Sandy Lane Charitable Trust Donation

grenville-phillips

Submitted by Grenville Phillips II

When Solutions Barbados was formed on 1 July 2015, we promised the press that they will never hear “no comment” from us. We have now been asked to comment on the Sandy Lane Charitable Trust donation.

Solutions Barbados is grateful to the Sandy Lane Charitable Trust, and all philanthropy groups, for their generosity to the people of Barbados. Philanthropic groups should never be criticized for helping Barbadians. However, they may be advised on how to attract less criticism on future donations.

Our two established political parties have successfully divided Barbados politically. At the start of each new administration, it is common for the losing party to complain bitterly, that their supporters have been sent home (to poverty), and replaced by the winner’s supporters.

The division is sustained by political operatives, who actively try to harm the financial condition of their perceived political opponents. Since they cannot harm a person’s character or competence, they normally target their personal and professional reputations, to harm their earning potential.

After fifty years of dividing us, the divisions are now too deep. It is simply too much at this time, to ask known DLP supporters, to desperately go cap in hand to BLP political constituency offices, to beg for assistance, and vice versa. Further, they risk being both rejected and ridiculed, for purely political reasons.

These offices are managed by extreme political party supporters, with the singular aim of helping their party win the next general election. Publicly humbling political opponents before their neighbours in this manner, can emotionally break them. They may choose going hungry as an easier option – which defeats the purpose of the donation.

If future donors insist that political constituency offices must be used to disburse their donations, then they should consider dividing the donation equally between the two established parties.

For clarity, Solutions Barbados plans to abolish the public funding of political constituency offices, because they will be unnecessary. The public should be able to efficiently access well-managed (to ISO 9001) public services, by simply contacting Government departments.

Politicians should not help their supporters avoid the gross inefficiencies, that the rest of us are forced to endure. This corrupting discrimination compromises the integrity of the service, and further delays those already waiting in-line.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer and President of Solutions Barbados. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com

56 comments

  • Each current and former minister..all the oldest thieves in the parliament can tell ya all about the charities set up in Barbados and that nothing is allowed to be set up without some level of corruption, bribery and money laundering.

    So forget all the fairytales and fantasies.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10221619785980590&id=1131795634&sfnsn=scwspwa&extid=LwXvs6uc91DbjumS

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    A fair comment. Sums up adequately how a Barbadian would respond to the stated method of dispensing charitable funds. It may be interpreted as politicizing charities. I am sure that is not the intention.

    Like

  • Is there a back story here? Why was Solutions asked to comment on this organization? The article is a generous dose of pablum and lacks punch. The writer has “no comment” down to a science.

    Like

  • what is the point of this article?

    Like

  • GP No.2 does have a point.

    The politicization of charity ought to be totally against the social ethos of a so-called Christian society.

    Why can’t the well-known established charities like the Red Cross, Salvation Army and Kemar Saffrey’s soup kitchen (the BVHS) be the distribution vehicles to the achievement of this noble objective?

    Who will replace Dame Olga Lopes-Seale to be an apolitical Bajan Mother Teresa in the coming years?

    “The charitable give out at the door, and God puts in at the window.” ~ John Ray.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Solutions Barbados has formulated a few practical, credible solutions to some of the problems we face. The problem however which confronts them is that they continue to ignore political reality to the peril of the very ideas and solutions which they want to push. Shouting from the sidelines does not work and will not be helpful in seeking to engender meaningful change.

    To the particular issue at hand, Phillips addresses the matter in a slightly more balanced way than the fanatics who have sought to decry SLCT. However, a few points need to be made. Members of Parliament quite obviously historically use the levers of government as a patrimony for their loyal supporters; without a doubt. However, in saying that, one must equally be sufficiently apprised of reality, to understand that MPs are win elections not because only their supporters vote for them. Invariably, they need to appeal to a broader base of constituent, and consequently extend patronage beyond merely their supporters. Were you to be crass, you might refer to such as little more than a naked attempt to “buy votes” indirectly. Perhaps it is, but the fact is that that’s reality, and one must work with reality and not illusion or utopia. In the present moment particularly, where the governing party is dominant and the DLP is down on their luck, with their fortunes not set to improve in the foreseeable future, there exists more incentive to co-opt the support of DLP supporters, in order to broaden your base of support and thus sustain a career in the House. So that even if you don’t believe that MPs are sufficiently apprised of the moment to be magnanimous and seek to look after the welfare of all constituents, bar none (as some are doing), even if you don’t believe that, an objective eye would tell you that appearing to act magnanimously is a strategic imperative at this time.

    Politicisation seems to be the buzz word of contemporary discourse. I humbly submit that the term, politicisation, is simply a misidentification of an interesting phenomenon known as reality. Politics exists everywhere, after all it is along with the law, the most essential component of human society. However, describing the chosen method of distribution as politicising is a whopper of hyperbole. Several charities are performing similar work at this time and they are all using different methods to do so. SLCT’s chosen method is not particularly peculiar. MPs themselves are not making donations (although all have done so), in this matter they are simply conduits, facilitating distribution. Each constituency would have a database of information relevant to this intervention; a nonpareil database, with perhaps the Welfare Department coming in behind. However, if you wish to cut through red tape, and reach the intended recipients as quickly as possible, the constituency level is the way to go. More than that, the trustees have already indicated that there shall be rigorous checks and accounting procedures, and I say that not only because I read it in the papers, but I can speak with some authority outside of what is public knowledge that the accounting procedure is quite thorough. The people who need help are by and large for the most part getting it. However, I do understand some persons’ discomfort with the term and notion of constituency. That is one of the reasons why local government is another important initiative being pursued, as it will divest the “grandfathering” power of MPs to persons who reside in the community. So no longer will an MP be able to take a photo with a freshly-paved road or newly-installed streetlight that he had to push for. The People’s Assemblies, comprised of persons local to the area, will be responsible for that. More than that persons will be elected without any formal affiliation to a political party. Clearly, that is the best way to go in general, but at this moment in time, we have to work with what we have, and not what we wish we had. Thankfully, some persons are grounded in reality.

    But once again, the SLCT affair is a non-issue, being exploited by some for personal political gain, as perhaps most things are. However, in my view, we ought to leave charities out of it. But nothing is sacred in politics.

    Like

  • The point has been made many times that after 3 years Solutions Barbados must expand its voice away from Grenville.

    Like

  • It would be best if we abolish the welfare deep state and pay back the assets of the NIS to the citizens.

    If every citizen invests his NIS contributions himself on the international capital market, the return is much higher than if we dump the money into pointless construction projects.

    Charities should take over the rest of the welfare state, with donations from the rich. In return, we should reduce income tax and land tax too.

    Like

  • @Khaleel Kothdiwala May 19, 2020 10:11 AM “reality, to understand that MPs are win elections not because only their supporters vote for them. Invariably, they need to appeal to a broader base of constituent, and consequently extend patronage beyond merely their supporters.”

    Cuh dear Khaleel, if that is the case how come my MP hasn’t knocked on my door yet?

    Man since int have no chimney I have left my door open so that the Santa Claus, sorry I mean my MP can walk right on in. But my MP like Red Plastic Bag’s Brother. I can’t find my brother at all.

    As a “vulnerable senior” with nuff, nuff co-morbidities I still waiting.

    Like

  • @Tron May 19, 2020 11:24 AM “Charities should take over the rest of the welfare state, with donations from the rich. In return, we should reduce income tax and land tax too.”

    Cuh Dear Tron you have a proposal for your political “friends” to reduce income tax and land tax for poor old ladies with nuff-nuff co-morbidities too?

    Or you tax reduction proposals only for the rich?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Tron May 19, 2020 11:24 AM “If every citizen invests his NIS contributions himself on the international capital market, the return is much higher than if we dump the money into pointless construction projects.”

    But Cuh dear Tron you aren’t you the bot that always talking about the “naive native masses”

    And now you want to pelt we in wid de sharks which inhabit the international capital markets?

    How you think that would work out for the naive?

    Or maybe a better question is, how you think that would work out for the sharks?
    Another question

    A shark belly ever full?

    Liked by 1 person

  • I have never commented on “People Assemblies” but it has always registered on my radar (negatively).

    I believe it would evolve into another partisan layer of government, with the ability to more accurately identify who is B and D and whose driveway to pave.

    We need to reduce that top layer of 30 and not reinforce it with another layer.

    I know wunna gun talk shiite about other dat much bigga and wid mo people. You 21×14 at your max. All shiite should be local.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Khaleel Kothdiwala May 19, 2020 10:11 AM
    “I do understand some persons’ discomfort with the term and notion of constituency. That is one of the reasons why local government is another important initiative being pursued, as it will divest the “grandfathering” power of MPs to persons who reside in the community. So no longer will an MP be able to take a photo with a freshly-paved road or newly-installed streetlight that he had to push for. The People’s Assemblies, comprised of persons local to the area, will be responsible for that. More than that persons will be elected without any formal affiliation to a political party.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    What do you mean by “People’s Assemblies”?

    Is this another ‘red’ pork-barrel term for’ Constituency Councils’ as devised under the former yellow & blue administration?

    Whom would these people’s assemblies be reporting to and answerable to?
    The people within the electoral-determined boundaries or the individual members of Parliament (MPs)?

    If the MPs, Constitutionally speaking, are sworn and bound to represent all the people in their individual constituencies without fear or favour irrespective of any known or demonstrated political partisanship why can’t the wishes and concerns of all constituents be channelled and addressed via their duly elected parliamentary representative?

    Parliament does not officially recognize political parties; only elected representatives of the people.

    Why create another tier of governance requiring an additional layer of ‘costly’ bureaucracy in an already over-governed Lilliputian land of political incest?

    The country needs less government not more.
    Why educate people to university level if the State and its agencies still want play the role of a nanny and a mollycoddling mother?

    Why not make more and effective use of ICT to inform and involve the constituents about issues in their constituencies?

    Is social media only there to spread partisan political propaganda (and lies) around elections?

    Like

  • @ O Gazerts May 20, 2020 10:01 AM

    You would realise that Dominica with its population of 71,000 and St Lucia with 165,000 inhabitants both have local government systems, as well as a host of nations of similar population and geographical size. To my certain knowledge, there are more states which have local tiers of administration than do not.

    I have written an expensive paper of recommendations to the Commission on the constitution and function of such People’s Assemblies. I recommend and as far as I am aware the plan fully is to have prospective members of the Assemblies submit CVs (not in the academic sense, but simply an outline of qualifications of all kinds and not merely academic) at town meetings etc etc. Saliently, the two political parties, at this time, will NOT run candidates in these elections. All candidates to that extent will be “independent”, unlike in most systems across the world.

    Of course one would have to be either incredibly naive or stupid not to know that partisan politics exists everywhere, and while the step I just mentioned is important it will not eradicate it at the local level completely. That is only obvious. But the People’s Assemblies stand to yield significant benefits not only for service delivery but also for governance. It can divest some power of patronage away from MPs, without creating local fiefdoms, as executive mayors are not on the cards. It can potentially serve this country relatively well.

    Fearing politicisation is hardly sufficient reason to be wary of something. If it were, nothing could ever be done. No one calls for the abolition of the Civil Service though partisan politics is rampant, always has been and invariably always will be, because the best will in the world and the best laws and regulations will not completely eradicate something that has existed nearly for as long as one person held power over another (politics in other words).

    Like

  • @Khaleel Kothdiwala May 20, 2020 10:29 AM “I have written an expensive paper of recommendations to the Commission on the constitution.”

    I hope that you mean EXTENSIVE.

    Rather than expensive.

    Like

  • @ Miller May 20, 2020 10:27 AM

    The present working proposal as far as I am aware will create People’s Assemblies over areas that are NOT congruous to the present constituencies UNLIKE constituency councils. The present proposal subject to change is for 20, though I disagree with that number as I do not agree with the methodology used to arrive at that number. Nonetheless, in Christ Church for example there might be 3 or 4 Assemblies in a parish of 5 constituencies.
    To your point of creating another layer of bureaucracy, I have considered it and that is why my paper recommends that Assemblies be involved in facilitating service delivery and not actually delivering services. I explain how and I can do so for you at some point, but that method actually can cut through bureaucracy by acting as a nerve centre liaising with disparate gov’t departments and SOEs, without incurring significant costs. Additionally, I recommend that Assembly members do not receive a salary but are remunerated in a similar manner to members of Boards of stat. corps. (i.e. by meeting attended).
    I agree that ICT ought to be used much more in governance that what presently obtains. My paper speaks to how that can be integrated with the Assemblies, but suffice it to say that that the two are not mutually exclusive.
    Finally, I find it interesting that you would make the point about MPs addressing the concerns of their constituents since you and your pals are in a constant state of whine about what you see as the opposite taking place. People’s Assemblies as I said takes away some of the ability of patronage of MPs, and thus their power which is a boon to democracy.

    I could answer in a much more extensive way but I have already been censured for straying off the subject of a particular blogpost and will attempt to follow David’s guideline

    Like

  • @ Cuhdear Bajan

    “@Khaleel Kothdiwala May 20, 2020 10:29 AM “I have written an expensive paper of recommendations to the Commission on the constitution.”

    I hope that you mean EXTENSIVE.

    Rather than expensive.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Oh good Lord 😂😂. Yes I mean extensive. Sorry about that lol

    Like

  • I here hoping that it int no kinda Freudian slip on your part.

    I hear hoping that you work and are paid for the labour of your ow hands [or brain] as we say in Christian theology.

    It is ungodly to take plenty money for little or no work.

    I don’t believe that we need another layer of government.

    7000 constituents. On a good day, 90% of them wukking, brekking fah themselves, paying taxes, looking out for ther families and don’t need no government hand holding.

    So your average MP have to lookout maybe for 700 people. And most of that 700 have fairly extensive family support anyhow. So maybe what left? Maybe 70 people?

    A couple down by me had 21 children and two jobs, plus their own little side hustle and they managed very well.

    I don’t think that we need another layer of government sucking up the taxpayers money.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Cuhdear Bajan

    Your characterisation of an MP’s work and the prospective work of the Assemblies as “government handholding” is patently false. Having roads repaired, garbage collected expeditiously, safety ensured through effective policing, organised disaster preparation and mitigation activities, landscaping and beautification programmes, community centres, community technological programmes, promoting health and wellness and the plethora of other functions I outline in my paper, and many of which are presently facilitated by MPs individually. That, dear, is not government handholding. The People’s Assemblies allow the residents themselves, rather than an MP, to facilitate those functions. So under local government, clearly, it is the local residents who must be holding their own hands, to use your phraseology.

    I have aleady explained how People’s Assemblies will not serve to “suck up taxpayers’ money” but if done right could cut through bureaucracy and enhance efficiency and oversight of SOEs.

    PS While it was not “little or no work”, I would not dream of being compensated in any way for it.

    Like

  • Just don’t let anyone use your brain and enrich themselves off it, there are some unscrupulous and extremely greedy adults to be found in those blighted halls of parliament…

    Like

  • any charity that is set up and run this way is nothing more than a vehicle to facilitate political largess and buy political favours

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Greene

    The power players have been buying politicians from both sides for years. What is happening here is not new.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @KK
    How can I read your “treatise”.
    Let me try to be Milleresque
    Can you be like Martin Luther and nail your list onto the doors of BU. So that all who enter these halls would be able to examine your effort. It has become like the Loch Ness monster, often mentioned, but never seen.

    Like

  • @David,

    and so? what point are you making? that because that maybe so, nothing wrong with setting up a charity for a political end?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Khaleel Kothdiwala May 20, 2020 11:34 AM
    “The People’s Assemblies allow the residents themselves, rather than an MP, to facilitate those functions. So under local government, clearly, it is the local residents who must be holding their own hands, to use your phraseology.
    I have aleady explained how People’s Assemblies will not serve to “suck up taxpayers’ money” but if done right could cut through bureaucracy and enhance efficiency and oversight of SOEs.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The same line of argument was used by the previous administration to justify the creation of Constituency Councils.

    What’s the difference between the Twiddle Dem blue and yellow painted Community Councils and your proposed Twiddle Bee “People’s Assemblies” painted in the pork barrel colour of Red other than one being a carbon copy (C.C.) of cronyism?

    A pig feeding at the taxpayers trough is still a hog even if painted in Red lipstick and branded with the letter ‘B’.

    The country needs less bureaucracy not more infestation of parasites!

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Greene

    The point should be obvious. The same people crying foul on your side of the fence were party to the same practice when in office. We are dealing with an entrenched behaviour from the political class stoked by the private class. Have a read of the many auditor general reports. The graft reported needs two hands to clap. What makes the decision by Sandy Lane distasteful to many is it overtness. That said they did nothing illegal. Should the government have insisted on amore transparent approach to distributing the vouchers?

    Yes but it would not have achieved the political objective. If the DLP were in the same situation woud we anticipate a different decision?

    #politicalclass

    Like

  • @ Millsy
    “The same line of argument was used by the previous administration to justify the creation of Constituency Councils.
    What’s the difference between the Twiddle Dem blue and yellow painted Community Councils and your proposed Twiddle Bee “People’s Assemblies” painted in the pork barrel colour of Red other than one being a carbon copy (C.C.) of cronyism?
    A pig feeding at the taxpayers trough is still a hog even if painted in Red lipstick and branded with the letter ‘B’.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Well one major difference between the two which you would know if you deigned to read to understand rather than with a view to furthering the DtM agenda, is the nature of the composition of both. Constituency Councils were packed with selected DLP hacks. People’s Assemblies will be comprised of individuals, not running on party tickets, elected by their neighbours. So unless those 600 ordinary Barbadians and the 200,000 plus persons who elect them are hogs painted in red lipstick and branded, then I fail to see your point. Although the DtM brigade does hold the people of this country in such contempt so I wouldn’t be surprised.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    Political objective? Is that what it is about? We are certainly losing focus here are we not? What kind of society are we promoting on BU ? Where is our code of ethics?

    Like

  • @Vincent

    The challenge has been and continues to be – how do we move from current state to future state.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ KK at 1:23 PM

    In a general Election on average a mere 60% of voters turn up to cast their votes. How many do you think will turn up for Parochial Council elections. Is it not yet clear to you that Citizens of this country are alienated from the system of Politics.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ David Bu

    Not when those who are supposed to formulate public opinion feed them a diet of Tribalistic Ideology.

    Like

  • @ VC May 23, 2020 2:19 PM

    I share the concern about low turnout. That is why there is a view at the moment that increasing integration of ICT creating some kind of digital democracy will lend itself to increased interest and by extension increased turnout in the longer term.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    I find it amazing that in an age where Barbadians are exposed to some of the most brilliant minds through the electronic media that some commenters behave as if Barbadians are naive.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ KK

    Are you for real? Digital Democracy? Demos from which democracy derives means people/ human beings. Is not that self defeating. You want people to be more involved and you put up an information technology barrier between them. My thinking is that you would be introducing another layer of alienation. Please review your thinking process.

    Like

  • @ VC

    It does not involve erecting an IT barrier. It involves introducing a complementary layer which bolsters participation. At 2:29 you refer to electronic media. Before that you point out the lack of enthusiasm surrounding the present set-up of politics. In a world moving increasingly toward ICT, it is only natural that to maintain enthusiasm the system will also have to accompany that trend. I’m not a fan of increasing ICT’s reach in our lives. But that’s the reality.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ KK

    Is the intention to create enthusiasm or to create participation in the democratic process.? ICT is as old as the hills. This one is traveling on a different platform i.e digitization. The question is : Is digitisation the tool of Man or his creator? Will it dehumanize him? Replace him? Create more moral hazards? Reduce him to an automaton? Or, God forbid. usher in more efficiently 1984?
    The gremlin at work again. I gone for now. But think on these things.

    Like

  • @ VC

    Persons participate when they are enthusiastic, not so? The two are directly correlated. The creation of automatons and the dehumanisation wrought by digitising everything is a concern I share. However I am aware that such is inevitable.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ KK

    We are in danger of hijacking this blog. We will return to these issues again and again.
    The moot is about the propriety of channeling charity funds through constituency branches.

    Like

  • @ VC

    Agreed.

    My point in that regard is that it is the most effective method of distribution when you strip away all of the emotional arguments and one can see my much earlier submission in that regard.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ KK

    Ethics and appropriate behaviour may appear emotional but man is by nature emotional. That separates us from other mammals.

    Like

  • @VC

    “The moot is about the propriety of channeling charity funds through constituency branches.”

    That is it in a nutshell. and if that is the case it should not be labeled a charity but simply contributions to the named political party, in this instance, the BLP, and distributed via constituency branches

    Like

  • I fail to see where the Trust has defaulted on accepted norms of ethics and appropriate behaviour. The House of Assembly is comprised of members of two political parties, not so? I have already outlined how in most cases, the help will reach those in need. The Trust behaved appropriately when they decided to help Barbadians in need. And they acted appropriately when they sought to utilise an efficient method of distribution.

    Like

  • A typical case of manufacturing problems where none exist.

    Like

  • Vincent Codrington

    @ KK

    I think it is deeper than that. Could it be that we have parallel schemes of values? Let this one rest.

    Like

  • To appear transparent and remove the distribution of the vouchers from the political apparatus the churches and other NGOS could have been considered. The point is that both the BLP and the Charity would have anticipated the hullabaloo and they went ahead anyway. It is all always about politics.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ Khaleel Kothdiwala May 23, 2020 4:50 PM
    “I fail to see where the Trust has defaulted on accepted norms of ethics and appropriate behaviour. The House of Assembly is comprised of members of two political parties, not so? I have already outlined how in most cases, the help will reach those in need. The Trust behaved appropriately when they decided to help Barbadians in need. And they acted appropriately when they sought to utilise an efficient method of distribution.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    It’s truly amazing how a garden variety political snake like you can grow such a long forked tongue in such a short period of time.

    From one side of your viperous vituperative mouth you write off the goodly bishop as nothing but a disgruntled red turncoat (for not being assigned a soft ministry) with no “political legitimacy” in Parliament as the LoO.

    Yes, a Parliament which can function, constitutionally, without an Opposition.

    From the other side of your venomous spit hole you argue that he has legitimacy as the head of a political party represented in Parliament capable of fulfilling the ‘non-partisan’ mandate of the SLCT of donating to the poor and needy.

    Have you changed your political weathercock tune?
    Is the Bishop politically illegitimate or legitimate just to suit your narrow partisan agenda?

    As far as including the miller as some member of your paranoid conceived “DtM” brigade, all that can be said is that two years ago the miller was classed as a ‘major’ player in the Death to the Fumble (DtF) army with Enuff a lieutenant of greater rank.

    The miller is still awaiting his promotion for such meritorious service rendered in the name of democracy during his stint in the Red Army of turncoats and hypocrites.

    Like

  • @ Millsy

    Did i hit a raw nerve in another blogpost 😂🤣? You should take a few deep breaths. Wouldn’t want you to give yourself an aneurysm or hernia.

    As always you apply unrivalled effort to attempt to misinterpret. Atherley is politically illegitimate in that no one considers him to be the “real” opposition force, but merely the manifestation of the occasional time when de facto and de jure are incongruous.

    That political fact has nothing to do with the fact that he is an opposition member in Parliament which no one can deny and that he will receive a portion of the SCLT’s charity.

    There is little relationship between his paltry electoral prospects and lack of any public support on the one hand and the fact that he will be one of the conduits of the SCLT’s initiative.

    But as usual, another rabbit hole to distract by introducing completely unrelated matters. The DtM brigade needs to update the training manual. It’s too tired. The line of attack can be predicted long before its clumsily executed. Will the DtM disband after 2022/23 or does it plan to go on ad infinitum?

    Like

  • @ Khaleel Kothdiwala May 23, 2020 7:23 PM

    What a poor innocent political child you are, not knowing how to differentiate between a political illegitimate child and a partisan bastard.

    How do you know that there isn’t a entente cordial between the red Bishop and his imaginary redder enemies on the other side of the pseudo parliamentary divide?

    Is the red Bishop now politically legitimate to justify the formation of a party entitled to support from the taxpayers or is he just a bitter disgruntled old political washed-out ‘has-been’ fit only for the rubbish bin of electoral politics but useful in the distribution of largesse from rich patrons ?

    Would you still allow him access to the perks of political party office should Senator Caswell take over the leadership of that “second party” in Parliament?

    BTW, are the proceeds from the Charity being distributed along party lines or on the basis of parliamentary representatives knowing the extent of poverty in their respective constituencies?

    So why the need for the introduction of political parties in the discussion?

    You mean you have to politicise in the most partisan way even the giving of charity which ought to be done without the fanfare of publicity?

    How come you have not commented on the disbandment of the DtF (or Get rid of the DLP) 2018 manual which was published by Piece the Prophet long before 2018 with his early prediction of the 30-zero red-washing of the deceitful lying brigade which your mentor “Enuff” can testify to?

    Like

  • You really are beyond any help Millsy.

    But I like to see your comments. Reading people is an interesting pursuit and you make yourself too obvious Millsy. I’ve read more complex Enid Blyton short stories. Something to work on my dear friend.

    Like

  • @ KK:

    Here is the “Millsy’s” book of political fairy tales given to you as a belated Xmas present on your Eid al Fitr:

    How about this one for a short story of tall tales which you ought to put in your pipe and smoke before the crapaud does it for you?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

    There was once a fat lady with a big red bag with a K.K designer label.

    She took the bag to a big pappyshow to convince the people she was the queen of integrity and transparency.

    But when she got to the throne she made one big stumble and the bag fell open only to find it was empty except for a false bottom made from the canvass of tricks.

    As the bag began to change colour from deep red to ‘blackened’ blue up came a spectre called Abijah “Inniss” to jump right into the bag of make-believe.

    “Let’s fly away together and live in dreamland”; says the little phantom from Donvillegate.

    We will be the first ‘invisible guests’ to live in the Lighthouse at the Bajan hotel California where things are always started but are never finished.

    Written by the sweet sprite old “Millsy” your BU sugar daddy and next LoO from out of the ‘BLUE’.

    Like

  • BlP continues to play tricks with the public instead of providing real solutions.
    BARBADOS FAILS TO CAPTILISE ON NEGATIVE OIL PRICES, NOT A WORD FROM THE MINISTER FOR ENERGY.
    MANY CITIZENS CAN’T PAY THEIR LIGHT BILLS.

    THE GOVERNMENT FAIL TO DELIVER ENERGY TO ITS CITIZENS AT ZERO MARGINAL COST.
    ENERGY AT ZERO MARGINAL COST ALONG WITH THE TRANFOMATION OF THE COUNTRY TO A DIGITAL INFRASTUCTURE WOULD DRIVE DOWN THE COST OF GOODS & SERVICES , SAVE MILLIONS IN FORIEGN EXCHANGE & CREATE NEW JOBS.

    ASK GRENVILLE, MASCOLL & THE OTHER INCOMPETENT MINISTERS WHY THIS CAN’T BE ACHIEVED IN 2020.

    Like

  • Transform Barbados is ready to assist the you. Our team can can provide solutions to save you money & help combat the chronic Disease crisis . Leave your contact details if you are interested.

    Like

  • How much is this help going to cost?

    Like

  • @Khaleel Kothdiwala May 23, 2020 4:50 PM “And they acted appropriately when they sought to utilise an efficient method of distribution.”

    Still waiting for somebody, anybody in a red shirt to knock on my door.

    Like

  • Cuhdear bajan how can i help ?

    Like

  • You can give me some free money.

    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