1,036 responses to “Senator Caswell Franklyn Speaks – Mock Police”

1. 

   David

   May 17, 2020 at 5:06 am

   
   

   This is a long paste but it lists the chronology of events which should be useful for those who need help organizing their thoughts.

   HEAT OVER OVER POST

   If nothing else, Senator Caswell Franklyn has been consistent in his objection to the promotion of Oral Williams to Deputy Commissioner of Police without reference to the Police Act and without the matter being taken to Parliament.

   His objections were first raised last June when a memo about the creation of an additional post for Deputy Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police was circulated by Commissioner of Police Tyrone Griffith.

   It went on to list Williams as Deputy Commissioner assigned to Administration and Human Resources and William Yearwood as Assistant Commissioner in charge of Administrative Services. Both appointments were effective from May 9, 2019.

   The following is a timeline of events thereafter:

   June 9, 2019

   •

   Attorney General Dale Marshall clarified the situation.

   “The newspaper reported that Mr Oral Williams is now appointed Deputy Commissioner. The only body that can do that is the Police Service Commission. The Commissioner of Police is able to put people into acting posts, so that is what has happened.”

   Marshall also informed that the new Protective Services Commission “at some point in time would then have to decide whether to confirm those appointments”.

   •

   Franklyn said that with the Police Service Commission being dissolved, no posts could be created or established within the police force without it “coming to Parliament”. He confirmed that the Commissioner of Police could assign persons to temporary positions or the minister could create temporary posts for a minimum of three years.

   May 1, 2020

   •

   The Government Information Serviceput out a 51-word statement that reignited the matter. It stated in part: “The Protective Services Commission has approved the appointment of Oral Williams on promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Police in the Royal Barbados Police Force with effect from today, Friday, May 1.”

   Attorney General Dale Marshall. (FP)

   •

   Frankyn wrote a Letter to the Editor entitled “Mock Police” in which he stated: “I really don’t know if I should congratulate or offer commiserations to Mr Williams. This has nothing to do with his fitness for the post. . . . My concern is that he has been appointed to a non-existent post, since someone is already substantively appointed Deputy Commissioner.

   “The number of persons appointed to the post of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is subject to primary legislation, in this case the Police Act,and can only be changed by an amendment to that Act done in Parliament. On the other hand, the Police Act goes on to give the Minister responsible for Civil Establishments the power, by subsidiary legislation, to determine the number of Assistant Commissioners, Superintendents, Inspectors, subordinate police officers and constables.

   “For completeness, the Civil Establishments Act was repealed and replaced by the Public Service Act on December 31, 2007. The power to determine the number of posts in the public service is now found at section 13.(1) of the Public Service Act.

   ‘The power to make appointments to public offices and to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in the Public Service is vested in the Governor-General,

   acting in accordance with the advice of service commissions, in this case the Protective Service Commission. That service commission, like all others in Barbados, can only recommend the appointment of persons to post that are available. There is only one post of Deputy Commissioner available and that is already filled.”

   May 7, 2020

   •

   Marshall, Government’s chief legal advisor, said he has no intention of engaging in a tit-for-tat with Franklyn about a decision which has led to Barbados having two deputy commissioners of police.

   Franklyn described Williams’ promotion as ultra vires.

   •

   Verla De Peiza, president of the Democratic Labour Party queried Williams’ appointment saying: “In May of 2018, Erwin Boyce was appointed Deputy Commissioner of Police. There has been no announcement of his retirement from the Royal Barbados Police Force. How then could there be an announcement of the appointment of Oral Williams in that same post?

   “What has become of Boyce? Has he been shunted aside? Or out? Or is this just one more position from which this administration must back pedal or worse, use their majority in Parliament to bully their way through?”

   May 12, 2020

   •

   Marshall said: “On May 9, 2019, the second post of Deputy Commissioner of Police was created, and on that date, Mr Williams was appointed to act in the position. On March 15, 2020, the Protective Services Commission confirmed Mr. Williams in the post.

   “As a result, Mr Williams is responsible for Administration and Human Resources matters in the force, and his colleague Deputy Commissioner Erwin Boyce is responsible for Operations.

   “We take note that the Police Act only speaks to a single Deputy Commissioner of Police, and it is, therefore, to be regretted that the required amendment did not take place in advance of this confirmation.

   “I give Barbadians the assurance that once the strictures of COVID-19 allow us the space to resume sittings of Parliament, the necessary amendment will be made to the Police Act to give full effect to this decision.

   Marshall stated the untidy situation does not “take away from the necessity for the post as we work to improve the management of the force or the fact that Mr Williams is qualified for, and deserving of, the position”.

   •

   In response, Franklyn stated: “The Government did something wrong and I wanted to draw it to their attention and have them fix it.”

   He said Williams was due to retire next year and it appeared the appointment was more an attempt to enhance his pension.

   Franklyn added that the appointment has more to do with political interference than the running of the force.

   May 15, 2020

   • Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley, the minister responsible for the Public Service, insisted Williams’ appointment was lawful.

   She said Franklyn was wrong because the section of the law on which he was relying had been abolished 13 years ago.

   “In February of this year, I signed an Order, a Statutory Instrument . . . Number 9 of 2020. It was subsequently laid in the House of Assembly on March 3 and in the Senate on March 11. ThatOrder legitimately established the second post of Deputy Commissioner of Police in Barbados. The fact is, Mr Williams’ appointment is therefore lawful,”

   said Mottley.

   “The Public Service Act under which I signed that Order repeals the provision of the Police Act that calls for a deputy commissioner of police. And if Senator Franklyn really wanted to be accurate, he would have told the country that section of the Civil Establishments Act that he was relying on has been repealed 13 years ago when the same Public Service Act was passed,” she added.

   The Prime Minister said the legal doctrine of implied repeal was in effect. That is, if a piece of legislation that was passed is in conflict with or is different from the original act, then the subsequent law, so long as it is constitutional, prevails.

   Mottley also dismissed Franklyn’s suggestions that Williams’ appointment not only amounted to political interference, but was a means of providing him with a deputy commissioner’s pension on retirement.

   She said it was Commissioner Griffith who had asked for a second deputy. He did so in correspondence on November 7, 2018 again on February 26, 2019, when he also asked for an assistant commissioner of police post to be created, setting out in both letters “six or seven grounds” as to why he needed these additional positions.

   The Prime Minister reminded De Peiza it was the current DLP’s general secretary Guyson Mayers who as Chairman of the Police Service Commission, interviewed both Williams and Boyce back in 2013 for the deputy position. Boyce then proceeded to act in the job for five years until May 1, 2018, three weeks before the general election was held.

   “Then we are going to have people tell us who is being appointed for improper reasons?

   “The same Police Service Commission put Mr Oral Williams at the top of the list and said that should a need arise between now and the next two years Mr Williams should be appointed as Deputy Commissioner of Police without need for further interview.”

   •

   In a swift response, Franklyn maintained he was right.

   “The Prime Minister has allowed herself to be misled, or she has misled herself. . . . What she is failing to understand is theCivil Establishment Act when repealed was just the provisions and replaced under a new act. So she still does not have the power to create a post of Deputy Commissioner because that is reserved for the Police Act.”

   He further argued that the minister’s powers have not been increased. The minister could make subsidiary legislation, but not to repeal primary legislation. “That can only be done by Parliament itself, and the Prime Minister is failing to understand that,” said Franklyn.

   Loading…
2. 

   David

   May 17, 2020 at 5:08 am

   
   

   Albert Brandford…

   Mia’s Deputy CoP mess!

   If I pass a piece of legislation that in any way conflicts or in any way is different, the subsequent piece of legislation, so long as it is not unconstitutional, is what prevails. –Prime Minister Mia Mottley Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley surprised many Barbadians late Friday both by the timing and the manner in which she entered the raging national debate over the “appointment” of a second Deputy Commissioner of Police when the law apparently says there is only one such post.

   In one fell swoop, not only did Mottley stir the boiling political pot with an apparent swat at embattled Attorney General Dale Marshall, who offered an “apology” of sorts over Government’s decision to announce the new post and promised a validation amendment to right to ostensible wrong, but she also proffered a little used legal doctrine in these parts to justify the action – “implied repeal”.

   Now, I am not a lawyer and will leave the law to the legal eagles, but I have a healthy admiration for the profession from a safe distance, and will sit back and enjoy the anticipated debate among them about what in some jurisdictions is regarded as a “disfavoured” doctrine.

   Further, the Prime Minister enjoyed the dessert with a thrashing of the DemocraticLabour Party (DLP), which formed the previous administration,

   whose current president Verla De Peiza called for Marshall’s sacking.

   A small side dish is the possibly not unrelated reality that the current general secretary of the DLP was chairman of the then Police Service Commission which sent on leave Commissioner of Police Darwin Dottin, since hired by this Government as a crime consultant.

   Three bites at a juicy political cherry in one go! Doesn’t get much better, does it?

   Readers will recall that it was Opposition Senator Caswell Franklyn, who earlier this month charged that the Protective Service Commission, (formerly Police Service Commission), had acted ultra vires by announcing the appointment of Assistant Commissioner Oral Williams as a Deputy Commissioner when Erwin Boyce was already installed in that only post.

   Temperatures were raised when Marshall tersely answered a reporter’s question: “I do not propose to respond to that.”

   That response drew a wash pan of criticism and some tepid “explanations” until Mottley’s late but pointed intervention.

   Very early in that day, one got a sense of what might play out as Government sought to ease the fears of Barbadians, who were being fed a spoonful of speculation includingpossible political rebalancing

   and personal favours as well as a determination to “right a wrong”.

   My constitutional lawyer friend, on another platform, gave a hint when he questioned the “effect and impact of Section 13 (1) of thePublic Service Act 2007, which states in part ‘the Minister may by Order (a) establish offices in the Public Service and (b) determine the number of persons who may be appointed to those offices . . .”.

   Public Service Act

   The tingling feeling that this might really be Government’s “lawyer it out” approach and justification grew when sometime later, he noted that: “On 24 February, 2020, the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police was established. It was according to what I am finding out Gazetted on 2nd March, 2020 . . . as . . . The Public Service General Amendment Order 2020 SI No. 9 under thePublic Service Act 29”.

   This non-lawyer was intrigued, but I certainly could not have anticipated that Mottley would later in the day advance this curious and still widely contentious “implied repeal” doctrine, which on the surface in these circumstances seems a strange, clumsy, messy, and, yes, desperate rationalisation of a palpable misstep.

   The lawyers will have their say over whetherthe matter was settled by the Public Service

   Order – which some thought did not cover the Royal Barbados Police Force – or should have been more properly dealt with through

   Albert

   Brandford

   an amendment to the

   Police Act.

   Mottley insisted the Public Service Act,under which she signed an Order in February “impliedly repealed the provision of the Police Act that calls for a Deputy Commissioner of Police”.

   But Franklyn remains firm: “The Minister’s powers have not been increased. The Minister can make subsidiary legislation, but not to repeal primary legislation. That can only be done by Parliament.”

   That assertion, perhaps more than anything else, seems to undermine Mottley’s “implied repeal” approach.

   The literature suggests that there is a more than favourable leaning towards “express repeal” rather than implied repeal.

   Justice M. Y. Eqbal in Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust v Magnum Developers wrote: “It is well settled that in a case where there is a repealing clause to a particular Act, it is a case of express repeal, but in a case where doctrine of implied repeal is to be applied, the matter will have to be determined

   by taking into account the exact meaning and scope of the words used in the repealing clause.

   “It is equally well settled that the implied repeal is not readily inferred and the mere provision of an additional remedy by a new Act does not take away from an existing remedy.

   “While applying the principle of implied repeal, one has to see whether apparently inconsistent provisions have been repealed and re-enacted.”

   Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent. Email: AlbertBrandford@nationnews.com.

   Loading…
3. 

   David

   May 17, 2020 at 5:10 am

   
   

   Here is Ezra Alleyne where the blogmaster suspects it restarted…

   Police Act section impliedly repealed

   By Ezra Alleyne

   The debate on the appointment of an additional Deputy Commissioner of Police has mushroomed into a major talking point. It is an important issue. I have looked at the available comments and a major point jumps out at me.

   It is now indisputably clear that on merit and qualifications both in academic terms and by performance and experience, the promotion of Oral Willams to the position of Deputy Commissioner of Police is amply merited. And for the past five years that has been the case.

   We now also know from the Prime Minister’s statement that way back in 2013 when the then Police Service Commission recommended Erwin Boyce to be Deputy Commissioner, they also recommended that Williams, a fellow interviewee, be placed at the top of a priority list of officers for acting appointments arising at that level of the Force.

   No political preferment

   This was some seven years ago. It gives the lie to accusations of political preferment. The only legitimate issue is whether the actual appointment of Williams comports with the relevant law.

   The Police Act CAP 167 in Section 6 speaks of a Commissioner of Police and a Deputy Commissioner. A (single) Deputy Commissioner was essential, because Section 6 of the Police Act said so.

   In this respect, the law differs from that of a so, called Deputy Prime Minister. A Deputy Commissioner (or two) is essential. A Deputy Prime Minister is not.

   Now, in November, 2018, after the general election of May 24, the Commissioner of Police wrote to therelevant authorities requesting

   an additional Deputy Commissioner and also another Assistant Commissioner. He pointed out why these appointments were urgently needed.

   The Mottley Administration, recognising that the Public Service Act 2007 has given the Minister power to create

   posts in the public service, duly created the positions by

   Ministerial Order, made under the authority of the primary legislation of thePublic Service Act 2007.

   Senator Caswell Franklyn’s argument is that the

   Ministerial Order made in March this year, and laid in Parliament, is secondary legislation and cannot override thePolice Act which is primary legislation.

   But the clear point (at least to me) is that primary legislation in the form of thePublic Service Act is the source of the power given to the Minister in 2007 to create posts in the Public Service.

   There is, therefore, only one specific argument which may be raised here without generating useless hot air.

   The Police Act says there is only one post of Deputy Commissioner, but a comprehensive piece of legislation, thePublic Service Act 2007 says clearly that the Minister can (note the word) create posts in the Public Service.

   Then, is not the provision that there is only a single established post of Deputy Commissioner in the Police Actimpliedly repealed when Parliament gives the Minister power in 2007, some 40 years later, to create and establish posts in the Civil Service?

   I think that the Government has an unassailable argument on that point. Senator Franklyn argues that the Minister can make subsidiary

   legislation which she has done, but he also argues the Minister cannot repeal primary legislation, and he says that can only be done by Parliament itself.

   Not the PM

   But wait a minute . . . . It is not the Prime Minister who is repealing the law, it is the operation of the legal doctrine of implied repeal that does that. The Public Service Act 2007 is itself primary legislation, passed by Parliament just as the Police Act was passed.

   By giving the Minister power to create offices in the Public Service and to decide on the number of such officers, the later act, it is argued by implication, repeals the provision in the earlier act, because Parliament is presumed to know what the law was in 2007 when it passed the Public Service Act.

   Now to my final point. A careful look at Section 4 of the Public Service Act 2007, justifies the remark of the learned Attorney General that when Parliament resumes after COVID-19, steps will be taken to tidy up the matter.

   The Orders having already been laid, in both Houses of Parliament in March of this year, just on the cusp of the lockdown; Parliament should tidy up the legal position, by passing a resolution which would put the issue irretrievably beyond any question.

   But in my view, the doctrine of implied repeal is properly operative in this matter.

   Ezra Alleyne is an attorney at law and former Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly.

   Loading…
4. 

   WURA-War-on-U

   May 17, 2020 at 5:17 am

   
   

   Poor Ezra…he wasted so many hours ruining his eyes searching for loopholes in the Police Act to perpetrate a FRAUD ON TAXPAYERS and when he actually found one, it has been RENDERED USELESS by Guyson Mayers…lol

   pure entertainment…lol

   Miller…we can’t make this up, wouldn’t know how to begin to…….too other worldly….all we can do is laugh, they say laughter is very good for your wellbeing, so laugh away…

   the electorate now has a lesson before them…KEEP LAWYERS TO A MINIMUM IN THE PARLIAMENT…DO NOT elect them to infect and infest the place and ruin your lives as they have done to generations of your people.

   …one or two laywers are more than Enuff in the parliament but not a whole gaggle of those crooks every election cycle…they are destructive liars and too self-hating and way too destructive to the Black population to have as leaders, they have done nothing in the last 50 plus years to enrich the lives and futures of the majority population and for that reason among all the other ones where they tief everything, should NEVER BE ALLOWED TO LEAD AGAIN…

   so what do the fowls and their young protege Khaleel have to say now……ha, ha, ha!!!

   we are waiting, am surprised none have jumped out yet…..maybe they actually finally learned the art of being ashamed and are now in hiding..

   Loading…
5. 

   WURA-War-on-U

   May 17, 2020 at 5:36 am

   
   

   I think the Guyson Mayers post carries the most clarity….all the rest creates more confusion and questions than answers…..Williams is just a political tool being used for selfish purposes to re-enforce just how much small island power they have at their disposal to wield to frighten the populi INTO SUBMISSION……but just like the CNN interview, it FELL FLAT…

   the PM would do well just to do her job AS SHE AND ALL OF THEM ARE BEING PAID BY THE PEOPLE TO DO and forget the dicktator crap, no one except for fowls is amused…….she needs to stop, instead of continually trying to impress with BACKWARD NONSENSE..

   now the LSE or is it LEC questions will arise again and questions will be asked about just how legally qualified are any of them in the parliament, with all these LEGAL COCKUPS…wuhloss…lol….40 lay abouts for lawyers and everyone is dumb, can’t say a word..

   am here doubled up with laugher…

   Loading…
6. 

   Lorenzo

   May 17, 2020 at 5:56 am

   
   

   Khaleel ignore the fraud Waru she looking to avoid shame.I magine she quoting the political nightwatchman and Mr Mayers as truthful persons who she previously claimed as members of the last government should be locked up. As for Dames who you trying to convince yourself certainly not me. You have never said a good word of anything this government have done so far so save the talk.I noticed you stared you did not vote for you relative against Mr Marshall but you did not say you voted for Marshall.Like many Dems you probably did not vote at all. Why you Dems always hiding pretending to be neutral?Lastly you speak about lies let me refresh your Dem memory.Do you remember Mr Sandiford now Sir Lloyd stating in 1991 that the economy was batying like Sobers anf by 1993/ 4 we were in the IMF hands?This was initially discovered when the late Mr Blackman went into the finance ministry to find out a lot of what Sandiford said was untrue.How about Mr Thompson threst to reveal all in Queen, s Park about some secret desl with Mr Arthur or somr St John developement plan?Toping all this off the promise of duty free cars to civil servants after 2008 along with locking up BLP ex Ministers or Mr Stuart saying during the 2013 not one person would be sent home and proceed to lay off 4000 people.Therefore Dem lies ain’t now start but you have convenient mempry but when you in a glass house you should not throw stones because when you throw one five coming back at you.

   Loading…
7. 

   WURA-War-on-U

   May 17, 2020 at 6:17 am

   
   

   Lorenza…both Mayers and Verla…have RECEIPTS…eg valid legislation to quote from, even if ya can’t understand, ya can read it…so where is YOUR legislation, where is Mia’s and Dale’s..

   Show us the amendment, but before ya come with some piece of crap post, remember no amendment to the Police Act went through the senate AND…which will be INVALID anyway according to Guyson’s post…….i dare you…lol

   yall got some poor fools in some back office straining their eyes so ya can crawl out of ya cockup, just like ya had poor Ezra straining his , hope he don’t go blind….from reading all those contradicting laws…

   am in tears…

   Loading…
8. 

   WURA-War-on-U

   May 17, 2020 at 6:42 am

   
   

   If Khaleel was my son i would find every one of you useless fowls and put you out of your misery once and for all, no one would miss you anyway….you are a danger to the public.

   Loading…
9. 

   Miller

   May 17, 2020 at 6:46 am

   
   

   @ WURA-War-on-U May 17, 2020 3:48 AM

   Please let it be stated, without reservation, that no one is against the gentleman who is the epitome of the people’s police officer.

   As a matter of moral support for that well-respected officer we believe he should have been made the CoP long time ago.

   It is the partisan politicization of that ‘professional’ institution which is at the heart of the problem raging in the fast becoming banana republic of tin pot dictators both in the political and administrative realms as practised under both political administrations.

   The previous DLP administration has a lot to answer for in regard to the current state of affairs.

   Loading…
10. 

    David

    May 17, 2020 at 7:10 am

    
    

    @Miller

    How we miss Jeff to be a refreshing voice in the din bombarding us from whosoever will. Isn’t this a perfect time for an independent voice from the Hill to enter stage right?

    Why should the word of the PM, Guyson Mayers, Ezra Alleyne and others of this ilk be grabbing the top line narrative?

    Loading…
11. 

    WURA-War-on-U

    May 17, 2020 at 7:10 am

    
    

    “Please let it be stated, without reservation, that no one is against the gentleman who is the epitome of the people’s police officer.”

    No one is against Williams, am sure he is a loyal party supporter and all of that and a loyal cop too, but he is a political tool being used when there SHOULD BE NO POLITICAL INTERFERENCE in the taxpayer funded police force….

    …bad Enuff they only lock up the Black population who pay their salaries for any and everything……under the directives of both sell out governments….so we do understand that unless the heirarchy of the force falls into political line, they are at risk of losing their jobs…….jobs that are political appointments, which makes them even more vulnerable to manipulation from the parliament….i get that..

    … it was even more magnified with the young lady who died in the fire, Natalie Critchlow, when the COP was so disrespectfully used on national tv to perpetrate a lie about her death, we know what the political animals do to the top brass in the police force, just because they could, it’s no secret….and we were very vocal at the illegal and criminal way the COP was misused…by wicked politicians and ministers…

    but, now that they have been so brutally exposed, which they worked so hard at doing themselves with every lie they told about the Police Act which was NEVER AMENDED…they should pay…..they themselves exposed the unconstitutional way the cops are used, abused and mistreated….just so goverrnment ministers can show how powerful they are, power they can never have without the electorate…

    POWER that must be TAKEN AWAY IN 2023….by the people whom they hold in such contempt..

    Loading…
12. 

    David

    May 17, 2020 at 7:12 am

    
    

    @Miller

    Good comment, from all reports Williams has been an exemplary officer.

    Loading…
13. 

    Lorenzo

    May 17, 2020 at 7:13 am

    
    

    Waru Mr Alleyne is a prominent lawyer in contitutional law wsy beyond Mr Mayers, Ms Depeiza and Mr Franklyn . Therefore if i have to make a choice i am going with Mr Alleyne..I do not care what paper they display.The statement made by you regularly that ALL LAWYERS ARE LIARS AND THEIVES has now changed to some because it now suits your political agenda?You have no shame or credibility.Instead of parroting Mr Franklyn and not even knowing whivch law was breached when asked it is better for you to think for yourself.The general consensus is that Mr Franklyn either deliberately or not misled the three stopges and bajans in general.Therefore find another issue to nitpick on .

    Loading…
14. 

    WURA-War-on-U

    May 17, 2020 at 7:25 am

    
    

    “Waru Mr Alleyne is a prominent lawyer in contitutional law wsy”

    right…is that the same Ezra, the big constitutional lawyer, who got talked into handing over his banking information by some riffraff in one of the South American countries on the internet, promising to make him a millionaire but instead they wiped out his bank account…

    yeah, am going to listen to Ezra who can’t even protect his own bank account…lol

    what i did was READ THE LEGISLATION that Caswell, Guyson and Verla posted and came to my own conclusions, it has nothing to do with being a yardfowl…….and i UNDERSTOOD the government dilemma…even if you can’t…lol

    you need to get Ezra to publish the amendment to the Police Act, if ya really looking for work and stop making me laugh so much..

    Loading…
15. 

    WURA-War-on-U

    May 17, 2020 at 7:43 am

    
    

    Miller though…some will be telling themselves that since Williams is a good cop, why not leave it as is, but you cannot do that, how about the next time the delusional AG and PM decide to violate the constitution to make themselves feel all powerful, the next time might be even worse than this time….they MUST BE STOPPED.

    …..no one elected them to do what they are doing and planning, that is not part of their job descriptions…and if they really cared anything about Williams as a person and a good cop they would have promoted him back in the early 00s when Arthur was PM…but they love playing games with these top cop’s minds and that is how they found themselves LOCKED in their own trap…lol

    Loading…
16. 

    WURA-War-on-U

    May 17, 2020 at 8:01 am

    
    

    Does anyone find it strange that they can create all this confusion in the police force as a government, but cannot get the COP to issue any warrants for the ICBL duo of government minister bribers…no former DLP minister can be arrested for corruption no matter how much evidence is in Mia’s red bag…….nor can any warrant be issued for Maloney through the DPPs office for directly causing the death of the Holder child….see what i mean…

    and although Williams should have been promoted at least 20 years ago and has been promoted now even if illegally…he can’t preside over the investigation and arrest of any of the above either….or he will be FIRED…

    ….something is very wrong with that set up…it is in and of itself unconstitutional in any country…..and directly violates the rights of the citizenry to law and order.

    Loading…
17. 

    WURA-War-on-U

    May 17, 2020 at 8:07 am

    
    

    Ah waiting for the yardfowls to jump out and tell me about Prince Donald and Flynn and Manafort etc….don’t bother…he has only been in the WH for 4 years and all these men have been CONVICTED..

    …..both nuisance governments in Barbados have been that corrupt and have consistenly violated the population’s human rights for over 60 years…there is no comparison, so find another..

    Loading…
18. 

    Greene

    May 17, 2020 at 8:50 am

    
    

    David,

    no disrespect to Jeff but has he ever defended a case in Court like Ezra? Ezra has a lot experience in this area of law and his opinion should carry more weight than any academic- again no disrespect to Jeff- that is just the reality

    However i dont agree with Ezra on this. he has cited no cases to augment or even support his position and there are opposite credible positions. that bit of case law in Branford’s piece would operate to suggest that this matter would not on the face of attract implied repeal and if it does it would be very tenuous at best.

    i stand by my opinion which is above.

    i ought to be paid BTW. i have never been wrong in any of my opinion in matters legal (and if i have been i disagree) since posting on this blog and like Caswell and MAM i have no LEC- lol.

    Loading…
19. 

    Lorenzo

    May 17, 2020 at 8:55 am

    
    

    Waru typical response from the three stooges.Let me repeat MR ALLEYNE IS ONE OF THE PROMINENT CONSTITUTIONAL LAEYERS NOT ONLY IN BARBADOS BUT IN THE CARIBBEAN. This a fact you cannot recute.This red herring you thtew in about his personal businesd does not refute thos fact I am not Khaleel that you can diztract.Where did this red herring come from your ugly facebook friend in England? Does not change the facts that Mr Alleyne is head and shoulders over Ms Depeiza, Mr Mayers and Mr Franklyn.Tell me of any example where anyone spught the advice of Ms Depeiza or Mr Mayers on any constitutional matter.? Now you are bigging Mr Mayers can you tell ud why Mr Boyce was promoted over Mr Williams and why xuring Mt Mayers reign as PSC chairman there was so much chaos with with lawdsuits regarding promotions of some of his former colleagues whom he wsd junior to in his ti.e in the force was it political?

    Loading…
20. 

    Greene

    May 17, 2020 at 8:56 am

    
    

    @Miller,

    the polarisation of the police that you speak of started long before the last DLP govt. whilst it did not began in 1976 it be came more stark then. previous to that Barrow picked the head of special branch- his only open interference and understandably so. Tom Adams reached far into the police service and can be credited with the polarisation you speak of.

    Loading…
21. 

    Khaleel Kothdiwala

    May 17, 2020 at 9:04 am

    
    

    Let us examine the characters in this story, including only the lawyers:

    Guyson Mayers – failed Chairman of the PSC
    Verla De Peiza – specialises in criminal law and from all reports a modest, if not steady, lawyer
    Mia Mottley – youngest person ever named QC in our legal history and a highly successful AG.
    Ezra Alleyne – most respected constitutional scholar in Barbados and even further afield.

    Those my dears are unassailable facts related to the credibility of various individuals to speak to matters of public law.

    Note: I woke up to no electricity and won’t be wasting my data. So I’ll be back in a few hours hopefully to respond to the usual cussing I get.

    Loading…
22. 

    Khaleel Kothdiwala

    May 17, 2020 at 9:08 am

    
    

    @ Greene

    Dems should stay far away from ever talking about polarisation and politicisation of anything. Even forgetting their actions in the 2010s and 1990s, They seem to have short memories forgetting the particularly momentous events of 1974 with regard to politicisation of the Civil Service. So they ought to stay far away from it, regular Civil Service, RBPF or anywhere else.

    Loading…
23. 

    WURA-War-on-U

    May 17, 2020 at 9:10 am

    
    

    Jeff would still be able to give points on law as a constitutional law lecturer…better than most….he has to read them often to be able to teach..

    despite how well heeled Ezra is complete with court experience, and no one is denying, but he still got this wrong…it appears a set of circumstances trapped the government in their own game, i suspect that none of them were staying up to date with the changes that occured within the police force itself…it also appears that the whole Police Act will have to be revisited and overhauled for the government to continue their power games…..

    ….a layman’s opinion with a little legal experience thrown in, based solely on the laws i read…..

    Loading…
24. 

    Tron

    May 17, 2020 at 9:22 am

    
    

    @ Lorenzo May 17, 2020 8:55 AM

    We should see the big picture.

    The scandal does not lie in any of the details of civil service law.

    The scandal is that we are experiencing the biggest crisis in the country for centuries and that the opposition is stabbing the government in the back in its attempt to save the island.

    That is the real scandal.

    Loading…
25. 

    Greene

    May 17, 2020 at 9:24 am

    
    

    i wouldnt mind somebody, perhaps one of her sycophants, posting MAM’s body of work as a lawyer.

    no doubt as a trial lawyer she has successfully defended clients in civil and criminal court or has successfully opinioned on constitutional law that would buttress her position in this matter

    Loading…
26. 

    TheOGazerts

    May 17, 2020 at 9:25 am

    
    

    This is for the bread and butter guys.

    Let us not bogged down wit the details and the fancy talk but deal with the broader question…

    Are we saying that effect, “Mia” can appoint any number of deputies or COP as she wants. That she can reapeat this action acroos different govenment organizations?

    This is no tempest in a teapot but a trial run towards dictatorship,

    Let me add this is a great move by the administration…
    First appoint a second Deputy COP,
    slide the COP out of the way (vacation, leave …temporarily at first)
    make the new DCOP the acting COP, then permanent ,
    again create a second DCOP and then send the old DCOP on leave/vacation

    I would urge the average Barbadian to ignore the brilliance of some that is beeing cited. You are being distracted and there will be no vaseline.

    Loading…
27. 

    WURA-War-on-U

    May 17, 2020 at 9:26 am

    
    

    “Note: I woke up to no electricity and won’t be wasting my data. So I’ll be back in a few hours hopefully to respond to the usual cussing I get.”

    really…when i told you yesterday i did not want to waste my energy on this, you insisted, now you got data to save….good for you…

    re Ezra that was well known info for years, even his friends found it amusing,

    “Where did this red herring come from your ugly facebook friend in England? ”

    … btw Dale, Payne and Mia’s FB friend from UK, only just came on the scene just about two years now, she only knows that they all colluded to TIEF her mother’s estate…that is why they are all being looked at now…lol..oops, well now you know and not only them….ha!!!

    Lorenza…for want of a better word, you are a recent addition to BU…so i have no clue what went on with the DLP and their individual mess, i really don’t keep up with who did what, seeing that DBLP as a collective are all so damn nauseatingly corrupt……so if you knew me at all, ya would know i don’t care about any of their problems that they created themselves just as the PM and AG are doing now

    ….i vaguely remembered Williams being passed over for promotion years ago…again political interference in the taxpayer funded police force, both governments are guilty of these crimes against taxpayers…..none of them can say anything other than that….so the blame each other continues, that is always their modus…Khaleel would do well to stay outta that..they are all friends and business partners…just look at the frenemy Sinkler who told Mia to run down Broadstreet naked to get attention and cussed her out is now her adviser.

    Loading…
28. 

    TheOGazerts

    May 17, 2020 at 9:27 am

    
    

    f-ing typos… I will not retype.

    Loading…
29. 

    Artax

    May 17, 2020 at 9:27 am

    
    

    “It is the partisan politicization of that ‘professional’ institution which is at the heart of the problem raging in the fast becoming banana republic of tin pot dictators both in the political and administrative realms as practised under both political administrations.”

    “The previous DLP administration has a lot to answer for in regard to the current state of affairs.”

    @ Miller

    “Spot on!!! Ignore the background noises.”

    That has been my point from the time this ‘discussion’ began.

    Although politicization of the RBPF can be traced to previous BLP and DLP administrations, it was much more blatant during the previous DLP administration (2008-2018). Senator Verla DePeiza, AG Adriel Brathwaite, PM Fruendel Stuart, DLP goon Guyson Mayers…..et al, were at the helm of the increasing politicization of the RBPF.

    However, you should be careful, those types of comments irritate the DLP yard-fowls. They may try to interrogate or cross examine you.

    Loading…
30. 

    Greene

    May 17, 2020 at 9:41 am

    
    

    the best way to lie is to tell the strictest truth.

    lawyers interrogate and cross examine to get at the truth

    evidence in chief is to be taken with a grain of salt until it is tested or examined unless it is harmless

    Loading…
31. 

    TheOGazerts

    May 17, 2020 at 10:01 am

    
    

    Conspiracy theory, madness, gibberish… you decide.

    “How we miss Jeff to be a refreshing voice in the din bombarding us from whosoever will. Isn’t this a perfect time for an independent voice from the Hill to enter stage right?”

    Let me state that I still hold Jeff with the same high regard as I did previously. On a personal level and in the immortal words of another I must state “I find no fault with this man”.

    —————————————–xxx——————————————————————————–
    There was time when I considered Jeff with his pen and paper as the most dangerous man in Barbados.

    Here was a man who would strip an issue of the ‘B” and “D’ content and then attempt to put it in a framework that most people could grasp. I say attempt, because for some reason, if you insert some legal term between the letters of the alphabet, my brain freezes and a glaze come into my eyes.

    The Machiavellian nature of the current administration came into full when display when they reached out and offered him a plum which he could not refuse.

    I found it amazing that local operatives could have so accurately profile the man and so easily and effectively remove him off of the political game board. I am of the firm opinion that he lost much more than he gained.

    ——————————————————————–xxxx—————————————————————–
    Do you remember the robbery that never happened?

    At least if you scour the pages of BU, you would see that susch a significant event did not get one headline. This is one item where Barbados today and other emags left BU lying in the dust.

    I would urge the good senator to sojourn on, but to use good sense in his movements and be cautious in his dealings with others. Do not confuse an exchange on an epage as true friendship,

    Loading…
32. 

    David

    May 17, 2020 at 10:13 am

    
    

    @Greene

    What about practicing in a court room that would allow a good legal mind to fairly distil this matter?

    >

    Loading…
33. 

    Artax

    May 17, 2020 at 10:13 am

    
    

    Beware, it’s clear the DLP yard-fowl are upon us.

    If lawyers PURPOSELY misinterpret or take people’s comments out of context and then interrogate and cross examine based on the ‘straw men arguments’ they (lawyers) create, in order to get THEIR VERSION of the truth or what they expect to hear, is not only ‘leading the witness,’ but DISHONEST as well.

    That version of the truth must definitely be taken with a “grain of salt.”

    However, when these ‘lawyers’ present, for example, ‘hear say’ information about a former Commissioner of Police or that a former PM “reached far into the police service and can be credited with its polarisation,” (when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise), we are supposed to readily ACCEPT it as the truth…… without question.

    Loading…
34. 

    Greene

    May 17, 2020 at 10:25 am

    
    

    @David,

    a court usually takes seriously and weighs mightily the opinion of a skilled and experience practitioner who has appeared before the courts successfully in a certain field as oppose to an academic if the academic never appeared before the court to have his opinions tested.

    in other words, anyone can give an opinion but not everyone’s opinion will be entertained or followed.

    again i will go to great lengths not to disrespect Jeff and apologise up front if this is so misconstrued

    Loading…
35. 

    David

    May 17, 2020 at 10:52 am

    
    

    @Greene

    You are not disrespecting Jeff. We are having a reasoned exchange.

    Are you suggesting a well trained judge/judges lack the ability to fairly deliberate based on the weight of a good opinion?

    We have good and bad practicing lawyers.

    We have good and bad academics.

    Jeff earned his reputation by sharing opinions on ‘matters’ in progress and comparing with outcomes.

    Give the blogmaster Jeff by his side any day of the week including Sunday’s.

    You are reminded it is Senator Franklyn, a layman who has brought this lacuna to light.

    Loading…
36. 

    Greene

    May 17, 2020 at 10:59 am

    
    

    @David

    and i will remind you that it appears that the BLP is following Ezra’s opinion notwithstanding the AG’s earlier and seeming mea culpa.

    i must say that Caswell is v good at it. i would assume that he articled at the feet of a v skilled practitioner, which is absolutely the best way to learn

    Loading…
37. 

    de pedantic Dribbler

    May 17, 2020 at 11:19 am

    
    

    @ Greene, with deepest respect bro but ur comments make no logical sense viz : “a court usually takes seriously and weighs mightily the opinion of a skilled and experience practitioner who has appeared before the courts successfully in a certain field as oppose to an academic if the academic never appeared before the court to have his opinions tested.”

    A trial lawyer is nimble and assured in the artful nuances of ‘managing’ well a possible mercurial judge, the jury panel and using all her/his skills to persuade for the client … Of course successful court room experience is given it’s due by a jurist but how can that be considered MORE important than an academic in law discussing statuary or constitutional points of law??

    How does COURT ROOM nimbleness help particularly in defining points of law and citing arcane case law to support….

    Research is needed regardless… Doesn’t the academic have a slight advantage there if he is teaching/ reviewing such stuff often … Your logic that the trial lawyer is better placed to ‘make the case’ is confounding.

    The ‘udder day’ when the US Senate asked for legal opinions re the impeachment probe as far as I recall ALL the folks selected where academics… this is similar to that: a debate on Points of law/Statutes/Constitution NOT court room legal smarts!

    And as the Blogmaster said: “We have good and bad practicing lawyers….We have good and bad academics.”

    Loading…
38. 

    TheOgazerts

    May 17, 2020 at 11:19 am

    
    

    I will sit and let the legal eagles come to a final position.
    However, I think the conversation is bein driven down a one-way street.
    Would like to see someone discuss the full implications of Mia’s interpretation.
    Please fish in the lake and not just the barrel.

    Loading…
39. 

    TheOGazerts

    May 17, 2020 at 11:24 am

    
    

    Was going to write this earlier
    #3 Jeff
    #2 Ezra
    #1 Greene

    I have no idea of how the ranking goes, but I know BS when I see it.

    I think DPD said something similar but in an educated ‘Bajan’ way.

    Loading…
40. 

    NorthernObserver

    May 17, 2020 at 11:31 am

    
    

    Imagine….there is a global health issue, which has devastated economies everywhere, and the topic of choice is the legality of a senior police force post. The last item to consume the populace, was the appointment of Big Sink to some council. These luxuries of effort and time only go to show, Barbados has developed and advanced at a level on par with the so-called super powers. They need no aid. They have a printing press.

    Loading…
41. 

    de pedantic Dribbler

    May 17, 2020 at 11:39 am

    
    

    @David, I think we need to recognize that Sen Frankly is only not a (labour) lawyer by local certification requirements only … Otherwise he is absolutely a legal eagle.

    So I would not call him a “layman” in this area…

    The Senator is more knowledgeable in labor law than lots of current practicising lawyers, clearly … so at minimum he is a Legal Layman Bar-none… LLB dun!

    Loading…
42. 

    NorthernObserver

    May 17, 2020 at 11:52 am

    
    

    @DIW
    possibly lacking an LEC?
    I see Fractured, who claims a 6 month sabbatical, but it feels like 2 years….was onto this topic prior to his leave of absence.
    I interpreted it to mean Lose Every Constituency, but maybe it has another meaning?

    Loading…
43. 

    Tron

    May 17, 2020 at 11:59 am

    
    

    @ NorthernObserver May 17, 2020 11:31 AM

    The native masses are simply financial analphabets and cannot handle money. That’s why everyone in the forum is rushing to sideshows.

    Add to this the fact that the masses and with them almost all BU bloggers prefer to bury their heads in the sand than to deal with the cruel reality of almost 40 percent unemployment.

    Even Marx knew that socialism presupposes a developed industrial society. Barbadians, however, cling to the mistaken belief that they can get straight from the plantation to the workers’ paradise. The many social benefits and workers’ rights, combined with a rotten work ethic and low productivity, are strangling any economic growth.

    This will remain so forever, because the local masses and their elite are neither able to understand nor to act accordingly. The senator is the prime example.You can read it for yourself on BU, that in their blind rage and ignorance they are shouting down every person as slave driver, calling for a moderate adjustment of wages and an increase in productivity.

    Loading…
44. 

    Enuff

    May 17, 2020 at 12:11 pm

    
    

    All these comments later and nobody can indentify an act by the government to engage in any corruption, lack of transparency or government interference, which the Senator sought to peddle. I reiterate the post was created, therefore it exists. The Senator also sought to be pedantic with his trying to make the appointment appear unconstitutional because the Protective Services Commission and not GG was named in the press release. So far, whether it was an after the fact recognition by the government as some have implied or not, no one has convincingly argued why the “implied repeal doctrine” is inappropriate in this matter. Ezra Alleyne’s piece in today’s Sun, however, does set out why it is applicable. No need to waste time here. I remember what I said about literal interpretation?

    Loading…
45. 

    David

    May 17, 2020 at 12:14 pm

    
    

    @enuff

    We have lawyers divided by stripes on both sides of the issue so where does it put us?

    Loading…
46. 

    Enuff

    May 17, 2020 at 12:20 pm

    
    

    WURA de Salemite

    “There are two pieces of marijuana legislation sitting, according to a lawyer, in Mia’s pocket still waiting to be proclaimed.”

    Why are you always trying to pretend you have secret files. Douglas Trotman wrote this on his public Facebook page.

    Loading…
47. 

    Tron

    May 17, 2020 at 12:33 pm

    
    

    @EnuffMay 17, 2020 12:11 PM

    I can only repeat myself because I see it the way you do: “A Deputy Commissioner” does not explicitly and exclusively mean a SINGLE Deputy. Otherwise, it would be “ONE Deputy Commissioner” in the act. A functional interpretation allows the appointment of as many deputies as are necessary for police work.

    I think we should close the subject. The blind and angry laymen here on BU won´t understand our thinking anyway.

    It would be far more useful and honorable for the Senator to think about how we can get the almost 40 percent unemployed back into work. Instead he sabotages the restructuring of the public finances by his agitation against the patriotic bonds.

    Loading…
48. 

    TheOGazerts

    May 17, 2020 at 1:03 pm

    
    

    I looked at EA Facebook page
    AC with a law degree
    1100 lawyers and two sides of a single fence.
    Is ther no one sitting on the fence. No alternative voices?

    Loading…
49. 

    Enuff

    May 17, 2020 at 1:07 pm

    
    

    David
    It is politics. Nothing more, nothing less. There is an amendment to the Police Act already laid, so more than likely that will be changed to reflect the amendments to Section 6 as well, relaid and debated. I look forward in anticipation of the debate. I read Guyson Mayers’ response and laughed, noting that the PM never said the PSC under him created a second DCOP, she said the PSC stated if the need arose for a DCOP. I then read the Sanka Price piece and wondered why Williams was the longest serving ACP, notwithstanding all his training. All I would say is that I have had the experience of engaging with Mr.Mayers in a setting for intellectual discourse–was not impressed.

    Loading…
50. 

    Enuff

    May 17, 2020 at 1:10 pm

    
    

    Tron
    I am not going there with you on that single vs a. So You leff me out.

    Loading…