Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

It started in 2018 after the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) handed the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) and the third parties an unprecedented 30 to zero drubbing in the general election. Many still believe a constitutional crisis was averted when Bishop Joe Atherley crossed the floor and a Leader of the Opposition (LoO) was recognized to ensure the business of parliament as outlined in the Constitution was carried out.

Who would have thunk it?

Prime Minister Mottley called a snap general election 18 months early and repeated a 30 to love win on 19 January 2022. On this occasion, no sitting MP seems willing to follow in the Bishop’s footsteps. The President of the Republic is unwilling to exercise discretion to appoint 2 Opposition Senators. Prime Minister Mottley in her infinite wisdom magnanimously has started the process to amend the Barbados Constitution to allow for the appointment of the 2 Opposition Senators from the losing political party that garnered the most votes. If that party refuses the opportunity to appoint slides to the next losing party. 

Here we are!

The news former Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite filed a motion with the Court to rule on the legitimacy of the Senate should not surprise political pundits if one listened to the position of interim President of the DLP Steve Blackett. With the amendment to the Constitution proceeding in the parliament the DLP would eventually be forced into position of accepting the offer to appoint 2 Opposition Senators which would contradict the publicly stated position of the DLP represented by interim President Steve Blackett. 

A couple interesting sidebar observations. The former AG Brathwaite is being represented by attorneys-at-law Garth Patterson and Michelle Russell. Last week Brasstacks talk show host Glyne Murray observed the lawyers keeping the most ‘noise’ in the Barbados space on the the constitutionality of parliament are of Jamaican lineage. In fairness to Russell and Patterson they have been residing in Barbados for a long time, however, the blogmaster understands Murray’s point given the large cohort of Barbadians lawyers educated with our tax dollars.

One of the reasons forwarded why Mottley called an early general election was to quell an uprising by a faction in the BLP. Is it reasonable to opine if a few BLP MPs are dissatisfied with Mottley’s leadership a golden opportunity now presents itself for the malcontents to express themselves by crossing the floor or sounding their voices?

Political Games

The matter has gone the route of the Court and whatever the decision at first instance is will likely progress to the CCJ. What we have is a people suffering from economic fatigue, COVID-19 fatigue and you may add to the maladies, post election fatigue. Is this another opportunities to blame lawyers? 

Former Brathwaite in his released stated in part that he felt “compelled to seek the intervention of the Courts to resolve this controversy, one that centres around issues of vital national importance, and goes to the root of our democracy.” The blogmaster notes the former AG has advised that the matter is being brought in his capacity as a private citizen. How convenient!

Why did this extract from Brathwaite’s statement pique the interest of the blogmaster? Under Brathwaite’s tenure as AG with responsibility for the judiciary, he left it in a worse condition than he found it. The political games that lawyer politicians play mean an already congested court system has to adjudicate a matter created by lawyers. 


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

494 responses to “To the Courts!”


  1. Amending a law which operates subservient to the Constitution, is all that it is needed.


  2. de pedantic DribblerFebruary 10, 2022 9:45 AM

    @David, absolutely the ONLY reason this issue is problematic is due to the inaction of the President!

    Her failure to execute her discretionary duty has magnified and hoisted aloft as a ‘truth’ the determination from the PM that two senate seats should be specifically prescribed by voting results DESPITE no such need based on our first past post system.

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

    How can she act if there is no opposition as required by the constitution?

    What would be the point?

    There cannot be a parliament whether she appoints two opposition senators plucked out of the ether or not!!

    The two senate seats ARE prescribed by voting results.

    Once there is an elected opposition in Parliament they choose a leader and he/she advises the GG/President of their choices.

    This is elementary stuff.

    I would need to think a bit about whether the pm is really the PM in the “absence of a presence” of a constitutional parliament, to coin an old Reverent Joe saying.

    For the moment lets call her the pm.

    The pm and her pretense has confused your head and you are not thinking straight!!

    The lawyers are not helping either.


  3. @Lorenzo February 10, 2022 7:21 PM “I see the dems at it again trying to frustrate the government efforts to start going forward again.”

    If the government has any sense at all, they will get on with the WORK of governing which the people have elected them to do and which the people PAY them to do.

    And the dems really need to stop wasting the court’s time. It is after all the people who pay the officers of the court. And we want our courts to work to bring accused to trial instead of wasting their time and OUR MONEY with nonsense.

    We have DIVORCED the dems. We don’t want them hanging about outside our houses and peeping through our windows to see who we are in bed with. We have chosen another because the dems were impotent. We don’t want to waste our time and energy with an impotent has been.


  4. So John, if the Parliament is not real, it means that the unreal Parliament cannot dissolve itself, nor can it ever again call an election.

    You would be happy with that?


  5. BU the place I come to when I get tired of talking to the little green men from Mars.


  6. February 10, 2022 10:28 PM

    So John, if the Parliament is not real, it means that the unreal Parliament cannot dissolve itself, nor can it ever again call an election.

    You would be happy with that?

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

    Unreal is different from unconstitutional.

    The last constitutional parliament we had was prorogued by Freundel and the GG.

    Since then we have watched a bunch of insurrectionists blow up Parliament with a 30 -0 farce.

    The solution is rather simple, depending on how desperate the insurrectionists want to cling to whatever they have … and that is not real.

    Forget the DEMs for the moment and use your brain!!


  7. Atherley sees potential crisis

    By Colville Mounsey colvillemounsey@nationnews.com
    Should former Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite be successful in his quest for a judicial review of Government’s decision to convene Parliament with only 18 of the 21 senators sworn in, Barbados could be staring down the barrel of a constitutional crisis.
    This is the view of former Opposition Leader Bishop Joseph Atherley, who said it might take Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley asking one of her members of Parliament to temporarily cross the floor in order to get a resolution to what he deems a constitutional conundrum.
    He said this might be the only way to execute the plan of ensuring the party with the second-most votes in the election has a voice in the Upper House in this electoral term.
    “We could be certainly facing a constitutional crisis right now if the High Court rules in favour of Adriel Brathwaite.
    “It means that the actions of this Parliament this week have been invalidated and it would also mean that the Parliament is not properly constituted. How therefore then can you get the Parliament properly constituted?” asked Atherley.
    He contended that given this is the second time Barbados was facing this constitutional challenge – as in 2018, which was solved when he crossed the floor – measures should have been put in place in the eventuality of a clean sweep of seats.
    “It very well may be that in order for this country to get itself out of this very awkward situation, should the court rule in favour of Mr Brathwaite, Ms Mottley may have to ask someone on her back bench to go across and fill the role of Opposition temporarily and have those two senators appointed.
    “With the Parliament then properly constituted, the necessary amendments [could] be made and the seats could then be extended to the Democratic Labour Party (DLP). I would hate to see that it would have to come back to that because that was the very thing I was vilified for in Barbados,” he added.
    However, political scientist Dr Kristina Hinds has rubbished the idea of a potential constitutional crisis. She said all that will be required is for the President to exercise her discretion to appoint the two Opposition senators in keeping with Section 75(a) of the Constitution in the absence of an Opposition Leader. The Prime Minister would then have to temporarily appoint a 12th Senate seat.
    On Wednesday, Brathwaite filed a constitutional motion asking the Supreme Court to determine whether the Senate is properly constituted.
    He is being represented by attorneys Garth Patterson QC and Michelle Russell, who have filed the judicial review in the High Court under a certificate of urgency. The development
    comes even though Parliament has already convened and is debating key amendments to the Constitution.
    Brathwaite, a member of the DLP, said his actions were not on behalf of any political party but in the interest of maintaining democracy in the new republic. The amendments allow for the party with the second-highest number of votes to be allotted the two Opposition senate seats in the absence of an Opposition Leader, as well as lowering the age people can serve in Parliament from 21 to 18. The first amendment would permit the DLP to choose the two Senate seats, having amassed the second-most votes at the polls but failing to win a single seat. Atherley said he was not surprised a legal challenge was made.
    “I considered that it was likely to come down to a court battle because there are strong feelings on the matter on both sides. It really is an issue that ought to be settled and, of course, the courts are there for that,” he said.
    However, Hinds said there need not be a legal challenge, as should the President discharge her duty in filling the Senate seats, the entire discourse would become a moot point “I don’t see that there is any crisis looming whatsoever. The Prime Minister makes the selection for the 12th senator, the President makes the selection for the two that would have been selected on the advice of the Leader of Opposition, and then the Government can go ahead with its constitutional amendment. In fact, I think that this whole court case could be avoided if this is done at this point. There would be no reason for a court case because the Senate would have 21 people,” she said.

    Source: Nation


  8. Atherley seems to be invoking his thought process looking for an outcome which can be favourable to himself
    Hinds opinion is one which the court most likely to take into consideration
    However Blackett is of now being the leader of the party with the highest votes and the person which the President can talk with


  9. The people are becoming increasingly aware of how incompetent, corrupt and criminal the opposition is. Instead of cooperating in undoing the damage of the pandemic, the oppositionists fight over paltry Senate seats like dogs over bones. Truly, the opposition cannot sink any lower.

    Time for our Supreme Leader to ban all parties by decree! The people want only one movement, that of our Supreme Leader.


  10. “Management by emotion.”
    How can a President act in the role of an opposition Leader? …appointing two senators is neither here or there…
    What is Kristina Hinds’ claim to fame? Being on Brass Tacks? steupsss…

    Perhaps John is overly zealous in his prognostications of calamity, but his logic is convincing, given the history of idiotic legislation that these ‘legal experts’ have foisted on Barbados over the years.
    HARDLY A SINGLY PIECE OF MAJOR LEGISLATION PILOTED BY THESE JOKERS HAVE HAD A SMOOTH PATH.

    This, mostly female emotional deflection – to take the path of least resistance is EXACTLY why we are where we are, and headed where we are headed.
    What the hell did she call elections for in the first place…?

    Isaiah 3 talks about the consequences of brassbowlery… and it is frighteningly real.


  11. What the hell did she call elections for in the first place…?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Boss man, and wuh is you claim to fame? Coming pun BU to play you know everything bout everything?

    Supposed she called the elections when it was constitutionally due and the result was 30-0 on either side?

    Man look, sometimes you does talk bare brassbowlery, yuh.

  12. African Online Publishing Copyright ⓒ 2022. All Rights Reserved Avatar
    African Online Publishing Copyright ⓒ 2022. All Rights Reserved

    Out of all the comments i have access to, this one is the most insightful and thoroughly in line with WHY things are as they are and about to degrade significantly, there are countries who are not part of it, these are determined to remain…to the detriment of the people, which could be excused to a point, but keeping the colonial system intact complete with the gifted constitution, is entirely inexcusable.

    “The fact they did not break from the British kom-an-teef system (so-called common wealth) — big problem in & of itself”


  13. The only person who can dissolve Parliament is the Queen President, not the Courts

    Queen In My Empire

  14. African Online Publishing Copyright ⓒ 2022. All Rights Reserved Avatar
    African Online Publishing Copyright ⓒ 2022. All Rights Reserved

    “@ WURA
    Let them have their fun. They are just having a little sibling difference of opinion.”

    sometimes those can take a very nasty turn….better to stay out of the way and DUCK…if necessary.

    as things stand their offshore credibility, previously shaky, is now gone completely….and they did that all by themselves, that’s what happens when you don’t listen……

    oh what a tangled web “we” weave…….when all “we” do is practice to deceive..


  15. Unable to follow the highfaluting logic that s often employed here.

    No opposition
    Given 2018 and the ‘Atherley’ solution one would think that as we are again in a similar place then a similar fix could be employed. It worked once and could work twice.

    Amendment for senators
    Last election we thought an amendment was required to seat two senators from the diaspora (Kay McConney and Rawdon Adams). A fix was the appointment of temporary senators Delisle Bradshaw and John Williams until the two from the diaspora could be sworn in. It looks as if we circumvented the need for an amendment for their appointment.
    What worked once can be made to work twice

    What now complicates the matter is that a real tweak (amendment) is required to sit an 18-year old. The old fix of a temporary appointment (a place holder) may again be employed to get things up and running. What worked once can be made to work twice

    Unable to follow the discussion.


  16. @ Bush Tea February 11, 2022 7:18 AM
    (Quote):
    This, mostly female emotional deflection – to take the path of least resistance is EXACTLY why we are where we are, and headed where we are headed.
    What the hell did she call elections for in the first place…?
    (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Brilliant piece (again), Mr. Bushman!

    Serves Bajan right!

    What were/are those seriously challenging circumstances and overriding factors which forced the hands of Tron’s goddess to call a snap election in the midst of a raging pandemic only to throw the country further under the bus of a Constitutional crisis with 2 wheels off and the one spare fully deflated?

    Was it simply to rub the nose of the still comatose DLP into the mud of public opprobrium or merely to show Caswell and the nurses who is the Boss in the land of RoB?

    Why couldn’t the very popular Boss lady use the remaining 18 months to fashion and implement a new Constitution fit for the young republic and which would have taken care of preventing a repeat of the Constitutional crisis of May 2018 and pave the way for the likes of KK to sit in a red seat in the Upper Room without that blatant display of despotic nepotism?

    Like the sacrificial role of Judas Iscariot, the poor red Bishop Atherley’s political death has all been in vain.

    Mr Bushman, the clairvoyant, it seems as if your BBE has to intervene, again, in the affairs of the Bajan Brass Bowls.


  17. @Miller

    What does your comment have to do with the result 30-0 and the unwillingness of the President to exercise her discretion?


  18. She called the election for the same reason Froon extended 3 months- the prerogative of the PM.


  19. We have precedents.
    This is not virgin territory. We have a path that was followed in 2018.
    Mia is one step ahead of her foes. She gives them wiggle room to hang themselves.
    The one weakness is the KK move, but we have a work-around from 2018.
    I suspect I am a secret admirer of her cunning
    <3 Mia <3
    Will now sit and watch


  20. Mia’s decision for an early call may have been
    O expected results
    O need for 5 years instead of 1.5 for new policies to bed in
    O catch DLP sleeping


  21. The line for those who want to reinvent the wheel is on the right.
    The line for the charioteers is on the left

  22. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind how parliament could possibly be considered constituted unconstitutionally when the Senate being composed of 18 senators is more than 2/3 full at 86% full. How could 3 senators short cause a problem?

    Does it not have enough senators present to form a quorum and how the 18 senators vote that matters? I recall legislation was blocked in the past when there were absences on the government side and nay votes on the independent side.


  23. David February 11, 2022 7:58 AM #: “@Miller – What does your comment have to do with the result 30-0 and the unwillingness of the President to exercise her discretion?”

    @ David

    I asked myself the ‘exact same’ question after reading his comment.

    An election was called, which resulted in the BLP winning all 30 seats.

    I believe suggesting Mottley called an election specifically to ‘spite’ Caswell Franklyn is ‘shiite talk.’

    And, based on the fact that the Mia Mottley administration was progressively becoming unpopular, I doubt anyone, including Mottley and members and supporters of the party, believed the BLP would’ve won all 30 seats again.

    I have to agree with my ‘friend,’ because I’m similarly “unable to follow the highfaluting logic that is often employed here,” as well.


  24. The good (and bad) thing about Barbados is..

    Everything is at a school boy (and girl) level..


  25. @David
    “She called the election for the same reason Froon extended 3 months- the prerogative of the PM.”
    ~~~~~~~
    That is HOW she was able to call the elections David, not why.

    Mia is MANY times more astute than Froon, and in fact her ‘why’ is much different.
    Froon and the DLP has been paying the price of his folly since then. We cannot afford any more such folly.

    What we NEED is for Mia to get on with the business of dealing with REAL problems rather than the emotional stuff that just waste time and resources. There is no time for games. We NEED her to perform at a level than compensates for Froon’s idiocy.

    Few here realize the tenuous state of this country…. and when they finally do, these SAME BB’s currently encouraging nonsense will turn on the Supreme Leader just as quickly.


  26. ” unwillingness of the President to exercise her discretion?””

    Non-Partisan

    As Head of State The Queen (now a President) has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters.

    (Although she does have the power to takeover and rule.)


  27. @ Critical Analyzer February 11, 2022 8:33 AM

    If we’re arguing the Senate must have a full quorum of 21 Senators for it to be ‘constitutionally legitimate,’ then, what would’ve been the implications as a result, when Moe was absent from the ‘Upper House’ for an extended period of time?

    Or are we saying Parliament should convene with 21 Senators at the beginning of a new term, after which ‘any number could play?’


  28. The intent of the law has more say than any flawed wording.

    The Court is not here to solve the problem for us but if the flaw means that there is no government in keeping with the will of the people, then the Court knows that that was not the intention of the law but a flaw that needs rewording for clarity’s sake.

    The people have chosen their government. A nation cannot be held in limbo forever because of an obvious flaw.

    If John’s logic was correct that we needed a 27:3 result to form a parliament as per exact English wording, then the Law would have been ass to try to enforce the unenforceable.

    Ain’t nobody going to rule that that was the intention of the Law.

    Same thing here.

  29. Critical Analyzer Avatar
    Critical Analyzer

    I also believe the amendment should have been done to create a temporary 31st parliament seat for the Leader of the Opposition where the EBC holds an election amongst the losing candidates to nominate one person from amongst their numbers to occupy that seat.

    The vote can be counted similar to how company shareholder voting is done where the votes each losing candidate got during the election determines the strength that losing candidate vote has.

  30. NorthernObserver Avatar

    The Framers of the Constitution (DLP I GUESS) envisaged two opposing points of view.

    That’s how a Parliamentary Democracy works.

    No Opposition = No Parliament

    It is real simple, 30 – 0 is a farce..
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    What you are saying is the electorate is told you have a vote, you can cast it for whomever you wish
    BUT
    if you all vote for a similar view, you are wrong, and the results will be null and void.

    The Constitution actually allows for many points of view. Just because one is elected, and opposes the view of the majority, does not mean you see eye-to-eye with similar opposers? The opposition could consist of 2 MPs under the DLP banner, 1 under the Alliance, 1 under SB, and 1 independent. In this case, the Constitution says, there shall be a Leader. One of those six elected members, all being eligible, shall be the Leader. AND, if they cannot elect a Leader amongst themselves, the President has the discretionary authority to appoint one as the Leader.

    I thought I was losing it, so I had to research Parliamentary Democracy. I could find NOTHING which suggested there HAD TO BE an opposition. Is this some dream you had? Opposing views were certainly allowed for, and accommodated, even encouraged, but Mandatory? No. They result from the will of the people, as tabulated.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    “Are you saying that 75 makes the GG/President the Leader of the Opposition, having to go into Parliament and debate with the Government side?”
    Nope. That’s not what it says. It says that where there is nobody who qualifies as LoO, then in those situations, where the President acts upon the advice of the LoO, the President may use their ‘discretion’ and act as if they were LoO.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    No Opposition = No Parliament

    You are back to dictating how a voter must vote? In recent simplistic terms, you can vote for any candidate, once a candidate NOT running under the BLP banner wins at least one constituency. (You prefer 3)

    Yes the Opposition plays a significant role in Parliamentary debate. No opposition means debate among only like minded MP’s. Without Opposition, Parliament becomes a largely administrative entity. And there is no question that without Opposition, there is a potential threat to democratic rights and freedoms. Yet, this is really about debate. Because with a majority, be it 30-0, 27-3, 20-10 or 16-14, the Opposition cannot stop or block anything, unless one or more of the “like minded” MP’s changes their mind/view. And nothing, even in a 30-0 assembly, prevents an elected MP from voting against any motion before the HoA. Or debating against it.


  31. @Bush Tea

    We can debate what prerogative means in this instance in the same way the court will be convened today to adjudicate if the parliament is legitimately constituted LOL.


  32. Critical AnalyzerFebruary 11, 2022 8:33 AM

    Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind how parliament could possibly be considered constituted unconstitutionally when the Senate being composed of 18 senators is more than 2/3 full at 86% full. How could 3 senators short cause a problem?

    Does it not have enough senators present to form a quorum and how the 18 senators vote that matters? I recall legislation was blocked in the past when there were absences on the government side and nay votes on the independent side.

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

    Senate needs to be constituted before a quorum becomes relevant.

    Twenty one senators need to be seated before the senate is constituted and the senators can be called senators.

    For the moment we have 18 aspiring senators waiting on another 3!!

    No Senate = no Parliament


  33. @Artax

    This is the argument by some, 21 bums must be on seats to shout ‘play ball’!


  34. @ David February 11, 2022 7:58 AM

    Are you querying the relevance or competence of the post and/or its holder?

    Isn’t the post a mere transfer of a ceremonial function from Her Majesty?

    But you might just be right; after all, it is ‘My Government’ which is at fault and Not the failure to work within the existing four walls of the Supreme Law of the Land.

    No one is questioning the right of the PM to call elections within the Constitutionally stipulated timeframe but, as Bushie pointed out, the rationale behind such a relatively early call in the midst of such a serious health crisis which is decimating the country’s one-cylinder economy.


  35. @CA

    A novel suggestion, we should debate this some more. As discussed many times the constitution or any law will not address all scenarios, when flaws appear as in this case we should fix to anticipate future eventuality.


  36. @ John February 11, 2022 8:59 AM
    Quote):
    Senate needs to be constituted before a quorum becomes relevant.
    (Unquote).
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Well said, Sir John!

    So too must any election for or announcement of the post of its President and his or her Deputy.


  37. @Miller

    The post is mostly ceremonial except …


  38. Is an opposition critical to a democracy
    Does the opposition role plays importance to the checks and balances towards good governance

    If these questions can be answered with out political emotions
    Then one cannot say the Constitution relevancy to a fully constituted Parliament is not important


  39. Yes a dissenting voice is important but so is Vox Populi!


  40. Cuhdear Bajan,

    They need to look up the term LEGISLATIVE INTENT.

    I’ve been trying to tell them from the beginning that the law is made to serve man and not man the law.

    Not even the Christians are listening.

    I knew that the intention behind the legislation and the ends meant to be achieved must factor into any interpretation and not just the exact English wording.

    This would, of course, be necessary because, as Vincent said, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE FLAWS. Language is a funny thing.

    It is a COMMON SENSE THING!

    Just spent a little time with Google to confirm it.

    BINGO!

    The people have chosen their government. Under the first past the post system, there is no way the people can deliberately vote for an opposition

    Therefore it cannot be the intention of the Constitution to demand that they do! So John’s strict adherence to the English Language will not be the accepted interpretation. It simply is not enforceable under our election system.

    The most that can happen here is that the President will be advised to appoint two senators and Mia will be advised to appoint a seat warmer for Koochie Koo.


  41. BTW absent of an.opposition and a full constituted Parliament
    The country looses
    Patchwork govt as Mottley has done is a flaw that would sooner or later result in corruption
    Obstruction and wayward political self interest as govt tinker back and forth in forming a govt that is representative of the safety and security of the country and people


  42. One of the reasons forwarded why Mottley called an early general election was to quell an uprising by a faction in the BLP.

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

    The simple reason why elections were called was to get a constitutional Parliament that could ratify the changes to the constitution the unconstitutional parliament had made.

    It backfired magnificently.

    The current 18 year old amendment is just a red herring intended to distract.

    Rihanna was also a red herring (or a naked red woman) meant to distract.

    They are bluffs intended to make people who can’t think for themselves believe everything is fine and in control.

    However, all Ms. Mockley succeeded in doing is jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

    Think about it, Barbados may still be a Constitutional Monarchy and not a Republic with HRH as Head of State and no President!!

    What happens to the legacy of the so called first female Prime Minister of Barbados?

    It all may be exposed as a great pretense by a great pretender.


  43. You do realise reference to ‘red woman’ is being used with a derogatory meaning by a red man?


  44. “You do realise reference to ‘red woman’ is being used with a derogatory meaning by a red man?”

    went over my head, but you should realise John Knox lost his frigging mind a very long time ago


  45. DavidFebruary 11, 2022 9:18 AM

    You do realise reference to ‘red woman’ is being used with a derogatory meaning by a red man?

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

    Do you consider Father Harcourt Blackett to be a Red Man?

    Neither he nor I run around naked … to the best of my knowledge

    The whole show with Rihanna with all her bosums exposed was meant simply as a distraction.

    It was a pretense intended to fool the masses.

    Prince Charles was just included to lend some authenticity.

    Now, a constitutional parliament is needed to avoid the whole show of becoming a republic being rendered null and void.

    Rihanna and Prince Charles were merely props in the pretense.


  46. DavidFebruary 11, 2022 9:09 AM

    Yes a dissenting voice is important but so is Vox Populi!
    Xxcccc
    Except that the Constitution makes room for correction
    Next


  47. A legacy is at stake here!!


  48. You may not realise it but Ms. Mockley is in the fire.

    We will see if she is flame resistant, she may well be.


  49. 555dubstreet February 11, 2022 9:39 AM #: “went over my head, but you should realise John Knox lost his frigging mind a very long time ago…”

    https://media.tenor.com/images/b056d7d835ff43ee381a6efbbf1f14db/tenor.gif

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading