Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

, , ,

Fines for Ignoring Police Help?

mia mottley and dale marshall_crime

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Concern is rising about the Police (Amendment) Bill 2025. The concern is encapsulated in a note sent to BU’s inbox.

The Police (Amendment) Bill, 2025 currently before the Senate of Barbados will make it a crime punishable by a $10,000 fine and/or 1 year in prison to decline to offer assistance to any police officer if that officer asks. This is the case even if to offer such assistance puts you in a life threatening situation.

This is the offending section:


Refusing to aid member of Service assaulted

68. Any person who, when called upon to aid and assist a member of the Service who, while in the execution of his duty, is assaulted or resisted or in danger of being assaulted or resisted, refuses or neglects to aid and assist the member of the service is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $10 000 or to imprisonment for one year or to both.

Basically, if a person waving a gun calls a Police officer an “Asshole” and the Police officer thinks that they are “in danger of being assaulted or resisted”, they can tell you to help disarm the person and if you decline you can be fined $10,000 and sent to prison for a year.

This is absolutely unacceptable in a democratic society. 

A quick (re)search by the blogmaster revealed the worrisome clause is rooted in the historical legal traditions of the Norman English system, where sheriffs could summon citizens to enforce the king’s law. Such a clause in today’s society seems to be not fit for purpose.

To avoid misuse by the Barbados Police Service and the Barbados Defence Force at a watershed time in Barbados’ history AND also peace of mind to citizens, it seems a no-brainer for the government to take the opportunity to clawback on clause 68 of the Police (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

In fact further research has revealed that countries in the region like Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Bahamas and Belize do not have a similar law with the intent to penalise citizens as proposed in Clause 68. Why is Barbados a lone country in our region promoting a law from our storied and sullied colonial past?

It is opportune Prime Minister Mia Mottley has signalled a clawback is coming to the Interception of Communications Bill to be advised in a national telecast scheduled for 7:30PM tonight. Hopefully she will also take the opportunity to do same to the Police (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

The Police (Amendment) Bill, 2025Download

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

37 responses to “Fines for Ignoring Police Help?”

  1. Cuhdear Bajan Avatar
    Cuhdear Bajan

    I am old, and I have always been a coward, frighten for my skin. “So sorry officer I can’t help,” even though I’ve had, and still have close relatives who are policemen.

    I expect them to protect ME. But I can’t/won’t do a thing for them.

    So maybe jail for me, because I don’t have any $10,000, today only $32.88.

    Signed
    Old, poor and cowardly

    P.S. And please David don’t tell me that I am being frivolous. I just keepin’ it real, fah real.

  2. David Avatar
    David

    A majority of Barbadians will not assist not because they don’t care but more a sign of the times. Look at what happened to that elderly man outside the credit union.

  3. John A Avatar
    John A

    @ David

    No law can be implemented that will DEMAND that a citizen MUST BY LAW, place their body in danger in order to assist a police. Surely in any constitution that law would go against the right of a citizen. In a court of law a good defence attorney will tear holes in that clause based on the danger posed to their UNARMED client.

    Of course if that is going to be the case you better do like the US constitution and give each citizen the right to bare arms. Cause there is no way a citizen can be expected with a mop stick, to go up against a criminal with a AK47!

    Now if you want to change clause 68 to say that anyone standing in the way of an officer doing their job, will be fined $10,000 or a year in jail, you got my full support.

  4. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    Making a Citizen’s Arrest.

  5. David Avatar
    David

    @John A

    The clause is already in the existing police act.

  6. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    In the UK, it is generally considered an offense to refuse to assist a police officer when they reasonably require help during an arrest, particularly if a breach of the peace is involved.

  7. Artax Avatar
    Artax

    “Basically, if a person waving a gun calls a Police officer an “Asshole” and the Police officer thinks that they are “in danger of being assaulted or resisted”, they can tell you to help disarm the person and if you decline you can be fined $10,000 and sent to prison for a year.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    @ David

    The above comment is essentially a misrepresentation of Cap, 68.

    I believe a more appropriate example would be, if an officer attempted to arrest an individual who resisted to the extent that placed the officer “in danger of being assaulted.”

    Remember, a few months ago a video was circulating on social media, in which a police officer was attempting to arrest an individual, who resisted and threw the officer on the road before escaping.
    Under those circumstances, had the policeman asked someone for assistance, and he refused, then that person, if convicted, would be liable to a fine of $10,000 or a year imprisonment.

    However, let’s examine the scenario reasonably and rationally.

    Anyone, even a policer officer, confronting someone ‘waving a gun,’ would obviously fear for their personal safety.

    Officers in Barbados are usually armed, and are trained in de-escalation and firearm disarming techniques.

    Civilians are not.

    As such, a police officer would not seek the assistance of anyone to subdue and disarm an individual brandishing a firearm.

    To do so places that person, the officer, and citizens present at the scene in imminent danger.

    Police have a responsibility to protect the public from imminent threats to life (i.e. prioritise public safety).
    De-escalation, deploying tasers, or using as much force as is necessary to subdue that person (shoot to disable).

  8. David Avatar
    David

    @Artax

    Do you agree to leave the clause in the Bill? Bearing in Mum it is a legacy clause from colonial times?

  9. John A Avatar
    John A

    @ Artax

    So my question would be then what happens if the ALLEGED perpetrator gets hurt or even killed in the process of arrest? What is there to stop the ALLEGED perpetrator’s family taking the citizen that assisted to court for damages? They could even bring a civil case against the citizen that assisted the police, stating that the citizen was not authorized to act in the matter, as he is not a recognised member of law enforcement.

    Like everything else this matter needs to be addressed from all angles.

  10. John A Avatar
    John A

    On the tint issue here is another example of poor introduction by the state as outlined in the below scenario.

    So I being a law abiding citizen went to get my tint tested even though I new it was quite light. I was told by the official tester at a designated state test location that is was good. I asked if he had an official sticker he could place on my windshield or a certificate of inspection, only to be told no as there is no such document of confirmation available. So now if I am stopped by the police and they claim it is too dark, I have no document to show confirming that it was inspected at one of the state sites and approved as being legal.

    In God’s name what was the purpose of the test sites? Only so you could be told ” you good go long?”

  11. Cuhdear Bajan Avatar
    Cuhdear Bajan

    2John A 1t 2:48 PM “give each citizen the right to bare arms.”

    We already have the right to bare arms, that is “arm hole” dresses and muscle shirts.

    However we do not have the right to bear arms/carry weapons. And may we never ever have it.

  12. Cuhdear Bajan Avatar
    Cuhdear Bajan

    @John A “Now if you want to change clause 68 to say that anyone standing in the way of an officer doing their job, will be fined $10,000 or a year in jail, you got my full support.”

    I second this.

  13. Cuhdear Bajan Avatar
    Cuhdear Bajan

    @Artax “Remember, a few months ago a video was circulating on social media, in which a police officer was attempting to arrest an individual, who resisted and threw the officer on the road before escaping.
    Under those circumstances, had the policeman asked someone for assistance, and he refused, then that person, if convicted, would be liable to a fine of $10,000 or a year imprisonment.”

    So if a Bad John [not you of course John A] is big enough and strong enough to throw down a whole big, trained, armed policeman, what am I supposed to do, spank the Bad John with my walking stick?

    Not me. I outta day even faster than the Bad John, even dropping my walking stick.

    WE PAY our MP’s and senior civil servants fairly well. They have to draft better laws than this.

  14. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    What utter nonsense! The police are trained to defend themselves and paid to do the job they signed up for. Their job is to protect civilians, not the other way around.

    I am obligated to do no harm to anybody. I am not obligated to help a fellow! I and I alone will make that decision to risk my life! My life is MINE, not theirs, MINE!

    What’s next – the draft? Who the hell do these people think they are? They are governors, not bloody rulers! No human being like me will make such decisions for me.

    They had better get that out of the bill or it could be 30:0 the other way next election! Getting too big for their blasted boots now!

    This could very well be the answer to all of Ralph Thorne’s prayers.

  15. David Avatar
    David

    To repeat, the clause already exists in the Police Act, CAP 167.

    https://www.barbadoslawcourts.gov.bb/assets/content/pdfs/statutes/PoliceCAP167.pdf

    “
    “any person who… without reasonable excuse, fails to give such member any other assistance which he may reasonably require to be given for the purpose of exercising his powers or performing his duties under this Act, is liable on summary conviction to a fine of ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both.”

  16. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    My bad! I have only been in scan mode on BU lately.

    Then I am definitely in favour of removing it. Don’t suppose it has ever been enforced even in times when people viewed the government as rulers instead of the servants we now expect them to be.

    If they tried it now there would be hell to pay.

  17. Cuhdear Bajan Avatar
    Cuhdear Bajan

    @Donna “This could very well be the answer to all of Ralph Thorne’s prayers.”

    Well Ralph looking real-real happy on the front page of today’s Sunday Sun.

  18. Cuhdear Bajan Avatar
    Cuhdear Bajan

    PM reminding us that we should not bear false witness.

  19. John2 Avatar
    John2

    Reasonable and reasonably don’t mean anything ?

    Would it be reasonable to ask an unarmed citizen to assist in apprehending an armed person?
    Or an old woman to assist in apprehended a young strong man ?

  20. Artax Avatar
    Artax

    “So, my question would be then what happens if the ALLEGED perpetrator gets hurt or even killed in the process of arrest? What is there to stop the ALLEGED perpetrator’s family taking the citizen that assisted to court for damages?”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    @ John A

    Very good questions.

    Bear in mind, “Refusing to aid members of the Force assaulted,” isn’t ANYTHING NEW, as it was already in the 1961 Police Act, XI Offences, Cap 68.
    The Amendment increased the fine from $500 to $10,000, and term of imprisonment from 6 months to 1 year.

    Under the law, when confronted with such situations, police officers can only USE as MUCH FORCE AS IS NECESSARY or JUSTIFIABLE to neutralise a threat.

    They are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for THEIR ACTIONS……

    …… and can find themselves before the Court if they use excessive force.

    The zeal an UNTRAINED individual may display in the process of assisting a policeman apprehend an “alleged perpetrator,” may lead him/her to USE MORE FORCE than is NECESSARY under the law, thereby leading to an unfortunate outcome.

    What laws are there that PROTECT the person who renders assistance from either criminal or civil litigation?

    Also, how about concern being given to the outcome, if the individual rendering assistance is either injured or killed during the process of apprehending and subduing the suspect?

    In MY opinion, Cap. 68 should be REMOVED from the Act.

    As Donna mentioned in her August 17, 2025, 7:42 pm contribution:

    “Don’t suppose it has ever been enforced even in times when people viewed the government as rulers instead of the servants, we now expect them to be. If they tried it now there would be hell to pay.”

  21. Artax Avatar
    Artax

    “Do you agree to leave the clause in the Bill? Bearing in mind it is a legacy clause from colonial times?”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    @ David

    I believe the clause should be REMOVED from the Bill.

  22. John A Avatar
    John A

    Let us all be reasonable and admit that tint and wire tapping is not the answer. Have you heard of any raids being conducted on the homes of the drug dons? The motor cycles up to yesterday evening were still doing the dog on the roads, many with their darkly tinted helmets and ski masks on. Has government insisted and installed cameras in customs yet? How many of the cameras installed at junctions are working and being monitored? I could go and on but I am sure you see my point.

    We fail to use the tools at our disposal to fight crime because they may be “inconvenient” to apply, so we bring up new distractions so as to appear to be doing something about it. Anyone with a grain of common sense can see what is happening here and all the long talk can not distract from it either.

  23. David Avatar
    David

    @Artax

    We have an example of a policeman using excessive force on a civilian in the video posted in BU’s sidebar. Despite a promise for over a year by Commissioner Boyce nothing. Where is the confidence in the BPS to come from if officers engage in excessive force?

  24. David Avatar
    David

    @John A

    Let us try to be fair. We have to trust the BPS that tinting and wiretapping are tactics that will assist. There is not everything they can make public. Crime fighting in this day and age must be difficult.

  25. 555dubstreet Avatar
    555dubstreet

    Americanisation of Barbadian Crime x Crime Fighting x Justice System

    Trends in Barbados should be compared with established historical trends in ‘developed nations’ like America

    Police target small fish and blackmail them under threat to give up information on bigger fish and fat cats further up the food chain in exchange for reduced sentences for leverage. If they agree to wear a wiretap and are recorded in an incriminating encounter with another criminal which can be used as evidence then there own smaller crime will be ignored.

    There was a plan to capture every black youth in the criminal justice system with random stop and search. There was a Police saying was that if a black youth was stopped and did not admit to having a criminal record then he must be lying.

    3 Strikes laws meant petty criminals were given life sentences for small crimes accumulating in their criminal record such as stealing a pizza or being found with a half a joint.

    The prison industrial complex was expanded into cities housing thousands of inmates with thousands of employees. Louisiana State Penitentiary is the largest correctional facility in the United States by population. In 2010, the prison had 5,100 inmates and 1,700 employees. In 2010, the racial composition of the inmates was 76% black and 24% white. 71% of inmates were serving a life sentence.

    The black community and Hip Hop community developed a ghetto code ‘Stop Snitching’ to stop the incarceration of ghetto communities by cooperating with Police.

  26. John2 Avatar
    John2

    68. Any person who, when called upon to aid and assist a member of the Force who, while in the execution of his duty, is assaulted or resisted or in danger of being assaulted or resisted, refuses or neglects to aid and assist accordingly, shall be liable, on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction, to a fine of five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for six months.

    Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    The above is taken from the link provided by David aug 17th. 6:42 pm

    I have no problem with this law as it seem to be made for the protection of the officer if s/he is in danger and no “ back up” is available at that moment.

  27. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    “Let us try to be fair. We have to trust the BPS that tinting and wiretapping are tactics that will assist. There is not everything they can make public”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Boss
    This is NOT trying to be fair…
    It is being SILLY.

    Wiretapping has be THE NORM in Barbados now since Cricket World Cup 1.
    Crime has gotten MEASURABLY worse since then.
    What has INCREASED NOTICEABLY has been the unexplained level of political control exercised by some at the top.
    – Ministers resigning without explanation
    – MPs / ministers WALKING AWAY with flimsy excuses
    – Key players literally fading from sight
    – vocal opponents publicly removed from office

    If wiretapping was a useful crime tactic, there would be HARDLY ANY crime in Barbados.

    The tint nonsense is even more stupid – as an alleged tactic.
    Barbados is a little shiite place. Literally every vehicle is know by sight as to it’s ownership, base etc. ANY vehicle seen in suspicious circumstances can therefore be casually intercepted at the TIME AND PLACE that best suits the police.
    Wunna does watch too much Miami Vice nonsense.

    Besides…
    What happens when it is difficult to see into a vehicle when it is raining? Will we be required to keep the windows dry during rainy days?

    What about when the damn car is DIRTY as shiite? We passing a law against dirty windows too?
    Steupsss!!

    Yet another emotional outburst from the top – that is being pushed by loyal puppets because they are scared stiff… or just plain dumb.

    The BASIC REQUIREMENT for the reduction of ALL crime in the country, …is for EXAMPLES of RESPECT for the Law to start at the TOP…

    But perhaps THAT is to SIMPLE to grasp.

  28. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    John 2,

    I don’t get paid to be back up. And nobody can deputise me into labour without even a contract outlining parameters or conditions and without training. There should be no human being like myself ordering me to put my life in danger. It is my life. I decide what it is worth. That is my right.

    Likewise, nobody should be allowed to draft me into an army. It is my right to decide who my enemies are and if I want to fight them. If the country is then taken over by hostile forces, I would just have to bear the consequences. Likewise when crime overruns the country. I weigh my own risks. This should be my choice, my decision. The government does not own me!

    In this situation, what happens if I get hurt or even killed and I am sole breadwinner and caretaker of my children? My first responsibility is to be there for them, not to be there for a policeman whom I pay to be there for me. Is the government going to step in immediately and “make my children whole”? (As if that is even possible!) It should be my decision to help or not to help somebody. My obligation is to do no harm to anybody, and in the case of a policeman in the course of his duties, not to hinder.

    Step into the twenty-first century and think – “I am not a slave. No human being or entity can own me.” Nobody should be dipping their grubby hands into that which I have earned as a fine for being a coward or otherwise being cautious. Neither should they be relieving me of my freedom for not doing anybody a thing.

    This is different from compelling me to pay taxes. If I use even one service provided by taxpayers, I am obligated to contribute.

  29. Artax Avatar
    Artax

    Donna August 18, 2025 at 12:10 pm

    Excellent!!

    You’ve often served as ‘a voice of reason’ in this forum.

    I’m sure you’re aware that, when issuing wanted bulletins, law enforcement normally ADVISES people AGAINST CONFRONTING or TRYING to APPREHEND wanted individuals, especially if those persons are deemed to be ‘armed and dangerous.’

    Instead, the public is encouraged to contact the police directly or Crimestoppers with the relevant information that may lead to capturing the individual.

    Why?

    Police officers have the training and resources necessary to adequately manage those situations, and to safely apprehend and arrest wanted persons.

    Civilians do not.

    Civilians may inadvertently commit an offence while attempting to detain someone, and may face legal repercussions as a result.

    The police will not…… unless they use excessive force.

  30. John2 Avatar
    John2

    Since we all like to be extreme.

    A man is pounding and choking the life out of a woman. A off duty police woman is nearby . What should she do ? Call and report then wait and watch until backup arrive? Or because she is PAID , TRAINED ( and sworn)to protect to defend the public SHE MUST INTERVENE?

    She intervenes and is over powered and assaulted by the perpetrator who continues to beat both women four men on the block are asked by the cop to help pull off and hold down the man until the backup arrive but the all refused and just watch as the man beat the crap out of both women ( end up in hospital)

    Xxxxxxxxx

    If I am on jury for this case and one man provides enuff evidence to show he was incapable of being any help ( strong hand broken and in cast) I would find him not guilty.
    If however any of the men were capable of lending assistance to the cop and came before me using @ Donna reason as as excuse, I would have no problem voting to throw the ass in jail

    Police are trained to defend self and public but the are also human not super hero

    I don’t believe the police would make unreasonable requests from the public for assistance . I would even put my neck on the chopping block that it is part of they training to only involve the public as a last resort = for most of the reasons espoused already and it is also the reason no one can recall this law being used

    @ Donna As the sole bread winner of the family u step out in the raid tomorrow and a car cripple u or send u back to ur maker then what????

    —————————

  31. David Avatar
    David

    The bottom line is that it is not practical for a policeman to request John Citizen to assist in the apprehension of an individual, therefore, it should not be included in any Barbados statute.

  32. David Avatar
    David

    Verla blasts change to Police Act

    by MARIA BRADSHAW

    mariabradshaw@nationnews.com

    GOVERNMENT has come under attack for an amendment to the Police Act which imposes an increased fine of $10 000 on anyone who refuses or neglects to aid a police officer being assaulted.

    Verla De Peiza, chairman of the Democratic Labour Party’s (DLP) Commission on Crime, has described it as insensitive and also dangerous, particularly in the wake of today’s level of crime and violence in Barbados.

    The section dealing with ‘Refusing To Aid Member of Service Assaulted’ states: “Any person when called upon to aid and assist a member of the [Barbados Police] Service who, while in the execution of his duty, is assaulted or resisted, refuses or neglects to aid and assist the member of the service, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $10 000 or imprisonment for one year, or both.”

    Pointing out that the Act was already passed in the House of Assembly, De Peiza, an attorney, posted on her social media page Sunday: “And just so, we are liable to get convictions, without even trying.”

    The post generated over 100 comments, with many Barbadians expressing concern about not being made aware of that section when the amendment was debated. They questioned if, with the high level of violence especially involving firearms, citizens were supposed to put themselves in danger to protect police officers.

    However, Attorney General Dale Marshall told the DAILY NATION yesterday that it was actually made law by the DLP back in 1975, and at the time the fine was $500. He said his Government had only expanded to bring it into modern times.

    “The offence was introduced into the Act in 1975 by the DLP. All of the fines for offences under the Police Act have been brought into line with modern fines. Fines that obtained in 1975 can hardly be kept in force 50 years later,” he said.

    However, an unimpressed De Peiza remained critical of the major difference in the amount.

    “I stand by my statement because when you have a fee that is literally $1 short of being an indictable matter, you are removing choice from people. For some, it will be a matter of payment because they could pay and for others, it is a choice,” she said.

    “In an age and a climate where the type of crime, especially violent crime, has increased, you’re asking a population that does not have the training to run to the assistance or become a criminal. Because when you have a conviction . . . the implications and repercussions are great.

    “So to say, ‘Oh, this got put in place before’ does not mean that in your reviewing of it, you don’t take account of our very changed circumstances and decide that this is no longer reasonable.”

    The former president of the DLP added: “It’s a legislation that is totally tone deaf to the Barbados that we live in right now. Don’t tell me about nothing that happened when I was barely born.”

    While she admitted the law may never have been used, De Peiza charged: “But clearly it is under the radar of this present administration because there’s no other reason to go and tinker with it.”

    She also condemned Government for not making the public aware of this particular section.

    “Then you do it and say nothing. It is that . . . element that really rubs me the wrong way outside of the fact that you have no merit. I mean, who has $10 000 sitting down? You understand we are in a completely different Barbados? Stop it,” she declared.

    “They said nothing about this. I’m going to be the one to speak up . . . . I’m not even doing it for any gain. I saw this after it had gone to Parliament because I did not have access to it before it went to Parliament. So it has passed the House [of Assembly] and as far as I am aware, it is headed to the Senate on Wednesday.”

    Source: Nation

  33. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    The AG is sooo pathetic…
    “It was the DLP that did it…”

    So wunna don’t THINK fuh wunna SELVES????
    The DLP ALSO did CAHILL, and sewerage, and MUCH other shiite,
    …so this is how wunna roll?
    Why do you think they have NO seats now?
    Steupsss!

    In ANY damn case, back then it actually made a LITTLE BIT of sense, since the police were unarmed, the criminals were unarmed (- and generally uneducated,) and the worse that was likely was that one would get a nasty cussing.
    Now, even in standing nearby, a citizen may be shot by EITHER the criminal …or by the damn police…

    Does Smiley REALLY think that copying and pasting OLD Laws makes sense in such a CHANGED scenario…?

    What a place!
    What a joker!
    Now we see why the big boss has to do all the talking… using the emotional angle

  34. David Avatar
    David

    We have laws in the books that have outlived their relevance, this is known. The AG’s comment is more political than substance.

  35. John A Avatar
    John A

    David you have to bare in mind when that law was introduced originally the event of every idiot having a gun was not the case. Today every idiot has a gun and the law abiding citizen will catch ass to get a gun license. The situation therefore makes that Law obsolete, as the risk to a law abiding citizen is way too great now.

  36. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    John 2,

    You are completely missing the point. If something happens to a parent in the course of a normal day, that is just the way the cookie crumbles. One should try to be responsible to increase one’s chances of sticking around todo one’s duty to care for those whose presence in the world was due to your decisions and actions. The issue here is that a government seeks to make my health and life theirs to dispose of. They believe that they can order me to forget my primary responsibility to my dependents and put the wellbeing of some stranger above my own. Who the hell do they think they are to order me to do that? They cannot make that decision for me!

    As for the scenario you first conjured up, same damn thing. One would hope that people would try to help, even I might try to help. But who the ass is Mia Mottley, a mere mortal, to say that I must.

    In a free country with human rights, a coward cannot be ordered to suddenly become a hero, especially at a moment’s notice.

    Depriving a person of the funds they need to feed and care for their own children for being a coward and doing nothing? Taking a person away from caring for their children for a year for being a coward and doing nothing.

    What exactly is a reasonable request for assistance anyway? Who decides that on the spot, the policeman or me? I am not in the habit of trusting a stranger’s judgment over my own.

    And I never will.

    I would love to see them try to enforce this law! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  37. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    My memory is also good enough to remember an election campaign in which the BLP, of which the current Attorney General and the current Prime Minister were prominent members, made fun of the DLP’s focus on “Crime and Violence”. I distinctly remember a very mocking advertisement in which David Thompson was portrayed as a fool, answering every question posed to him with, “Crime and violence”.

    So, now crime and violence are hugely and directly affecting every aspect of our lives, the tourism industry, the delivery of health services, the agricultural sector, transport (threatening to leave workers beside the road at night), the educational system, the wayside food vendors and other businesses and waterworkspeople fixing pipes, senior citizens doing their banking business, supermarket shopping, coming home from a cultural event, socialising in their “gallery” with friends to escape the heat … now they want me to understand how serious it is, and want to deputise me to fight crime?

    Was not Dale Marshall Attorney General on a previous occasion? Was not Mia Mottley Attorney General at some point as well?

    Lookah, move do! Tink I fuhget? Be off with yuh bossy bill! Lookah how Ralph Thorne get bless!

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading