returned, it is time.

Two images were posted in the Nation newspaper on the 12th and 18th of January 2020 which captured the attention of this blogmaster.

One image emblazoned on the Sunday’s front page of the 12 January 2020 showed the beaming countenance of Peter Wickham and Giancarlo with the caption – “Regional political consultant was formally married to his partner of the past ten years, Giancarlo Cardinale yesterday at the Hotel de Ville in Strasbourg, France …

Some will accuse the blogmaster of being homophobic after posting this blog. You are free to do so. Individuals are free to live lifes as they chose, once done within the boundary of the law. We live in a world where same sex unions are being given the ‘weight’ traditional marriages.  The beef this blogmaster has with the Nation Media House is the decision to insert the picture on the front page AND referring to the union as a marriage.

Barbadians are a people wedded to the traditional view that a marriage is ” established between two people of the opposite sex.” The Nation newspaper as the leading media outlet in the country has a duty to responsibly share information that accurately influence given the power of media to influence (manipulate) public opinion. After all we have the vulnerable in society to shepherd. Posting Wickhams so called marriage on the front page  brings into serious question the quality of decision-making at the Editor’s desk at Nation Publishing.

Peter Wickham Marriage

The second picture does not require an exercise in the prolix and can be explained in a few words – one must thrive to make the best decisions at all times Verla et al.

Verla De Peiza

Discuss for 10 marks.

244 comments

  • @ Miller
    “From what has been argued, it can be gleaned, in the final analysis, that human sexuality is neither a mutually exclusive statistical phenomenon of distinct shades of pure white or sinful black but a continuum of a rainbow of colours with the clear markings of ‘to each his or her own’ as long as the long-term goals of Mother Nature are met; that is survival of the species until Father Time says it’s time to go.“

    Absolutely beautiful and well put-cheers!!

    Like

  • @ Miller January 22, 2020 2:18 PM

    Noted.

    Like

  • @ Miller
    “From what has been argued, it can be gleaned, in the final analysis, that human sexuality is neither a mutually exclusive statistical phenomenon of distinct shades of pure white or sinful black but a continuum of a rainbow of colours with the clear markings of ‘to each his or her own’ as long as the long-term goals of Mother Nature are met; that is survival of the species until Father Time says it’s time to go.“

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    It’s truth you a tell. A sort of sliding scale, seems to make sense according to what I have observed. Men and women in prison take what is available , I’m told. So do young people in boarding schools.

    Like

  • @Donna January 21, 2020 4:56 PM et.seq:

    On the basis of your response here and to comments I made last year re. God being a Bajan, I would have to say that you have a penchant for literal mindedness. Yet you can produce some very thoughtful comments at times.

    However, literal mindedness is less of problem than your reduction of a Sovereign God to a “love ball”, perhaps a relic from your Sunday School days?

    For starters, your concept of love is based on emotions such as sympathy. Desirable as these (emotions) are ,this is the kind of love that leads to what I call the c’dear complex; something like what some people are feeling now for Donville Inniss; much like what parents feel when a youngster they failed to discipline runs afoul of the law or worse still gets “taken out”. For some, (too many) true love and discipline don’t mix!

    But there is such a thing as tough love! Perhaps you should read I Corinthians 13: 4 – 8 and see if you can pass the agape love test. But there is more…

    According to basic social psychology, human beings develop and enact multiple roles e.g. an individual can be a father or mother, accountant, preacher, politician etc all wrapped up in one. Yet your conceptualization of the Most High seems to omit to any of his other roles e.g. Healer, Redeemer, Ruler, Father, Strategist, Manager, King, Judge? I could go on. Your God, therefore, is one of your own making.

    I do not mean to be sacrilegious, but God could justifiably say, like Lionel Richie: “Everybody wants me to be what they want me to be” [Easy Like Sunday Morning].

    Of course, all of this presupposes we are talking about the same (Christian) God who has revealed himself in the much maligned Bible. If you are NOT speaking about that God then we have nothing to discuss.

    But if you are speaking about that God, you will have to explain, for starters, why He subjected his Son (Jesus) to a horrific death on a cross some 2000 years ago. Surely a loving God wouldn’t do that? Again, this presupposes you believe any of that. How about the suffering of people in Somalia, Yemen or next door in Venezuela? Surely, a loving God would not allow this!

    Come on now! If God is that Supreme, All Powerful, SOVEREIGN being, narrow, one-sided conceptions of Him can only be described as outright foolishness hatched in a fallen, prideful, human heart. At least, give Him a mind of His own, for crying out loud!

    So here is God speaking FOR HIMSELF about HIMSELF, on one of many such occasions. On this occasion He is addressing Moses who had asked to see His goodness. Ponder on this:

    +++New International Version+++
    And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” Exodus 34: 5 -7 [NIV]

    +++Berean Bible+++
    The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in loving devotion, forgiving wrongdoing and rebellion. But He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished; He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon their children to the third and fourth generation. Numbers 14:18 [Berean Bible]

    As great and as all-powerful as He is, God has given us the power of choice. So you can design your own god and put him on the mantelpiece of your mind or you can read the Bible carefully and discover a little of who He really is and what He requires! You can’t have it both ways!

    P.S. Don’t shoot! I am only a messenger!

    Like

  • Ironside,

    You should ask my son what I know about tough love. Recently he got a little too rude for me. I told him if he think he is man he should be living at his own house. I showed him the door. He played “pow’ful foolish” and walked out. This was at approximately midnight.

    I locked my door and he spent the night sitting in the garage without his dinner which was late due to the power blackout. ( I have an electric stove.) I sat a few feet away playing Freecell on the computer to keep me awake,. When I let him back in at about five a.m. he said if I loved him I would not have left him outside hungry. I said I had no intention of speaking to him over and over again about the same rudeness and that I hoped he would now know not to bite the hand that feeds him.

    Please note, I did not throw him out permanently nor did I starve him to death. I also sat up with him to ensure his safety. (And also because I would never be able to sleep with him outside.)

    Tough love does not include murder or negligent homicide.

    PS. I have read ninety percent of the Bible. Leviticus and Numbers defeated me. I have also done some formal study. My opinion remains the same. The Bible is a book written by men inspired by their experience of God. They were flawed messengers as are you. You men always seem to be on a power trip. But the very Bible also speaks of God being like a mother.

    And any good mother knows that tough love means the reluctant teaching of hard lessons. It does not mean gleeful annihilation.

    You may have the last word. I’ve said exactly what I wanted to say and need say no more.

    Like

  • Good to see that Canon Dr. Llewelyn Armstrong, per today’s Nation, says that the Barbados laws against buggery should be repealed after a national discussion – I say a NATIONAL REFERENDUM inclusive of the related issues, e.g retention of the status quo, SSM, civil unions, etc.

    Like

  • He also stated he his pro Bible and not pro homosexuality.

    Like

  • @ Blogmaster.

    Indeed. So am I (we), pro Bible and not pro-homosexuality, as a matter of personal sexual preference and despite our manifold human failings.

    From my perspective, we should all be able to speak in any national referendum on the issues of repealing the anti-buggery laws, SSM (same sex marriage), civil union(s) etc, one way or the other.

    Unfortunately, such a referendum will never happen, given our predilection to sweep things under the carpet and for things on the down low (or is it low down)? But, this would appear the better and more democratic solution.

    Like

  • To digress for a minute, The Miller had earlier (having paid homage to our late teachers, Harold Wharton and “Rubber Nut” – real name H.E Thorne. R.I.P) had asked whether there should be a national referendum on whether Barbados should become a republic?

    I see no practical benefit in Barbados becoming a republic, when there is concern about Barbados possibly becoming a failed state. (I also seem to recall, upon authority, that the late Sir James – Keble College, Oxon) was something of an unrelenting monarchist. How dare some of his disciples now want to turn Barbados into a republic like Haiti, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic (CAR), or some little banana republic, this time without bananas?

    Like

  • @ Caleb Pilgrim January 23, 2020 10:38 AM
    “From my perspective, we should all be able to speak in any national referendum on the issues of repealing the anti-buggery laws, SSM (same sex marriage), civil union(s) etc, one way or the other.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    How about putting on the ‘referendum list’ that more pressing issue of national concern, the revival of the application of capital punishment aka in Bajan lingo ‘hanging’?

    The outcome of that referendum would be a clear indication of the people’s true feelings and a clear instruction to the ‘powers-that-be’ to get on with the enforcement of the existing law(s) which has been evaded with as much vigour as those covering illegal dumping of waste (commercial and otherwise) and the blatant act of littering which has become a national pastime.

    Which do you think is of more pressing concern to the integrity of the Bajan society and economy (or should that be ‘economy and society’)?

    Consensual buggery (including trunking as defined in the ‘Urban’ dictionary) which would require a moral army of bedroom police trained by the Taliban?

    Or the ‘violent’ killing of people at the most (re)productive stage of their lives especially in a fast ‘graying’ society?

    The irritatingly burning question to you, Pilly, is whether the people’s opinions were sought by way of referenda before those same laws were put on the statute books?

    Were the people consulted when the “Bastard” Act was repealed or the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (aka Legal Abortion Act) put on the statute books?

    Like

  • @ The Miller:

    Yes to a “hanging referendum”, the issues properly defined.

    Like

  • National referendum to be sparingly used. We cannot afford to be too deaf, dumb and blind (oblivious) as to the trends and the future of Barbadian society?

    Like

  • @ Caleb Pilgrim January 23, 2020 11:25 AM

    And if the outcome of the referendum is to hurry up the resumption to ‘spring’ the gallows what do you think would happen to the many treaties in which Barbados has already signed away its rights to perform such inhumane and barbaric acts of modern-day cruelty?

    How can a ‘juvenile’ country be an enlightened ‘teenager’ when its ‘Constitutional’ mother (Britain) has long removed such barbaric laws from its statute books?

    And that includes laws about buggery (remember Alan Turing?) and same sex marriages euphemistically called “Civil Partnerships”?

    Like

  • If we are going to have a referendum, let’s have one that covers all the outstanding issues, I can think of a few but feel free to add (each question requires a yes or no answer)

    1) Are you in favour of legalization of marijuana?
    2) Are you in favour of same sex marriage?
    3) Should Barbados become a Republic?

    Like

  • @ The Miller:

    States routinely derogate from some of their treaty obligations;
    The “mother country”, as you well know, has often gone jaywalking in many a moral and a legal minefield. We should perhaps restrain our chronic, sometimes pathological monkeyism in this regard.
    You mention Alan Turing, the brilliant Cambridge scientist, whose life was tragically cut short. I do not condone any persecution of any LGBTQI individuals.

    Thus, if we are to repeal the laws prohibiting buggery, etc, a suitable, better guarantee might derive from majority opinion expressed by way of a national referendum, proponents and opponents being given equal time in a national debate.

    Like

  • Why don’t we make all laws by referenda?

    Like

  • @ Sargeant:

    Yes. The matters should be debated nationally within strict time limits so as to avoid the lotta, lotta longtalk (too much old fashioned Bajie palaver, often a substitute for doing absolutely nothing).

    Like

  • @ Hal:

    Barbados already has a surfeit of laws. The major problem seems to be timely and fair enforcement at all levels, whether through the police or the courts.

    As a matter of economy, it would not be feasible to have a referendum for ALL laws. Exactly how productive is the House of Assembly? The Senate? The A.G’s Chambers, etc, etc. We may be asking too much of an already diffident, indolent, often non-productive system filled mostly with loud and noxious gases.

    Like

  • @ Caleb

    Thanks. There is no place for referenda in our system of government. They are foreign and should be banned. Look what that idiot David Cameron did to Britain with his referendum. Swiss do it better.

    Like

  • @ Hal: “There is no place for referenda in our system of government”.

    You can cite no authority to support your argument.

    Moreover, where any governing party, e.g the BLP has a 30 to 0, or a 20 to 1 majority in the House of Assembly, parliamentary sovereignty means that they can undertake any referendum if and when they please. The question is one of political will. Given the current majority in the House of Assembly…. If there is/we’re the necessary political will, there is absolutely nothing in law, logic, history or common sense to prevent relevant referendum/referenda.

    If your argument is that the Swiss do referenda far better than the Brits under Cameron, then following your argument, why not consider the Swiss model, and allow the citizen direct participation with respect to important issues?

    Like

  • Correction:

    29 to 1.

    Like

  • @ Caleb Pilgrim January 23, 2020 2:38 PM
    “Thus, if we are to repeal the laws prohibiting buggery, etc, a suitable, better guarantee might derive from majority opinion expressed by way of a national referendum, proponents and opponents being given equal time in a national debate.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Why should any sexual activity between consulting adults (emphasis on consenting) be the subject of any national debate?

    The existing buggery law is a blatant violation of the actors’ human and Constitutional rights. Anal sex between consenting adults is a health (education) ‘issue’ not a criminal matter.

    Who are the victims in such cases of unorthodox love? Who are the complainant(s)?

    Since buggery is illegal why not put adultery on the same legal and moral footing?
    Aren’t there always two victims in the game of adultery?

    What about outlawing masturbation? Isn’t this a self-inflicted moral crime of ‘choking the bishop’?

    Barbados has too much crime on its hands- both white and blue collar, many of the violent nature- to create another surveillance overhead of moral police officers.

    Why not focus on those activities that endanger lives of innocent people and leave the sex business to the police of Yahweh aka his spying angels?

    BTW, the miller has no skin in any of the two ‘funny’ games with his handicapped old foot; so don’t hit below the belt.

    Like

  • I read somewhere yesterday that my Archbishop thinks that sexual intercourse should be restricted to opposite sex married couples ONLY. That everybody else should be celibate.

    Maybe we should put that question to a Bajan referendum too:

    Should sexual intercourse be restricted to opposite sex married couples only? Should everybody else remain celibate?

    Yes or No.

    Maybe the BU intelligentsia can start the ball rolling by voting on this question.

    Maybe we can also put on the referendum the question the following question:

    What shall we do with all of the adulterers and fornicators?

    A. Hang
    B. Electric chair
    C. Firing squad

    Like

  • @ The Miller:

    “The existing buggery law is a blatant violation of the actors’ human and Constitutional rights”.

    If so, why hasn’t your Supreme Court not struck down this unconstitutional “buggery law”, as you termed it?

    Are you also saying that certain Commonwealth sovereign states such as Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, in enacting health, welfare and safety legislation – you say that anal sex between consenting adults is a health issue and not a criminal matter, don’t these states have the sovereign right to regulate any perceived threat to public health, safety and welfare, just as they might seek to contain and regulate threats from, say the Ebola virus?

    It seems that you would also deprive others, such as The Rev. Dr. Martin Ssempa (Uganda), the late President Mugabe who outraged the LGBTQ Community and others of their constitutional right to free speech, freedom of conscience, and free exercise of religion, in expressly stating their opposition to “buggery”? By analogy, don’t you still have those same rights of free speech, freedom of conscience, free exercise of one’ religion established under the B’dos Constitution? (Note: every Bajan should be made to read the B’dos Const. “the supreme law of the land”).

    As to your question, “who is the victim….”, in criminal law. arguably, the society, the community is victim of the defendant’s criminal conduct. Hence, the right of the state to prosecute the defendant.

    As to your query: “what about madturbation”? Yes and No. At home, probably not. In public, definitely should be a crime, making recidivists like John and Freedom Crier on this Blog susceptible to the rigors of the criminal law.

    Finally, ANY ACTIVITIES POSING ANY THREAT, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE TO THE CITIZEN SHOULD FACE THE RIGORS OF THE LAW.

    Like

  • @ Silly Woman:

    As to your choices – hanging; electric chair; firing squad; you may have inadvertently omitted “lethal injection”, (LOL).

    Like

  • Blogmaster:

    Re my response @ The Miller re the “buggery” law, as he termed it??? I would not want him to think that I was unaware of the thoughtful questions he raised.

    Like

  • @Donna January 23, 2020 2:41 AM
    +++
    PS. I have read ninety percent of the Bible. Leviticus and Numbers defeated me. I have also done some formal study. My opinion remains the same. The Bible is a book written by men inspired by their experience of God. They were flawed messengers as are you. You men always seem to be on a power trip. But the very Bible also speaks of God being like a mother.
    +++

    I did not realize that you had an underlying issue with men! But it explains a lot.

    My apologies.

    Like

  • @ Caleb

    I do not have to cite an authority. Nor am I going over debates we have had on BU over and over again. It is there in the political theory: representative democracy v direct democracy. As a lecturer in politics you will be familiar with the arguments.

    Like

  • @Miller January 23, 2020 9:18 PM

    “Why should any sexual activity between consulting adults (emphasis on consenting) be the subject of any national debate?” et seq.
    +++++++++
    Underlying the issue raised here is the fundamental problem of the separation of church and state. The “church” has an obligation to uphold the moral standards of the Bible. But does the state have any such obligation?

    In Islamic countries ( especially where Sharia law is enforced) the separation of the two is minimal. Therefore, religious law is de facto secular law . In most western countries, the separation of the two is equally intentional. So here we have a dilemma which makes the issue of referendums on these matters a secondary matter.

    It makes little sense for the state to “criminalize” any from of sexual activity because I agree that, “Barbados has too much crime on its hands- both white and blue collar, many of the violent nature- to create another surveillance overhead of moral [?] police officers” and that there should be a “focus on those activities that endanger lives of innocent people”.

    +++Perhaps the writer of the above will explain whether the “facilitation” of the transmission of STDs falls under “activities that endanger lives of innocent people”. If so, do we then legislate testing for these, for example?+++

    On the other hand, as a professing Christian, I do not wish to see the state condone “anti-scriptural” behaviour because that has very serious ramifications (spiritual, health, social etc) for ALL of us. That raises another problematic issue: Are we a “christian nation” (whatever that means) or not?

    The Scripture has issued a clear and direct prohibition against beastiality (sex with non-human animals) e.g. Exodus 22:9. The injunction against sodomy (anal sex) is implied in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The main instances and commentaries are: Genesis 19:4-7; Judges 19:22; 2 Peter 2:6-10 and Jude 1:7.

    [BTW, there is a bigger issue behind the Sodom and Gomorrah event which explains the vehemence with which Yahweh and his “spying angels” treated it. Many Christians seem unaware of this rationale even though it is alluded to in the book of Jude referenced above).

    Consistent with the foregoing, I therefore understand the reluctance of the previous Freundel Stuart government to change the buggery laws when it was raised by Peter Wickham and others a few years ago. “Christians” or other citizens who subscribe to the Scripture cannot logically support such actions even if they themselves have other moral failings. “Two wrongs do not make a right”.

    The fact of the matter is that, like the poor, there will always be those among us who prefer assorted “bush meat” and “strange fire”, law or no law. In the final analysis, we should leave their [moral] judgement up to the Sovereign One who issued the commands in the first place because he has promised, in no uncertain terms, to do so, starting with the church! (I Peter 4:17 & 18). What we need is legislation to protect those who may suffer at the hands of those who have such preferences.

    Like

  • IronsideJanuary 24, 2020 3:22 AM

    @Donna January 23, 2020 2:41 AM
    +++
    PS. I have read ninety percent of the Bible. Leviticus and Numbers defeated me. I have also done some formal study. My opinion remains the same. The Bible is a book written by men inspired by their experience of God. They were flawed messengers as are you. You men always seem to be on a power trip. But the very Bible also speaks of God being like a mother.
    +++

    I did not realize that you had an underlying issue with men! But it explains a lot.

    My apologies.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Really? is that all you got? I am a man hater? Typical when someone has no comeback!

    For can anyone dispute that men are typically more concerned with acquiring power over people in general and are obsessed with keeping women under their thumb?

    Does not the very Bible exhort women to respect their husbands (for that is their chief desire) and for men to love their wives (for that is our chief desire).

    Can anyone upon reading the Bible contest that its dominant attitude towards women shows only a slither of difference from the Koran? Fortunately, most Christians have evolved past that as they will eventually towards homosexuals when you old fogeys are dead. Muslims too are evolving.

    The typical male wants always to be IN CHARGE!

    If pointing that out, in your opinion, means I have an issue with men then I have an issue with men.

    But all it takes is a little tough love and that issue is often resolved.

    Like

  • Anal sex between persons of any sexual orientation is problematic health wise. Our biggest problem right now, however, is reported by the authorities to be diabetes and other non sexual life style diseases. Should the government legislate the diet and exercise regime of persons inclined to sit on the couch all day and eat Chefette?

    Why keep laws on the books that cannot be policed?

    Like

  • https://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/243593/repeal-buggery-law-priest-urges

    An Anglican minister says it is time to repeal the buggery law in Barbados.

    Like

  • @ Donna

    Public Health England has comprehensive data on sexually transmitted diseases in Barbados, including HIV, syphilis and gonorrhoea. Their records are so comprehensive that they can tell you which club in Ibiza is home to the most sexually transmitted diseases. I suspect someone has bogus figures.
    They share figures with the Europeans and Americans.

    Like

  • @ Caleb Pilgrim January 24, 2020 2:35 AM
    “As to your question, “who is the victim….”, in criminal law. arguably, the society, the community is victim of the defendant’s criminal conduct. Hence, the right of the state to prosecute the defendant.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    And who would be the witness(es) to give evidence needed to secure a conviction? It’s like asking a drug pusher to grass on himself, innit?

    If only we could apply that principle of the community being the “victim of the defendant’s criminal conduct” then we, the community, could force the Bajan Law to get of its lazy ‘ass’ and bring the resident collaborators in the Donvillegate bribery and M/L case to justice; whether guilty or not guilty.

    Barbados will soon see which god it will be forced to follow.
    Either the god of discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or the god of enlightened modern-day institutional moneylenders (many of them managed by members from the LGBTQ community) whose lending conditions stipulate that borrowers must remove those discriminatory, barbaric and Leviticus-era pieces of legislation from its book of statutes and statues to the god of hypocrisy.

    How can you be taxing people and still withholding their rights to be fully participatory agents of democracy?

    Now that members of that same community are in charge of affairs of state watch and see how fast Sec. 23 of Constitution is amended to make it abundantly clear (and not to the left to any interpretation and decision of the CCJ) that discrimination on sexual orientation must go the way of the dodo bird.

    Like

  • @ The Miller:

    I gine answer tomorrow Sunday, at which time I will say that I think it was Jesus who said “agree with your adversary quickly”.

    Therefore, agreed in part, disagreed in part. Later.

    Like

  • @david

    I didn’t realize that is an old article please delete, don’t know why it showed up when I signed on to BT

    Like

  • That is the way the hypocritical media behaves
    No ethics
    Many reading that article most likely would believe those words were recently spoken
    The media stinks and barbados would remain rotten to the core as long as the media remain the keepers of the gate

    Like

  • @ Sargeant,

    It is one of the “most read” stories. Can’t blame you fuh biting a red ear sprat. lol

    http://barbadostoday.bb/

    Like

  • There were 126 comments on the story.

    Any uh wunna evah read Hemingway ? ” The old man and the sea ?

    or BU “the old man in a wheelchair”?

    Like

  • “Many reading that article most likely would believe those words were recently spoken.”

    What are you really trying to prove?

    Sargeant admitted to not realizing it was an old article and asked for it to be deleted.

    “And, to besides,” it was dated May 23, 2018……. 1 year and 8 months ago.

    Perhaps the only one reading that article and “most likely would believe those words were recently spoken,” is you.

    Like

  • Artax is that your lame excuse
    Now tell why would Barbados Today pick an ole article to bring Carrington name into a divide and conquer debate
    Barbados Today is not innocent many dlp supporters have complained that Barbados Today refuses to publish comments that are not favourable to govt
    It beehoves all reading as to why barbados today would go to extreme measures to publish an ole worn out article featuring Carrington words in reference to Mottley sexualitu
    Could it be that govt receiving enormous lashes across social media in past months have given them an insight of caution whereby the criticisms that govt have been getting would tone down and more focus given on past dlp ministers
    Only a fool would step forward to excuse this tomfoolery hoisted on a propaganda machine by Barbados Today

    Like

  • It is all political chicanery. Barbadians elected Mia knowing what she is. If this is what the DLP have in their playbook it means they are scraping the barrel. So many issues out there for the opposition to make hay.

    Like

  • Here are the highlights and date of when the article referencing Carrington speak on Mia sexuality
    Mia noises about USA dividing Caricom has become a means of embarrassment
    Hence Barbados Today runs to the rescue producing a two year article about Carrington which would replace the focus on Mia miserable performance as Chairperson of Caricom

    Drum roll please

    Read ePaper
    Home / Politics / Carrington wants Mia to say if she is gay

    Carrington wants Mia to say if she is gay – by Barbados Today May 23, 2018
    Former Speaker of the House Michael Carrington last night called on Barbados Labour Party Leader Mia Mottley to declare publicly if she is gay or not,

    An article which has been tossed into the public arena two years later to deflect and detour the ongoing lashes being placed on Mia back side
    So who they chose Carrington
    Do mek me laugh

    Like

  • RE: “Artax is that your lame excuse.”

    How can highlighting the truth that the article is 1 year and 8 months old, be regarded as an excuse?

    RE: “Now tell why would Barbados Today pick an ole article to bring Carrington name into a divide and conquer debate?”

    As usual, you’re spewing political rhetoric. There are FIVE (5) stories listed on Barbados Today under “MOST READ.”

    (1). Cruise ship passenger dies following collision in Bridgetown.
    (2). Carrington wants Mia to say if she is gay .
    (3). “Inches guilty.
    (4). Gov’t reaching out to dead visitor’s relatives.
    (5). Work to upgrade airport pavements begin.

    Now, if I were to follow your argument to a logical conclusion, then, it means the #1 “most read” story, has to be regarded as a distraction, more so than #2.

    But, under the circumstances your argument is NONSENSE.

    RE: “Barbados Today is not innocent many dlp supporters have complained that Barbados Today refuses to publish comments that are not favourable to govt.”

    The more things change, the more they remain the same.

    I remember prior to May 24, 2018, “many BLP supporters (were) complaining that the Barbados Advocate and CBC were refusing to publish comments that are not favourable to (the then) govt.”

    Also, Barbados Today was inundated with comments from Carson C. Cadogan and hoards of other DLP supporters. And you were singing BT’s praises. Why are you complaining now?

    RE: “It beehoves all reading as to why barbados today would go to extreme measures to publish an ole worn out article featuring Carrington words in reference to Mottley sexuality.”

    It should EQUALLY “beehoove all reading as to why Barbados Today would go to extreme measures to publish (the OTHER FOUR (4)) ole worn out articles” as well.

    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