Former Prime Minister Freundel Stuart in a rare public appearance since the last general election delivered a speech last Sunday at the DLP St. Philip North branch meeting. Thanks to Piece the Legend for the following audio snippet. So far the blogmaster has not been able to locate the full speech by Stuart (some people will say disappointing).
Additional link posted by Ping Ping.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ BigJim
You asked and I quote
“…Lorenzo, ( the 2nd of the Rented Jackasses) does Queen Mia pay you to attack those who see through her…?”
Yes SHE DOES
THIS IS MIA’S OFFICIAL POOCHLICKER IN RESIDENCE.
Note that none of the comments posted here by this poochlicker have any intellectual content.
All attack the poster of the items ALL!
They ARE NOT TOO BRIGHT, in fact, Mugabe Mottley has unfortunately sent the dumbest rock to champion her cause here on BU.
And she is of the erroneous opinion (as are many of the political parties) that there is no need to interact with the public here or elsewhere to manage the general feeling of growing malcontent.
As a man you can identify with de ole man pun dis BigJim
You rush in the bathroom to piss in the middle of the night and you pull out you doggi*, point it at the toilet and pisss!
Bruggadown, it come out pointing to de floor or pun you leg and pun you wife special towel!
We is men, so we know dat sometimes “IT” got a mind of it’s own!
AND WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A HALF SLEEP PISS STOP, wake you up to clean off all de toilet seat, and de floor, de shower curtain AND TO SOAK DOWN DE WIFE TOWEL IN DISICLEAN before she wake up and quarrel in de morning!
Dis interlude with Mugabe for the last 22 months IS OUR WAKE UP AFTER A BADLY AIMED PISS!
The DLP was 10 years of shyeiting all over the floor but the pissing now start will the BLP and people starting to wake up.
The job of the 2nd Rented Jackass is to lull you back to sleep and when you or you wife get up later you slip and break you ass pun de wet bath floor.
DONT GO BACK TO SLEEP NO MORE!
greene
Hahahahaha…….
You continued to ignore the critique and my request for you to comment on it, to focus on the irrelevant. I suspect you’re a politician …….. and a lawyer.
Stuart may “no longer be a politician,” but, by your admission, he was a FORMER prime minister. As such, if he is actually SERIOUS about DEFENDING his tenure ………. it’s IMPERATIVE he DELIVERS on SUBSTANCE!!!!
Instead, he preferred to satisfy the “suckers for great political rhetoric,” by coming with “one liners” to “work the crowd” and make them laugh. This was the trademark of his ‘prime ministership.’ Perhaps that’s what you meant by his “proclivity to be very deliberate.”
But let me remind you, on Sunday, May 6, 2018, the DLP commenced their election campaign by holding a mass meeting near the National Stadium, at which each DLP candidate after candidate, especially Patrick Todd, Steve Blackett, David Estwick, Sinckler and Michael Lashley, “used oft REPEATED PHRASES to TAKE DOWN Mottley.”
To the “suckers of great political rhetoric,” as long as it has to do with ATTACKING Mottley, it’s nothing short of brilliant” and entertaining. To lovers of serious debate, it was disgusting and disrespectful behaviour.
Unfortunately, however, the “backlash” from that exercise resulted in Todd receiving 500 votes, 4,053 less than Mottley; Blackett = 905, 2,043 less than Holder; “Pit Bull” = 1,924, 2,399 less than “Johnny Ma Boy;” Sinckler = 1,991, 498 less than a nobody like Neil Rowe; and Lashley = 2,015, 1,598 less than Sonia Browne.
As for Stuart, he may have been a “magnificent speaker with a great command of the language and knows how to work the crowd” and “was (probably) articulate and believable.” Those glowing attributes did not matter at voting time. He received 1,083 votes, 1,883 less than Humphrey.
I guess the voters’ “proclivity to be very deliberate” caused a ‘landslide defeat.’
Now, in 2020, Stuart is “breaking his silence” by using a similar strategy that was a monumental failure in 2018.
It’s clear, Mr. Greene, that you’re NOT PREPARED to DISCUSS the CRITIQUE and more interested in parochial issues.
Until we hear from Froon again.
ADIOS.
@ Greene
Regurgitating trivia can sometimes seem interesting.
@ Artaxerxes the Superlative Archiver
You most eloquently said, an I quote
“…Now, in 2020, Stuart is “breaking his silence” by using a similar strategy that was a monumental failure in 2018…”
You gine kill he Artaxerxes?
The problem with these people is that they miss the main points and focus on the feel good sentiments
Regurgitating trivia is indeed interesting…….. but, then again BU is an interesting forum.
There are some here who prefer to live in ‘good old days.’ When they regurgitate trivia, it’s “intellectual discourse,’ debating, intelligent discussion, “punching above their weight.”
They tell us about the high levels of female unemployment after the war (probably WWII) to compare with the unemployment level today, when women have progressed significantly since September 1945, especially as it relates to education and employment. We hear of an efficient Transport Board in 1955, at a time when they were much fewer routes, when compared with today. And when asked to explain, we were told about an uncle who worked there and subsequently at the London Transport. Or when they’re asked about pensions being unsustainable, we’re given a history of mathematics.
I could go on regurgitating that trivia, but, instead, (even though an hour AFTER, at 5:29 AM, the ‘advisor’ had a LAPSE in concentration and couldn’t RESIST “drifting into personal insults and abuse,)” …………
……….. I’ll ADHERE the ADVICE OFFERED yesterday at 4:29 AM re:
“I THINK we will do a lot BETTER if we were to CONCENTRATE on debating ideas RATHER than DRIFTING in to PERSONAL INSULTS and ABUSE, even if that is the Barbados way.”
Unless, of course, the advice is another way of ‘saying,’ ‘Do as I say and NOT as I do.’
BinjimMs Mottley is quite capable of defending herself against persons like you, the jackass Piece and Austin who can only hide out on BU and take cheap potshots. To be clear to you as i have stated on here several times i support Ms Mottley and her government therfore no payment is necessary as i take pleasure in taking on persons like you.As i said your project was rejected big deal life goes on.As for Piece i am dumb yet you are smart by pimping about on BU all day repeating the same childih bullshit everyday. Perhaps you haven’t notice not even Mr Franklyn takes any advice from you you are a raving madman go take your meds old man while thinking up ypur next conspiracy theory jackass.
Artax,
dont go anywhere, mate. i dont like getting involved in arguments within arguments. they lead no where. Stuart is no longer the PM so what he says does not have to produce any outcome political or otherwise. he was found wanting and was duly voted out. it is for the Busy Bee Mottley to produce positives outcomes from her relentless rhetoric about everything under the sun except tax relief and crime.
when others have their say and when the thread advances i may point by point address your queries if there is need to but at this moment it is useless to relive the past. lets focus on the here and now. Busy Bee Mottley is here but is she now?
No arguments intended my friend, just poking a little fun at you. And, from the looks of it, you seem not be offended or took it personally…… and responded likewise…….. unlike other blighters who would have gone into the gutter.
However, if, “at this moment it is useless to relive the past,” then you’ve essentially vindicated those people who aren’t interested in what Stuart has to say and believe he should remain in the past.
RE: “Busy Bee Mottley is here but is she now?”
Perhaps you should ask yourself that question. I’m sure Lorenzo, Enuff and a few others will disagree with you or have more to say on that issue.
Hahahahahaha.
@Artax
how can you expect somebody who rarely addressed anything in a substantive manner as PM, to suddenly as a ‘has been’ to embark on a substantive analysis. His role is nothing more than to feed a few rock cakes and lead pipes to the base.
The REAL issue lies within the current administration. Following the engagement rules of what Mr.Skinner dubs ‘Duoploly’, you take the hand dealt you, and play; without any substantive investigation of former actions or culpability. Just much political long talk about a ‘lost decade’. This is called political immunity, and a courtesy extended by one administration to another, because in the end, they all end up in the same river. Shineth not a light upon those, who may someday return the focused beam?
@greene
Not a 100% accurate statement to be debated another time.
@ Greene
Stuart is now history. Even if the DLP returns to him for leadership, it is unlikely the people of Barbados will. His only worthy value, like that of Owen Arthur, is to give an honest forensic analysis of his years as prime minister, and as a leading politician.
He needs to deal with the big important issues, not trivia and fabrications; that argument has long gone. But some people need to create straw men then kick them to feel powerful. Stuart failed and disastrously. We want to know why. In the end he was a victim of an atavistic political culture, the root cause of our failed stat. Scroll back up and read some of these posts to see what I mean.
We need a different argument regarding current events. After nearly two years, the Mottley government has shown no sign that it even understands the extent of the problem, far less has any ideas how to solve them. That too Stuart has a right to criticise. Some undemocratic people seem to think he has lost that right. He has not.
His primary role, however, is to explain his failed leadership. What I want to know is why he kept Sinckler as his finance minister for all of his prime ministership, even after he won his own mandate ; and why he kept the aggressive and unruly Estwick in his government. He also has to explain Donville Inniss.
Whois questioning Stuart’s right to speak? Certainly not the blogmaster. What some are saying is that his return from Mt Olympus after two years of crystallizing his thoughts does not have to be shared under a rubric of DLP transformation.
Time will tell the measure of the fallout.
When you get on a public stage and openly LIE…….there is bound to be fallout where everyone can be told what really happened.
https://www.facebook.com/jackie.stewart.965/videos/1256272447915625/?t=99
@Hal,
indeed. you must remember that DLP had a v slim majority and little room to manoeuvre re reshuffling ministries. i wanted them to lose that election but not a return to Arthur who is the greatest failure as a PM. many people believe he was great because of the economic advancement on the surface but not me. that is not how i measure advancement.
Arthur sold out Bim, pushed land prices beyond the reach of the ordinary person and desecrated the west coast. that is another thing that galls me when it comes to the BLP. the BLP or Arthur said land is only an asset -imagine that myopic statement. when things were good Arthur did nothing to growth business beyond the grasp of the white elite. in fact, arguably, he advanced their hold on the economic life blood of Barbados
my UK friends used to laugh and say tongue in cheek as only the Brits do that Bim was for sale. that is why when i hear these negrocrats talking about politicians and thievery under the DLP i have to laugh. if they only knew what went on in that period of plenty. and irony is, that many of the ministers under Arthur are serving in this present regime trying to enforce transparency and good governance. what a thing?
getting back to Stuart. he was weak and it seems to me he cut a deal with the eager 11 or 12. that sealed his fate and those guys did whatever they liked. they knew they would not be elected again and behaved that way. Stuart was powerless to do anything. his only hope was at the beginning of the last 2 years say that he would and most of them would not be seeking re election again and name successors after going thru all the internal election process.
be that it as it may, i have no issue with him talking his talk. there is a segment in the party that need such venting and i believe lessons to be learnt there. internally a prosecution of what happened must take place and certain guidelines set. none of those from that period must be involved in DLP front line politics but they should not be ostracised either. i must admit i like shortman Lashley and Sealy and a few others.
now Verla, if she is to cement her leadership of the party, must say where she intends to go and how she intends to get there and chart a course in that direction. for that she must seek the right help. she needs a social media voice and an effective frontline champion(s) besides herself.
@ Hal
@ Greene
Pray tell why should Stuart have to “explain”Donville Inniss. Was Inniss instructed by Stuart/ Cabinet to take a bribe? So, if a member of the current government takes a bribe and is charged , would we expect the PM to “ explain “ the member? I would hope not.
Did Barrow explain HARP? Did Arthur explain the cheque he took from CLICO?
Are we asked to explain why our children break the law? In what context are we using the word explain in this discussion?
@ William
@Greene
Donville was not convicted in a New York court for ordinary theft or fraud; he was convicted for being corrupt in high office. He was a senior minister in Stuart’s government. So, the onus is on Stuart to explain what due diligence he carried out on ministers; what checks and balances he had to make sure that ministers made decisions with integrity and in the best interest of the nation. He was the captain and he failed at this.
Further, he needs to explain if Adriel Brathwaite, his senior law officer, appeared at the New York court in his former official capacity, or as a personal friend giving moral support.
This is important. Either the former DLP law officer was suggesting that the Americans got it wrong; or, was he indicating that this is the kind of friend he kept. Either way the Americans, Canadians and Brits would have taken note. By the way, did any Bajans provide character references to the NY Court.
In any case, the big countries would also have noted that the Mottley government has not even launched an inquiry in to the Donville affair. It is as if it did not matter.
Proof, if any was needed, that Barbados is a failed state.
@ David BU
I’m sure you read where ‘the usual suspects’ mentioned this discussion “moved from Stuart’s right to address his party members and supporters to one about the content of his speech. There are two different arguments.” That is certainly an opinion they created within their own minds.
(Why continue along the same line of “two different arguments,” by giving an ANALYSIS/CRITIQUE of the “CONTENT” of Stuart’s speech? Why raise CERTAIN ISSUES they believed Stuart should have explained? And, to make matters worse, they began a COMPLETELY different discussion about free education, scholarships and waffle about being illiterate and having not attended school. Simply amazing, isn’t it)?
There isn’t anything in any contribution I’ve read, so far, that suggests people DO NOT WANT Stuart to speak…. or that can be interpreted as an ATTEMPT to DENY him the RIGHT to criticize.
Yes, I’ll be the first to agree Stuart HAS a democratic right to “break his silence.” But, we must be wiling to ACCEPT people also have a DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to CHOOSE whether or not they WANT to LISTEN to him? And, if they CHOOSE the LATTER, how does that make them ‘undemocratic.”
What some people seem to be suggesting is,after 9 years, 3 months of not ‘saying’ anything on serious issues affecting Barbados, when he was the PM……….. they PREFER NOT to hear anything him now he’s not the PM. How is this significantly different from ‘saying’ “Stuart is now history?”
Can’t asking him to speak on the his failed economic policies and credit rating downgrades be viewed in a similar context as wanting to know why he kept Sinckler as MoF during his tenure?
We’re all basically asking similar questions.
The usual suspects adore in ‘manipulating’ the discussion. They purposely misrepresent people’s comments and respond to their own fabrications, just to make themselves feel powerful, as well.
@Artax
quote] There isn’t anything in any contribution I’ve read, so far, that suggests people DO NOT WANT Stuart to speak…. or that can be interpreted as an ATTEMPT to DENY him the RIGHT to criticize [quote
on a point of order and honesty, read the first couple of posts
Who wants to listen to the same warm over nonsense based on the snippets leaking to the public. In the digital age it is not even possible to listen to his full presentation. This is instructive, a man out of touch with real world realities.(Quote)
Whois questioning Stuart’s right to speak? Certainly not the blogmaster. What some are saying is that his return from Mt Olympus after two years of crystallizing his thoughts does not have to be shared under a rubric of DLP transformation.
Time will tell the measure of the fallout.(Quote)
If this government was not so CORRUPT, this fraudulent pretender could never show that face or open that lying mouth..(Quote)
Piece the Legend
February 19, 2020 8:29 AM
This man Fumbles need to get loss way in a Prison far in Siberia
He, THE WORST PRIME MINISTER IN THE CARIBBEAN, should be beaten with a whip with many stripes.
Which part of
“…WE BAJANS DO NOT EVER WANT TO SEE YOUR SCVUNT AGAIN!!!” you cannot understand?(Quote)
Former PM Stuart has the right to speak about his time as PM.
Hopefully he will find a nice cushy job like former PM OSA.
The DLP should rebuild the party and a new leader could be ” ready” in time for the 2028 elections.
The BLP will get a second term even as Bajans endure the pain of prolonged austerity.
buh doan mine me I just writing sh……and continue to enjoy the freedom of BU.
@ Greene
Perhaps the definition of the word “honesty” must have taken on a new meaning in your world or since I last checked.
I read the all the contributions and my view still remains. I have not seen anything that suggests contributors don’t want Stuart to speak or that could be interpreted as an attempt to deny his right to criticize.
Unless you’re suggesting you’ve interpreted some people’s comments about not wanting to hear him, is similar to not wanting him to speak and denying his right to criticize.
If you did, then you need to take another look in the dictionary for the word “honesty,” and hopefully, on that same page, there may be some reference to “dishonesty” as well.
In Freundel Stuart, the catastrophe of educational policy after independence crystallizes in an exemplary way.
A child from the lowest social class studies for ten years (!!!) at the taxpayer’s expense. Then he becomes a lawyer. This is no wonder, because in Barbados almost nobody fails the exams. If Stuart had been born in Norway or Switzerland, he would have been a gardener or doorman today, but he would never have become a lawyer.
How can we seriously expect that a figure who never saw a penny in his hildhood and youth can only come close to handling finances as a Prime?
Anyone who criticises Stuart must at the same time criticise old Barrow’s rotten education policy, which completely ignored the fact that not all people are equally smart.
I have nothing against a good mix of rich and poor ministers in a government. But when a government, as is regularly the case with the DLP, is made up of nothing more than run-down, impoverished figures, we should not be surprised if they swarm over the country like a plague of locusts.(Quote)
Nobody wants to hear him except geezers like you all. Let him return to Mount Olympus and snooze.(Quote)
Well said in every post, Artax!
@Artax,
quote] If this government was not so CORRUPT, this fraudulent pretender could never show that face or open that lying mouth..[quote
that is the v first post in this thread and the second is more robust. however, in the interest of moving the discussion forward, i will replace “honesty” with “interpretation”
@ Hal
The malfeasance re Inniss , took place while he was in Stuart’s cabinet and that is a fact. However you need to understand that as you stated, no charges were ever brought against Innis in Barbados. You are saying that Stuart has to explain that because you are making the assumption that Stuart knew of the bribe. Even if he knew he could only recount Inniss actions but he could not seriously be expected to “explain “ Inniss. Furthermore, when Inniss was charged , Stuart was no longer in office.
Your comment about Brathwaite being in NY with Inniss is fallacious. Friends are known to offer each other professional and other support when there are confronting difficulties.
Let me make it very clear that I am amongst those who believe that the DLP and Stuart got exactly what they deserved. However in the interest of objective discourse I cannot understand what all the fuss about Stuart speaking at a party branch meeting is all about.
The DLP failed to manage the country properly and Stuart failed as the PM. We, the people determined that they should be kicked out of office without winning a single seat.
End result: The Duopoly Still Rules
End of story.
I’m amazed and equally amused at the examples presented to prove contributors do not want Stuart to speak or denied him his right to criticize.
(1). “If this government WAS NOT so CORRUPT, this fraudulent pretender COULD NEVER show that face or open that lying mouth..”
Please indicate to me where in the above comment, WARU said she did not want Stuart to speak or criticize?
(3). This man Fumbles need to get loss way in a Prison far in Siberia. He, THE WORST PRIME MINISTER IN THE CARIBBEAN, should be beaten with a whip with many stripes. Which part of
“…WE BAJANS DO NOT EVER WANT TO SEE YOUR SCVUNT AGAIN!!!” you cannot understand?
Yuh don’t want to see him, then yuh don’t want him to speak.
(2). “Who wants to LISTEN to the same warm over nonsense based on the snippets leaking to the public. In the digital age it is not even possible to listen to his full presentation. This is instructive, a man out of touch with real world realities.”
Oh, I get it, if you DON’T WANT TO LISTEN TO HIM, then you don’t want him to speak.
(4). “NO ONE is CHALLENGING his RIGHT to SHARE his side of the story. The debate is if it adds value to the DLP rebuild effort given the 30-0 zip result and the other bruises suffered including Donville. It makes sense for the DLP to distance itself from Stuart if it wants to be taken seriously.”
Okay, if no one is challenging his right to speak, it means they don’t want him to speak or to criticize?
Shiite, it appears as though appalling ignorance was equally distributed among journalists bookkeepers.
However, rather than fighting Greene’s case, perhaps they may want to address their own issues.
“Let me make it very clear that I am amongst those who believe that the DLP and Stuart got exactly what they deserved. However in the interest of objective discourse I cannot understand what all the fuss about Stuart speaking at a party branch meeting is all about.
The DLP failed to manage the country properly and Stuart failed as the PM. We, the people determined that they should be kicked out of office without winning a single seat.
End result: The Duopoly Still Rules. End of story.”
@ Mr. Skinner
As usual, “you’re spot on!” “Don’t mind the background noise.” I couldn’t have written it better myself.
Your above comments sum up this discussion in ‘one toss.’ And, it is on those comments that I shall take my leave.
@Artax,
stop parsing the language. the reasonable person would interpret that robust language in those posts to mean that Stuart should not speak, yes. stop parsing language man. to what end?
lets agree to disagree and move on
@ Greene
Come on. my friend. You’re nit-picking. But, I’m sure you’re aware I’m appallingly ignorant….. ask your friend.
The manner in which you express yourself, especially on legal issues, gives one the impression you’re in law enforcement or a lawyer. If you’re a lawyer, I’m sure you would have at times parsed language while cross examining witnesses to achieve an “end.”
Under those circumstances, does that make it right?
Anyhow, there isn’t anything to us “to agree to disagree.” You made your point and I made mine. You’re extremely politically biased….. I prefer to be a bit more objective.
Yes, enough is enough…….it’s time to move on.
@ William
We both agree that Stuart has a democratic right to address his party members. Put that to one side. Further, I am saying that as a former attorney general Adriel Brathwaite’s presence in New York was not clear. Do you know why he was there? Did he provide a character reference.
You seem to be saying that if he was there as a friend giving moral support that was right and proper. I am saying no. I am saying that as a former attorney general he was sending the wrong message.
Friendship is a two-way street, you may expect moral support from a friend if in need and you, on the other hand, promise not to do anything to bring that friendship in to disrepute.
Finally, yes, Stuart has got to explain why he did not know one of his senior ministers was corrupt; and if he knew (or suspected it) why didn’t he do something about it. Stuart cannot have a free pass about a maggot in his Cabinet. Why not appoint a drug dealer as community affairs minister?
And what pundits are suggesting is that Stuart given his regulation to the political dustbin of history will do irreparable harm to a DLP that as at today has an uncertain future. No wonder Verla was conveniently overseas. The party is led by a person rejected how many times by the electorate? Her deputy has signaled she will not be running in the next general election. A word to the wise should be sufficient. Especially by some of us with a finger on the pulse.
As they say, time will tell.
@ Hal
On this matter, I respectfully suggest that this is the old recurring decimal: Is the glass half empty or half full. I suggest that to attempt to burden Stuart to “explain” Inniss “if” he knew of Inniss’ infelicities is a bit weak.
As for Brathwaite being a former attorney general and turning up to give his friend support, all I can say is that real friends turn up in your darkest hour. Brathwaite put his “ former “ title aside and put friendship first. And that at least in my book means honor. True friendship has nothing to do with “former “ titles.
Peace.
For those in the know Brathwaite and Inniss are friends and business partners.
@ William
I did not say Brathwaite was a friend. I asked a question: in what capacity was he there? If you have the answer then share it with us, pls.
What I am saying is that no matter the capacity in which Brathwaite was there it was perverse and amoral. Brathwaite was the top legal officer in the land, not a two-bit lawyer. HE SHOULD NOT have been there. As to Stuart explaining: Stuart should have been on top of the moral character of his Cabinet. If he was not then has failed.
Do you type because you have fingers?
Are you referring to Stuart who told his Speaker to hire a lawyer when a High Court Justice directed him to repay a septuagenarian his money where has withheld for no honest reason?
The man has no moral timbre from which to draw.
Piss in we pocket do.
@ Hal
I distinctly read where Brathwaite was asked why he was in NY and he replied that he was there as a friend.
The question is: What Stuart knew and if so when did he know about it. I don’t have that answer.
As @ David said above , when confronted with an infelicity by the then speaker, which was public knowledge , Stuart told him get a lawyer.
How therefore can we seriously expect the same Stuart to “explain” Inniss when Inniss’ infelicities became public knowledge after both Stuart and Inniss were out of office.
it is written …….in Proverbs 18:24
“A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.”
@ William
I did not read that. In any case he should not have been there. It sent the wrong message. I have never meet Donville, but I saw him once at the Barbados high commission and immediately formed the opinion he was a wide boy.
@Hal
Embattled former Government minister Donville Inniss is sticking close to home as he digs in to clear himself of money laundering charges.
Inniss has now officially hired best friend and confidant Adriel Brathwaite to assist him in the money laundering case from a Barbados perspective.
“I have been retained by Donville Inniss to assist in any way necessary with respect to Barbados law in the matter,” Brathwaite, the Attorney General in the previous Democratic Labour Party Administration, confirmed to the Sunday Sun in an interview from New York.
The former politician said Inniss would remain mum for now. “He cannot comment. This matter is far from over, and he will not be speaking to the Press,” Brathwaite said.
Brathwaite believes the case against his DLP colleague “has only now started” and could last probably another 24 months.
“Donville appreciates that the process may take a year or two. He is looking forward to clearing his name in particular for his family,” said the former MP for St Philip South. (BA)
This may throw more light on the matter. Another section of the press had said Brathwaite was there as a friend before this appeared
@David,
what rot are you talking? the DLP will be out of govt for at least 10 years. do we really think any person from the last bunch will be around politically at that time? your admonishment is a nonsense under those circumstances. Barrow and others were rejected too.
politics is a strange game and the rejected can become the chosen in a wink of an eye politically
@ William
This development is interesting. Brathwaite is now a paid adviser/consultant (unless he has a licence to practise in New York). Donville, if he wants to rescue his reputation, and he clearly wants to, should also hire Stuart, if he is available, since he too is a former prime minister and attorney general and is a senior lawyer. I am looking forward to that.
I would also go further. Since the reputation of our political and criminal justice systems are at risk, Donville has a strong case to appeal to the government for funding his defence, since by remaining silent the Mottley government is implying he is/maybe innocent.
Lorenzo, I will feel for you when Queen Mia decides you have outlived your usefulness and drops you like she has dropped so many others, without notice and e=without even a thanks. If she was paying you at least you would have something to show for it. Undoubtedly, Queen Mia is a user, plain and simple.
I am old enough to remember Caribbean statesmen – our own Errol Barrow, Grantley Adams, Normal Manley, and so on. People whose intellectual gaze was fixed on the horizon… that is, how they could improve their country and region for way out into the future, not gaze at their ever-fattening wallet and do their best to make it burst. The Federation died with a Trinidadian joke (“one from ten equals zero”), but these people still remained to affect our futures and create CARICOM.
Unfortunately, our leaders seem to have entered a period of self-entitlement, with salaries far in excess of any an average citizen could expect to earn, golden or platinum pensions, benefits taxpayers can only dream about, and vacation periods worthy of any child in secondary school. But they are the “lawmakers”, and what they enact into law is law, whether you or I like it or not.
We live in a world out of control. In the United Shitholes of America, the President has TWICE stated that if he is not re-elected this year he will declare the election fraudulent and call his “base” out onto the streets with guns and weapons to cause violence and start Civil War 2.
I do not believe we in the Caribbean have come that far yet, but I also think we are getting there. How long will Bajans put up with ever higher taxes, and ever increasing bureaucracy?
Dictatorships are all the rage, and the 1% with all the money support such situations – because in the long run they will make more money out of it. Queen Mia was elected on a platform of transparency and accountability, yet once in office she is neither transparent nor accountable.
You does post some nonsense for a big man.
@Greene
Are we talking about Verla leading the party? A relatively young woman? What the DLP has experienced under Stuart is unprecedented and should not be compared with another political event.
David,
quote] What the DLP has experienced under Stuart is unprecedented and should not be compared with another political event.[quote
i agree and i think most Bajans agree but yet you keep predicting great fallout even after he has been rend asunder in the recent election
“Donville appreciates that the process may take a year or two. He is looking forward to clearing his name in particular for his family,”
I guess the clearing name went out the window with the conviction,, so much for brilliance.
@ David BU
Did you read Albert Brandford’s article in today’s “Sunday Sun” on Stuart’s meeting?”
@Artax
Yes as well as Ezra Alleyne and Adrian.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.