Difficult Conversations – A Farce of the Highest Order

Grenville Phillips

To make Barbados a Republic requires changes to the Constitution of Barbados. The proposed changes are contained in new legislation called the Constitution (Amendment) (No.2) Bill, 2021. This Bill appears to violate the Constitution, so I wrote open letters to the Prime Minister and all Members of Parliament expressing my concerns.

In the Senate, Bills are to be carefully read three times before they are passed. During their first reading, our senators gave their obligatory political speeches, then it was down to business. This Bill allows the politicisation of our armed forces and the Auditor General’s office, and cancels the people’s defence insurance. So I expected the Bill to be rigorously scrutinised.

SUPERHUMAN ABILITIES.

It took me over 50 minutes to read the Bill. But I have ordinary abilities. On 6 October 2021, our Senators read the bill a second time and voted on it, in two minutes and 19 seconds. This was a pedestrian pace, because they read it a third time in all of nine seconds.

Of course, our Senators are not as gifted as our elected Members of Parliament. On 28 September 2021, they accomplished their third reading of the most important piece of legislation they will likely ever read, in two seconds – a farce of the highest order.

GO TO COURT.

When giving her closing arguments on the passage of the Bill in the House of Assembly, our Prime Minister advised those who thought that the Bill was unlawful, to argue their case in the Barbados courts. So, I filed an Application for Judicial Review on 7 October 2021.

The case was heard on 12 October 2021. I represented myself, since I could not find a lawyer willing to represent me. A senior lawyer agreed to be with me in court, to give me advice as a friend of the court. Surprisingly, the Attorney General objected to him being present, since he did not file the Application. The Judge agreed with the Attorney General (AG).

WAKE UP.

I explained to the Court that I simply wanted the AG to explain how the Constitutional amendments were not in breach of Section 49 of the Constitution of Barbados. I noted that if the explanation was persuasive, I would ask the Court to stop the proceedings, and I would accept the costs.

The Judge gave strict deadlines to file the necessary documents. I filed my initial Submissions in half of the time given. The AG was very late and unresponsive, so I filed a Notice of an Application for an Injunction to wake him up. Still no response. Then the press learnt of the case, after it had been quietly ongoing for over one month. Once it was public, the AG filed his Submissions.

FINALLY, AN ARGUMENT.

I finally got to read the AG’s arguments, and found that most of them could be refuted, and the remainder easily addressed. Much of the AG’s Submissions was spent trying to get my claim dismissed – including by claiming that I had no standing.

To have standing in a judicial review application, an applicant must be one of two persons. The first is “a person whose interests are adversely affected by an administrative act or omission” [1]. The Second is “any other person if the Court is satisfied that that person’s application is justifiable in the public interest in the circumstances of the case.” [2]

MAKING STRAW MEN.

I had applied as the Second “any other person”, and argued that fundamentally changing how Barbadians are to be governed is in the public’s interest. The AG used the straw-man defence. He falsely claimed that I was the First person, and then criticised me for not stating the interests that were adversely affected.

I filed a Submission in Response to the AG, responding to all the AG’s new arguments. I explained that I had not applied as the First person but the Second, and quoted from my Affidavit to prove this. For completeness, I also provided the interests that were likely to be adversely affected by the change to a Republic, had I applied as the First person [3].

NATIONAL INTEREST.

Shockingly, the Judge believed the AG’s straw man argument, and stated: “He has not identified if and how his interests are adversely affected.” [4], as if my Submissions in Response did not exist. The judge also noted that he was not persuaded that the application was “justified in the public interest” [4].

Instead of dismissing my claim, as parts of the media have falsely reported, the judge decided the following. “This is a matter of national importance that will see a change in the country’s governmental structure”. He continued. “The public deserves a full discussion on the legal process that facilitated the change. Instead of summarily dismissing the Claimant’s application, I shall examine it against the background of what the law requires.” [5]

NO FAIR DISCUSSION.

The judge then provided his interpretation of Section 49 of the Constitution. He appeared to simply repeat the AG’s arguments, without any discussion or reference to any of my arguments in my Submission in Response. After the Judge gave his judgement, he invited comment.

I asked the Judge why he had not referenced my Submission in Response, which generally disproved the AG’s arguments. The Judge noted that my Submissions in Response was a rehash of my initial Submissions, and he dismissed it. That was very unfortunate.

I had no knowledge of the AG’s arguments in my initial Submissions. Therefore, the only opportunity I had to address them was in my Submissions in Response. Since there has not been a fair discussion of Section 49 of the Constitution in the House of Assembly, the Senate, or the High Court, perhaps one can be gotten in the Court of Appeal.

Grenville Phillips II is a Chartered Structural Engineer. He can be reached at NextParty246@gmail.com

[1] Administration of Justice Act, Cap.109B, Section 6.(a).
[2] Administration of Justice Act, Cap.109B, Section 6.(b).
[3] Claimant’s Submissions in Response, Section C3.
[4] Decision, paragraph 24.
[5] Decision, paragraph 29.

93 comments

  • The second and third reading of a Bill are iterations built on the initial reading of the Bill i.e. amendments etc? What is the blogmaster missing? Grenville what are the points of law you disagree to make you conclude the process is illegal? It is unclear.

    Liked by 2 people

  • David
    Grenville clearly stated the two points of law, his choice and why.

    As you know, we fundamentally disagree with Grenville’s politics relating to this matter.

    But wholeheartedly support his courageously taking on the whole regime, at its centre.

    But if this process does not make him far less conservative he too is forever lost.

    The real problem Grenville encountered was a court, a judge, who was anything but impartial, Bajans find this to be true when Barrow’s admonition is not adhered to.

    That a citizen was forced to attempt to bring an elected regime to the bar of justice singlehandedly, on such a weighty matter of moment, without an army of people hollering fuh blue murder in the streets, without a legal team or battery of lawyers supporting him pro bono well explains the Bajan personality. Such a national personality has already given us a King Dyal.

    That that same citizen has now to go to an appeal court, again alone most likely, represents a national disgrace. What kind of country are we to have when a citizen’s rights can be collectively abridged by the collective political decisions of stinking lawyers.

    Like

  • What are the two points Pacha?

    What does Section 49 mean?

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Pacha

    Do you have a transcript of court proceedings? What are the specific points on which you have challenged the decision to jettison Grenville’s claim?

    Liked by 1 person

  • David
    This was a preliminary case to review a law thought to be unconstitutional. All laws passed in the parliament effect all Bajans. The legal issue was about “standing”, its determination.

    Like

  • Let the blogmaster assist.

    See page 62 of the Barbados Constitution.

    Click to access the_constitution_of_barbados.pdf

    Like

  • David
    Substantively, Grenville’s case is that the provisions of the law passed by parliament broadly abridges his constitutional rights.

    Like

  • The proclamation of the Republic is the best public relations move for our island in generations.

    What a brilliant scheme by our Supreme Leader! Thank you, Mia Mottley, for leading us.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Pacha

    Then civil society actors can join him to appeal if it is so clearcut.

    Like

  • David
    We don’t know that its “so clear cut”. Very few things in law ever are.

    Your simpleton’s precis does not represent a more complex view held here.

    Like

  • And nobody is going to join him. This writer has been there before.

    Like

  • @Pacha

    The point we know that would have eluded you is that you are unable to address the specifics and merits of the case based on what Grenville posted.

    Like

  • David
    Rassoull yes. Never pretended to be a lawyer. Have not read anything about the case beyond those writings of Grenville.

    But unlike you, will not presume that this BLP regime is washed in the blood of the lamb. Our assumption is the reverse.

    More citizens should have long been challenging your criminals in parliament. And this writer will support their rights so to do regardless to what the law says or the merits or demerits of their cases against the regime.

    Like

  • “Don’t talk about your case.” Nearly all attorneys advise clients not to discuss ongoing legal matters. …
    There are laws about discussing Court cases which includes blogging on Bu

    Like

  • @Pacha

    Thanks, your position is now clear for BU Archives.

    Like

  • David
    And yours has long been!

    Like

  • “Thanks, your position is now clear for BU Archives.”

    Shouldn’t the archives be deleted
    People here are anally retentive
    Anal-retentive behavior features are developed during the anal stage of children between the ages of 1 and 3 years

    Data retention: When should you back up, archive or delete?
    Once the data has stretched beyond data retention requirements, it’s time for it to be deleted. This might be because it has been archived for the amount of time required by law, or because it has been stored indefinitely, but has not been looked at for months or years.

    Like

  • Spiritual Laws of the Universe

    They are the laws of vibration, attraction, divine oneness, compensation, polarity, correspondence, inspired action, cause and effect, relativity, gender, perpetual transmutation of energy and the law of rhythm. The twelve universal laws can be rewarding when best implemented.

    There is a reason why each one of us is born in this time and place and your mission in life is consciousness to recognise your sense of purpose in these times.

    We are witnessing the days that Babylon Kingdom shall fall down.

    Silly Games

    Like

  • Grenville,
    Why would you think that the judge would be impartial. The judges, lawyers, politicians all cut from the same cloth. A bunch of liars and thieves. If you believe otherwise i got a bridge in Brooklyn, London, Bridgetown or anywhere else to sell you.

    @pacha …in agrrement with your comments

    Like

  • The English press are reporting how Bajans are none too please that no referendum was held.

    The Royal family will be breaking with tradition in attending the transition of an ex colony to a Republic.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/11/29/prince-wales-reaffirm-affection-barbados-republic-ceremony/

    Like

  • @Grenville Phillip, history will be indeed be kind to you for standing up and doing it alone. Barbados is a country ruled by lawyers and many are just too blind and distracted to understand such. I may not agree with all you pronounce but your courage to speak out is indeed honorable.

    Please do not be deterred for some day when the inch taken becomes a yard many will then understand why you spoke out as a lone wolf.

    Like

  • @TLSN

    Most people voicing dissent maybe it has more to do with prime minister MOTTLEY reneging on her promise to have a referendum moreso than having the referendum to determine how the majority feels on the issue?

    Like

  • @ Pacha
    How can we expect people who graduate on Wednesdays as lawyers and are trying to buy plantations by Friday of the same week, to be interested in pro bono activism?

    Like

  • @William

    The example you used is not a good one, the majority of lawyers are hard working, a case of a few bad apples spoiling the barrel. We have not done a good job to weed out the bad ones.

    Like

  • What was the total damage in legal costs

    was it less than US $50,000 if so it was a bargain

    opening and closing a file takes much skills

    Like

  • @Kammie

    If Grenville had a valid case we may never know unless the matter is prosecuted by a trained lawyer. Again the blogmaster ask: why have we not seen the DLP represent this matter for example. The party has access to many senior lawyers.

    Like

  • “If Grenville had a valid case we may never know unless the matter is prosecuted by a trained lawyer. “

    Grenville did not have a valid case as proven in a Court of Law.

    He established legal precedence in the Presidents.

    The whole point of the formalities in Parliament was due process.

    Caswell, the leader of opposition made some noise and token challenge but did not get very far.

    UK said it was a national matter and would not raise any objection.

    Now, it’s all over except for the fat lady singing and the fireworks.

    Like

  • Speaking of “ A farce of the highest order”, we have a Minister questioning whether the Anti Corruption law recently passed by his Gov’t is a deterrent to corruption.

    If Gov’t believes that laws it passed will not be adhered to, the legislators should pack up their bags and go home.

    Don’t stop the Carnival

    https://barbadostoday.bb/2021/11/27/minister-wonders-if-new-anti-corruption-law-adequately-tackles-scourge/

    Like

  • “Again the blogmaster ask: why have we not seen the DLP represent this matter for example”
    No need to raise up your skirt. They are not the official opposition? Possibly silence means agreement. Not an issue they can score many points on. Take the predominant interpretation of jettisoning a foreign head of state, understanding it was a “transitory” position, whose transition is now complete. There is still much ‘I dotting and T crossing” in which they can get involved.

    Like

  • @ David November 29, 2021 1:32 PM
    (Quote).
    @William
    The example you used is not a good one, the majority of lawyers are hard working, a case of a few bad apples spoiling the barrel. We have not done a good job to weed out the bad ones. (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    LOL!!
    What you have just written only confirms that a [few] bad apples can also expose an entire colony of qualified liars and certified crooks; and there are over 1,000 for a dime a dozen in little Bimshire.

    If the “majority of lawyers are [that] hard working” how come the entire justice system in Barbados is so dysfunctional not only with respect to locals but also to many in the Diaspora?

    It is well known that the wheels of justice can sometimes turn rather slowly but in the case of Barbados- unless you are loaded with ‘inherited’ dosh like GP2 to hire himself as his own lawyer- it can be like molasses going up Horse Hill on the back of a snail.

    Even EWB, the “Father of Independence”, advised ordinary Bajans to stay away from the local law courts (if they want justice). And that was long before the modern imbroglio of too many certified c(r)ooks sipping at the bar from the financial broth of justice.

    The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”.⁓ William Shakespeare’s Henry VI.

    Like

  • @ Grenville

    The heel of the left foot strikes:

    A Barbados system of a republic must utilized checks, balances and separation of powers to stop the elected government becoming tyrannical. The system must be a codified constitution which clearly states how the country should be run.

    Transitioning from a parliamentary constitutional monarchy under the hereditary monarch of Barbados (currently Queen Elizabeth II) to a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial elected president as head of state.

    “The prime minister remains head of government.”

    Incumbent Governor-General Dame Sandra Mason was elected as the country’s first president on 20 October 2021, to take office on 30 November 2021.

    History books picking up the rear.

    Amor amor amor 🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿

    Like

  • “That a citizen was forced to attempt to bring an elected regime to the bar of justice singlehandedly, on such a weighty matter of moment, without an army of people hollering fuh blue murder in the streets, without a legal team or battery of lawyers supporting him pro bono well explains the Bajan personality. Such a national personality has already given us a King Dyal.

    That that same citizen has now to go to an appeal court, again alone most likely, represents a national disgrace. What kind of country are we to have when a citizen’s rights can be collectively abridged by the collective political decisions of stinking lawyers.”

    it tells us all we need to know and REINFORCES that the population who are NOT MENTALLY ENSLAVED and physically CONSTRAINED…..remove themselves completely from that dangerous ANTI-BLACK system…

    btw…heard a complaint this morning from a visiting Canadian Barbadian….why is the Black population BARRED from roaming around the park out by the river but whites and others aren’t …this is a mature person in their 70s querying why this prejudicial discriinatory apartheid SHITE is still going on in Barbados in the 21st century..it happened yesterday……they refuse to get rid of their black self hatred nastiness and promotion of whiteness and ya will be EXPOSED ALWAYS…and EVERYWHERE for it….

    Like

  • “Even EWB, the “Father of Independence”, advised ordinary Bajans to stay away from the local law courts (if they want justice). ”

    i am living proof and can attest to the fact that Barrow was SO RIGHT…unless ya willing to put on that battle gear and go ALL OUT Kamikaze …ya screwed in all ways and from every corner..

    “How can we expect people who graduate on Wednesdays as lawyers and are trying to buy plantations by Friday of the same week, to be interested in pro bono activism?”

    that’s all ya will get when from school days and not 2 pennies in their pockets to rub together, they all aspire to be black face slave masters lording it over their people….

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Miller

    A reasonable intervention.

    How is the legal fraternity different from what we get from the police, public agencies etc?

    Like

  • Can anybody in their right fucking mind tell me where Angela Coxxxxxxxx is today. That girl and I have so so much in-abundance, it Hurts Yah.

    Angelahhhhhhhhh🗣

    Like

  • “appointed day” means the day fixed by Proclamation of the Governor-General
    for the coming into operation of this Act;
    When was the “appointed Day proclaimed by the Governor General? Was the “appointed day” debated in the House? Were alternative days suggested? Or was the date just proclaimed by the Prime Minister and then Proclaimed by the Governor General.I would want to see the discussion that took place, in the Official Gazette. When did the debate take place?

    Like

  • Having considered feedback posted to the blog and received offline, the comments section on new blogs will now close after 3 days.

    Thanks again.

    Liked by 1 person

  • “Having considered feedback posted to the blog and received offline, the comments section on new blogs will now close after 3 days.”

    Shut ‘Em Down

    3 days is unconstitutional, it is far too long and the loons will have a field day and now two or three .
    I will be speaking to my lawyer about this and will revert back forthwith bupon receiving legal advice.

    Liked by 1 person

  • David:

    I will send you the Court’s judgement and my Submissions in Response – for the record.

    Like

  • Hi Alvin…long time no hear, saw you on FB a couple weeks ago, you look well….

    Like

  • A Farce of the Highest Order

    Farce meaning : a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.

    Contempt of court, often referred to simply as “contempt”, is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.

    A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material or non-disclosure of material, which in doing so is deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court, which makes contempt of court a process crime. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David, ur answer was given by ur earlier remarks but @Northern was more persuasive and very excellent when he said: “Not an issue they can score many points […] jettisoning a foreign head of state,[and] understanding it was a “transitory” position, whose transition is now complete.”

    So when u asked “why have we not seen the DLP represent this matter [with their] many senior lawyers “, it must be crystal clear: there was and is ABSOLUTLEY no sensible political motivation to so do.

    Of course, we applaud Phillips’ activism and conviction to take this fight to the courts but based on his remarks above and previously in essays one can actually argue that his motives are in fact either self serving or specious.

    Self-Serving—-
    What is the violation when we are aware that the root of constitutional change requires a 2/3 mandate by House and Senate (for most changes)!

    Thus he would have to show quite precisiely in law how our ELECTED officials despite achieving that, are in breach.

    2.His arguments become more of his pet peeves when he says (my emphasis) “Bills are to be carefully read three times before they are passed. During their first reading, our senators gave their obligatory political speeches…” That’s just a simplistic comment in what should be a serious submission. You explained the process.

    Or … “This Bill […] cancels the people’s defence insurance”. …. That has been dismissed here for it’s lack of substance and would also have been despatched as irrational in a serious legal brief.

    So let’s continur to be upstanding …. Mr Phillips is a solid fellow with good intent … BUT that does not mean he can take very weak positions to the courts and expect a sympathetic verdict.

    Politically both leading parties had LONG AGO agreed the Monarchy as our HofS “whose transition is now complete” had to be jettisoned.

    It would have an absurd nonsense for the DLP or another party to now be against Republicanism after they were so decisively for it … as ANY legal action would have been so labelled!

    I gone …

    Oh, three days of palaver @David, rather than 1 den … can I surmise the former gave your team more work to generate more blog essays quicker !😉

    All good, brother … all good!

    God Bless Bim on Republic Day. Be safe 🙏🏿

    Like

  • @ David,
    Aljazeera have sent their chief newslady for the Americas to Barbados. She had a lengthy interview with a local.
    WIth the BBC and a fair number of the foreign press on the island. There appears to be a perception from the various news outlets that Barbadians have been railroaded into becoming a Republic.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/barbados-republic-queen-british-monarchy-b1965574.html

    Like

  • @Dee Word

    You did not comment on the tardiness of the AG to respond? As a citizen Grenville was entitled to received all courtesy from government?

    Like

  • Does anybody believe Little England moving to a republic would not win editorial support from the UK media?

    Like

  • “I noted that if the explanation was persuasive, I would ask the Court to stop the proceedings, and I would accept the costs.”

    You should have said you do not have the financial resources to pursue your case

    There are no laws that Government has to hold referendums it is just one option available that they can use if they wish to use it
    (a referendum for decriminalising / legalising marijuana is nonsense and should be passed into law without one)

    You should seek a reversal of the costs ruling on the grounds of insanity as you seem very deluded

    Courts are not the arena for writing political thesis

    Like

  • “Does anybody believe Little England moving to a republic would not win editorial support from the UK media?”

    their view in 2020 was it was probably a load of talk and would not happen
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-54174794

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David: “You did not comment on the tardiness of the AG to respond? As a citizen Grenville was entitled to received all courtesy from government?”

    That he is … but this is the ‘same’ (Bajan admin) that takes forever and a day to respond to much more weighty and substantive matters (for example, as it was so egregious: the massive Barrack settlement.
    My govt of the day refused to uphold and do as ordered by courts).🤦🏾‍♂️

    This matter was doomed to failure but to your point it should have been quickly handled by a legal officer in the AGs chambers… but c’est la vida loca: in short, all mixed up and don’t carish!

    Lata.

    Like

  • David November 29, 2021 6:32 PM #: “Does anybody believe Little England moving to a republic would not win editorial support from the UK media?”

    @ David

    I agree with you 100%.

    It’s obvious the UK media would want to ‘paint a negative picture’ of Barbados removing the Queen as its head of state to facilitate the process of becoming a Republic.
    Using ONLY the opinions of those persons the media interviewed who may not agree with the change of status, to form the perception “Barbadians have been railroaded into becoming a Republic,” is ludicrous.

    Interestingly, the comments under the ‘Independent’s’ article give us reasons to believe otherwise.

    Should we ignore the opinions of people who are in favour of island becoming a republic, while emphasizing some irrational folly about ‘losing insurance,’ in the pursuit of attempting to satisfy our selfish desires?

    But, human nature is such that when some people disagree with an opinion, rather than rationally analysing the ‘pros and cons’ of the issue to make a more reasonable, informed decision……there is an underlying tendency for them to ‘cherry-pick’ information that gives greater credence to evidence that conforms with their existing beliefs.

    Like

  • David bu i agree with you in time limits for your stories going forward.I stated long ago that you have put up with too much disrespect from certain bloggers who i would have banned from the blog long ago.However you have the patience of job.Nowadays i just glance at the topics and read comm3nts of certain bloggers and scroll by most of them.Why because they repeat and bore you to death with the same nonsensical diatribe especially the overseas bajans.It is a complete turn off and hence my temporary exit.I gone.

    Like

  • Flag of Truce.

    “i am living proof and can attest to the fact that Barrow was SO RIGHT…unless ya willing to put on that battle gear and go ALL OUT Kamikaze …ya screwed in all ways and from every corner.“

    WURA-War-on-U on your Ass.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David, u often lament the wasted billions on education , but you really should applaud its neo-elistist underpinnings … a new subservience ; if you will 😇😂.

    Ah what am I raving about, u ask!

    Well I just read part of the AG legal brief to Phiilps pleadings and boy I realize wha all de education is about: lots of fancy dancing words of legal prattle to tie we up in knots! Phew.

    It’s just that the continued realization that all this legal stuff is written in particular style, with particular forms is done to prevent regular citizens (like Phillips) from lodging complaints unless they have some attorney on hand, time and money !

    Distressing.

    That said… Phillips’ claims (apparently similar to what he presented here in essays) appeared absolutely not substantive!

    🤦🏾‍♂️

    Like

  • @Pachamama November 29, 2021 9:44 AM “And nobody is going to join him.”

    Why didn’t YOU join him?

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    @David, ok so a substantive issue (btw, where are all ur BU lawyers these days???? … all haven’t gone to the judiciary or to greater glory, surely).

    Phillips relied on the precedent of the ‘Referendum Act, Cap. 11A of 2005’ . He noted it was published formally with a declaration as f “THE LAWS OF BARBADOS”.

    However, the AGs office countered that it was in fact NEVER proclaimed (promulgated) officially… which is what most debate suggested when it was widely noted that a referdum was NOT mandated.

    This is one of the basic points of the pleading so the question really must be asked why was something described as official law when it wasn’t and … too , one has to check FACTS with careful research (dot i’s and t’s) with legal submissions otherwise you can get laugh out of court!

    Like

  • @Dee Word

    Commenters come and commenters go.

    Like

  • BYE BYE, LIZZIE!

    I told Grenville he was not going to stop this transition.

    At the same time, I hope that costs are not pursued by the Government, though awarded by the Court.

    Like

  • @ David King (Bu Blog Meister)

    I have spoken to my lawyer for legal advice about limiting Bu threads to be open for one day instead of 3 days and nights, and was advised that although your decisions may be objectionable immoral or wrong you are still within your legal rights.
    However he did say that I can oppose a blog master by any means necessary providing it is within the law and musical expression is best form of revolution for the sufferer who can engage in silent belligerence like the slave community’s passive aggressive warlike behaviour

    Court is in Session

    Like

  • “At the same time, I hope that costs are not pursued by the Government, though awarded by the Court.”

    That is not how it works a team of 20-30 layers were assigned to the case and were working in a remote room for several weeks 9-5 5 days a week discussing and preparing a robust defence of the surreal and absurd writings of Grenville Phillips and the companies time management reporting accounting system has recorded all their hours and employees will have to be paid by employers so the legal firms are not out of pocket (including the mark up charges for Government contract daily rates). If Grenville cannot pay the full amount and costs pressure he will be made bankrupt. It’s a Hard Knocks Life in the School of Hard Knocks where Lessons in Life are often learned the Hard Way as per God’s teachings up above. The Universe can be cruel in it’s judgements.

    Like

  • Make what you like of Sir Garfield Sober’s comments. I bet he fears more this Republic under our current leadership than the previous regime under the monarchy.

    These same dirty actors will continue to sully and dirty the name of Barbados.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/11/29/sir-gary-sobers-stumped-barbados-removing-queen-itll-sad-lot/

    Like

  • @DIW
    GPII needs a win. He keeps pressing issues he cannot win, which are muddled in legalese, beyond the basic understanding of most.
    May I suggest a suit against various administrations of the GoB for failure to provide the NIS Reports required by the Act.
    This way it is not targeted at any one party any more than the other, he is clearly representing all Barbadians, and it is a winnable challenge. The Act is very clear. A cause where people can buy into their benefits at some, maybe several, times in their life, and rally behind him.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Give it up, nuh! On and on about nothing!

    Like

  • I watched the Republic ceremony, and found that the hand-over was generally well-done and dignified.

    I still feel a wonderful glow from the event that I intend to nurse today.

    We continuously improve by identifying deficiencies, and effectively addressing them. But for me, that is for another day – not today.

    Happy Independence Day every one, and may God bless our President, Dame Sandra.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Well done Grenville.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Donna

    They’ve gone from waffle about Mottley’s ‘hands waving, eyes staring and fist pumping,’ to criticizing her scarves……. and the new ‘strategy’ seems to be bombarding BU with news articles and opinions of people who are OPPOSED to the Republic.

    Surely Sir Garry expressing his PERSONAL SENTIMENTS regarding Barbados removing the Queen as its head of state to facilitate the process of becoming a Republic, should certainly not be viewed as the GENERAL CONSENSUS of the ENTIRE Barbadian population.

    As I mentioned in a previous contribution, when some people disagree with an opinion, rather than rationally analysing the ‘pros and cons’ of the issue to make a more reasonable, informed decision……there is an underlying tendency for them to ‘cherry-pick’ information that gives greater credence to evidence that conforms with their existing beliefs.

    Perhaps Grenville Phillips II’s November 30, 2021 11:35 AM contribution serves as an example……………

    Like

  • I was unable to watch the Republican jamboree. By all accounts it was first class.. Barbados is in a class of its own when it comes to pageantry.

    The last time the country was cleaned and sanitised was during the cricket World Cup final. What happened during the interim years?

    We have dispatched Lizzy; can we do the same with our apartheid and class system? The country will wake up with a hangover. The same problems that have hung over the country since independence remain deeply embedded.

    Like

  • Step one…. Step 2…. Step three….

    Like

  • What an assine statement Barbados was last cleaned and sanitized during the 2007 world cup.This from someone who does not live in Barbados and has little clue what she is speaking about.As Artax stated this indivisual uses certain statements ti push her anti Mottley agenda.She has now resorted to talkindg shite about Ms Mottley, s scarves.What utter trivial nonsense.This is the height of stupidity snd deserves to be punished with laughter .I gone.

    Like

  • What an assine statement Barbados was last cleaned and sanitized during the 2007 world cup.This from someone who does not live in Barbados and has little clue what she is speaking about.As Artax stated this indivisual uses certain statements ti push her anti Mottley agenda.She has now resorted to talkindg shite about Ms Mottley, s scarves.What utter trivial nonsense.This is the height of stupidity snd deserves to be punished with laughter .I gone.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    WASNT THE DLP PART OF THOSE 10 YEARS 2007 to 2021.

    YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR SHITTY HEAD FROM UP MIA AND THE BLP ASS.

    THE 2 x 3 ISLAND Is NOW OFFICIALLY A BANANA REPUBLIC 2021.

    LETS SEE IF THIS WILL LEAD TO A BETTER LIFE FOR THE BLACK MAJORITY MASSES AND NOT THE STATUS QUO OF POLITICIAL CORRUPT BENEFICIARIES.

    Like

  • Here comes the bu jackass braying.What the hell who was in power got to do with it?The statement stating Barbados was not cleaned or sanitized since the 2007 world cup is a ridiculous statement and a bold face lie full stop.It has nothing to do with whi was in office.You sure you got three degrees? Your reasoning tells me you have none and in my view are a dunce.You should think before rushing in to defend someone who does not know of what she speaks.I gone.

    Like

  • I MAY BE A DUNCE OR A JACKASS BUT FOR SURE DONT HAVE MY HEAD STUCK IN EITHER THE BLP OR DLP ASS.

    NEITHER AM I INVOLVED WITH MARK MALONEY AND OTHERS IN ROBBING THE TREASURY ON THE 2 x 3 ISLAND AT THE DETRIMENT OF THE BLACK MASSES.

    STEUSPE

    Liked by 1 person

  • The President and the Prime Minister have delivered rhetorical speeches at the top end of the Richter scale.

    When the party comes to an end and the press returns home Barbadians will wake up to the reality: nothing has changed. Access to the beaches will be tightened; employment opportunities will remain limited with an emphasis on recruiting from abroad. The country will remain deeply indebted. Do you want me to continue?

    There are positives. We saw Barbados majority black population displaying their talents in full glare of the international press and they DELIVERED.

    Long live the first Republic to whom much is expected.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Well, as it turned out Grenville’s legal intervention was the product of a misguided intellect.

    That’s the problem with intelligence or perceptions thereof. It is given to sermonizing, propaganda, the emotions of the soul.

    He being properly guided by intuition and not intelligence, the revivalist Nuremberg rally of last night could be put in its proper context.

    At the end of the day christians and all those who are influenced by christian culture alone seek a saviour. And this is the drug for intelligence.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Chin up GPV2.0
    They crucified Jesus Christ
    You should have used a lawyer from the brotherhood of masons

    Like

  • Lorenzo November 30, 2021 7:56 PM #: “As Artax stated this individual uses certain statements to push her anti Mottley agenda.”

    @ Lorenzo

    If you’re going quote me, please do so correctly.

    I did not mentioned anything about anyone “using statements to push his/her anti Mottley agenda,” but, made references to specific comments, which I believe were silly.

    You must accept the fact people have the right to criticize the Mia Mottley administration. However, people are also expected to exercise some level of rationality in their criticisms. I’ve read comments in which the authors seem to be suggesting upon becoming a Republic, issues that plagued the Barbadian society for the past 70 years, should automatically change on Wednesday, December 1, 2021.
    Another comment I found hilarious was someone asking ‘government’ to launch a full scale investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the young lady whose body was found in the Mangrove, St. Thomas dump, which would give anyone the impression police is idle.

    Yes, we will awaken to certain realities. But, how do you know for a fact policies won’t be implemented to initiate change?

    I prefer to give ‘government’ ‘the benefit of the doubt’ and wait to see how things will progress going forward, rather waking up every morning looking for everything that’s negative, so I could spew my trade mark daily dose of ‘doom and gloom’ shiite and “trivial nonsense,” even if I have to peruse Al Jazeera news to provide me with irrelevant examples to do so.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @ nextparty246November 30, 2021 11:35 AM
    (Quote):
    I watched the Republic ceremony, and found that the hand-over was generally well-done and dignified.
    I still feel a wonderful glow from the event that I intend to nurse today.
    We continuously improve by identifying deficiencies, and effectively addressing them. But for me, that is for another day – not today.
    Happy Independence Day every one, and may God bless our President, Dame Sandra. (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Glad to see you have finally come around to the reality that Barbados has been a de facto republic since the 1974 amendments to Her Majesty’s Constitution’ with the PM the ‘de jure’ dictator of all decisions.

    You could have save yourself a lot of money in legal costs if only you had the Commonsense to have spotted, up front. The political mole hill you tried to turn into a Constitutional mountain.

    Any further delay in the de jure transition to republicanism would have resulted in King Charles 111 being the HoS of the de facto republic of Barbadoes of 2022.

    Since you have now taken up the mantle of the people’s standpipe barrister we would like to hear your position on the (mis)use of the ‘Monarchical’ title of “Sir” and “Dame” applicable strictly to positions of ‘Governance’ which No longer exist under the Constitution of the New Republic of Barbados?

    Has Barbadoes really cut all Governance ties with the British Monarchy?
    Or is this a blatant case of wanting to keep / take away the silver spoon used stir the teacup at the Royal garden party at the ‘Government’s’ house?

    There should be No Monarchical title called ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ or any ‘aping’ display of other Monarchical accoutrements in the Res republica of officialdom unless used in a private or personal capacity.

    Like

  • Hear hear, Artax! I have nothing to add except that I love Mia’s colourful scarves that add Caribbean flavour to her outfits and make her memorable.

    Most important that we discuss a woman’s clothes, and draw crazy conclusions from the wearing of scarves, equating such with the wearing of diamond studded coronets and the intention to reign like a queen of the DARK Ages!

    STEUPSE!

    I am going to read my Constitution. A little bit daily. I plan to focus on THAT. I wish Jeff were around to help. I miss his Sunday sessions.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Stupid colonial titles should be retired. Never liked them anyway.

    Knights served royalty. We renounce royalty!

    If we love titles so much we should coin our own.

    Like

  • @ David,
    The Guardian newspaper are interested in compiling the views of Bajans towards the country’s new found status.

    If your readers click on the link below they can participate in the survey.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/30/share-your-experiences-of-barbados-becoming-a-republic

    Like

  • The Guardian newspaper can piss off!

    None of their business!

    Like

  • @TLSN

    see Donna’s comment.

    Like

  • Why would the Guardian want a poll of How many Barbadians were for or against the Republic? Why all this sudden interest?

    Maybe the UK media looking for something to say we are still have sympathy for the British monarchy.

    I feel the UK press should F*** OFF.!!!

    Like

  • …… we still have sympathy

    Like

  • @ Frank December 1, 2021 2:26 PM
    (Quote):
    I feel the UK press should F*** OFF.!!!
    (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Why should the UK press F*** OFF?

    You might just need them when the number of tourists ‘out’ of the same UK starts to fall off as they find alternative destinations in the Caribbean for their sun tans and relaxing vacations.

    Isn’t the UK your biggest market in your only game in the Bajan town call tourism?

    Yet you lot of pure-bred colonized apes cannot throw the monarchical monkey off your blackened back!

    Why in the republican world of tarnation would you bunch of colonized jokers be so overtly keen to carry on the tradition of wearing monarchical bling and calling people Sir and Dame even though you are still pretending to have cut all ties with the UK Monarchy?

    You, Bajan boy, should always keep at the forefront of your memory those immortal words of the Mighty Chalkdust:

    ‘All ya got is sea water and sand; and the day the [UK] tourists don’t come to Barbados, picking whelks and starvation would be the Bajan daily diet’.

    Like

  • Miller, is that English?

    It look like I gine got to get somebody to translate what you write because you duz mek simple things complicated.

    Yuh see, everybody else here does try keep it simple as possible. But you? Man your explanations does be a pompous word salad of verbosity.

    Like

  • AG: Not a must to take oath

    by MARIA BRADSHAW mariabradshaw@ nationnews.com

    FIVE MEMBERS of Parliament were noticeably absent when members of the House of Assembly and the Senate took the oath of allegiance to Barbados during the National Awards ceremony at Golden Square Freedom Park on Tuesday.
    However, Attorney General Dale Marshall told the DAILY NATION yesterday that there was no legal requirement for them to take the oath.
    Government backbencher George Payne was the only one out of the 29 Government MPs who was absent, while Opposition Senators, Caswell Franklyn and Krystal Drakes, as well as Independent Senators Monique Taitt and Julian Hunte were not in the line-up of senators present.
    When contacted, Franklyn told this newspaper that he and other senators did not receive an invitation, but quickly added that even if he did, he would not have attended, as he called it “theatrics” and a “show”.
    “Nobody told me . . . and this oath, this performance by Government was just theatrics. It was totally unnecessary,” he said, pointing out that the Constitution Amendment Act, which was passed for Barbados’ new republic status, “made provision that says you don’t have to take the oath – that there is no requirement. These people are just out for show,” he said.
    Quoting Section 12, he said: “A person who on the appointed day holds an office to which this section applies by virtue of having been the holder of the office before that day . . . shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of the Constitution or any other law relating to the taking of oaths with respect to that office.”
    He noted that this section applied to the Prime Minister, senators, the Director of Public Prosecutions, judges, among others.
    Franklyn also expressed reservations about attending such an event during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    “They never invited me, but in all fairness to them, if they had invited me I wouldn’t have gone because I believe it was a potential super spreader,” Franklyn said,
    adding that other senators also informed him that they were not invited.
    Marshall confirmed that they did not have to take the oath.
    “There is no legal requirement for persons to take the Oath of Allegiance. In fact, Section 12 of the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2021 specifically provides that persons who held an office which required the taking of an oath is deemed to have complied with the requirement without any need to do so again.
    “So those persons who were not present to take the Oath afresh are not impacted in any way whatsoever. For us who did take the Oath again, it was symbolic, since at no previous time would we have had an opportunity to swear allegiance to Barbados. We would have sworn allegiance to the Queen and her heirs. This time, though, not at all a legal requirement, we were able to boldly swear that we would be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Barbados that nurtured us and that we love.”

    Source: Nation

    Like

  • Let this govt keep going forward with their charades and puppet shows
    Time longer than twine and God does not sleep
    One thing is certain God cannot be removed or replaced with the stroke of a pen or pencil
    Our most sacred oath to God and country signifies a symbol of truthfulness and Accountability to the people

    Like

  • @5:22
    The story is one of disappointment.
    How does one organize a taking of the ‘Oath of Allegiance’ and not invite all members of the House of Assembly and the Senate.

    This reduced taking a sacred oath to just a photo opportunity to party members. The good Senator should have been invited since all should have had the opportunity to take the oath. It is not a ‘red’ event.

    Like

  • The blogmaster is willing to be proved wrong but does it seem right to you such would have occurred?

    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