Senator Mallalieu didn’t mince words in his contribution in the Upper Chamber. He backed the Interception and Communications Bill, 2025, calling it common sense. Barbados’ version he opined is tame compared to Singapore. His matter of fact encapsulation of where Barbados is today he verbalised as -: “People don’t feel safe in today’s Barbados…we are managing a burning platform”
Did Senator Mallalieu ‘nail’ it?
Discover more from Barbados Underground
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
37 responses to “Did Senator Mallalieu ‘nail’ it?”
-
It was typically boring (I lasted 33 seconds and tun it off)
Spies and Politicians are so lame.
Criminals will work around all measures implemented
Civilians lose rights with sloppy and lazy Governments and Agencies dumb down use of technology
the Shitstem is a Monster with never ending mission creep into every aspect of life
Did Bounty Killer “Nail It”
-
Mallalieu is just another status quo lackie – who is there to kowtow to the Mafia.
Who can intelligently compare Singapore’s measures with Barbados’…?
– when our politicians can ‘lose’ hundreds of millions of STATE dollars in projects such as Four Seasons, HOPE, STEAL, NIS, and almost EVERY SINGLE undertaking…. WITHOUT EVEN A REPORT?
– when NO ONE knows who actually OWNS the various beneficiaries of these massive losses from our treasury
– or who benefits from the lotta foolish monies spent on ‘cultural nonsense’
– and whose families and business associates are recipients of state largesseThe senator should look into how Singapore would have dealt with such blatant stealing…
…or at least keep his trap shut.What a place!
No wonder the Mafia could NOT handle people like Caswell and Tricia in the shiite senate…
It is clearly a place for lackies…What a place!!
-
Someone needs to tell Mallalieu that his role is to ensure that those in the lower house SET THE NEEDED EXAMPLES of lawfulness and community focus FIRST….
..after this is in place THEN they are in a position to spy on citizens and to judge others.“… first get the beam of timber out of your wunna OWN eyes, and then wunna can SPY clearly to take the tiny particle out of our Bajan’s brass bowl eyes”
Matt 7:5..lotta shiite!
-
When I hear people comparing Barbados to Singapore I just bust ma guts laughing! Barbados will NEVER be a Singapore because our leaders need the vote to stay in power. You think you will ever live to see Barbados use their washpan of laws the way Singapore uses theirs? No you will not, because our leaders know come elections they need the vote from the idiot with the motorcycle on one wheel with no insurance to keep them in power.
We are an indisiplined society with no respect for law and order, which has been shown to us there is no price to pay for non adherence to. Singapore on the other hand is a society where discipline is taught and respected from early, because they know their country enforces law with action and not nuff long talk.
Our problem starts and ends with our weak leaders. We have the society we have because they are unwilling to enforce our laws with the urgency needed today. Instead they bring more laws to distract us from the fact they can’t enforce the current laws to deal with the crime situation. Who can’t see that is our reality better wake up and smell the roses, or in our case gunpowder.
-
@John A
Our leaders come from among us. Maybe we will find the way from the immigrants being attracted to our island. Just a thought.
-
Ref David: Not the Africans; a Nigerian scammed me last week.
-
@ David
Truth is this government is in a position to make the moves Singapore made with adherence to laws, as we are basically a one party state with no opposition. Our leaders therefore should have no real fear of a swing in government if laws are seriously inforced.
That is why I don’t understand why we have not moved on crime in a serious matter as based on the above there is really no political risk to this government for doing it.
-
@JohnA
“That is why I don’t understand why we have not moved on crime in a serious matter as based on the above there is really no political risk to this government for doing it.”May well be another type of “risk”
-
Perhaps Bushie IS a REAL idiot …as many here surmise…
But can ANYONE tell this idiot why it is necessary to ‘legalize’ wiretapping in order to tackle crime – when we ALL KNOW that this has been ongoing now for DECADES …and yet crime has been growing – while this SECRET wiretapping was ongoing.
SURELY they must have collected LOADS of juicy information…
How come we have seen no big-up moves against crime?Now, in a BRILLIANT move, we look to make the whole thing LEGAL – so that the criminals are now FULLY aware of the need for caution…
…and we are to believe that crime will somehow be addressed .??!!If the lotta illegal undercover info proved to be so ‘useless’, what will be different with targeted dirt that is approved by a judge?
Perhaps there is more in the mortar than a pestle ..?
What a place!!
-
@Johnn A
There is popularity risk.
-
@Bush Tea
The question maybe simple – die how long can you do questionable things in the dark? The rising crime situation probably calls for a more aggressive approach with the support of the courts.
-
If it’s illegal then it cannot be used in court for prosecution
If it is legal then it cannot be used in court -
* If it is legal it CAN be used in court
-
“If it’s illegal then it cannot be used in court for prosecution.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I agree that, if wiretapping is LEGAL, the information gathered THEREFROM would be ADMISSIBLE in the law Courts.
Intercept information can be used to gather valuable INTELLIGENCE or EVIDENCE on the activities of suspected criminals, ultimately leading to their arrest and prosecution.
However, we should be a bit cautious that using such information may inadvertently make criminals aware of the particular methods police used to intercept their communications.
As such, criminals would obviously adopt counter-measures to avoid interception, thereby hindering law enforcement’s ability to intercept calls.
-
@ Artax
All they will do is use Whatsapp which is an encrypted service. They are also a host of encrypted online services which show numbers in the USA as the source number as well. The wire tapping thing worked great in the 80s and 90s, but I don’t think today it will prove that effective.
Having said that I would still support it once used with enough information on the person tapped to warrant such an activity.
-
@John A
It is not that clear cut. Although it is not confirmed that the messaging services have back doors there is healthy speculation that they cooperate with governments.
-
“If it is legal it CAN be used in court”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL with John2
Skippa, you are watching the WRONG detective movies hear…!!
Either that, or they are putting something ‘extra’ in your kool aid.The data gathered from wire tapping is used to collect HARD EVIDENCE that WILL stand up in court.
The often nebulous ‘intelligence’ that tends to be wire tapped – with nick names, codes, jargon, etc provides the solid BASIS for effective law enforcement to find and secure PROPER evidence.Don’t be led by the nose with such idiot excuses.
The need for legitimacy is related to TRANSPARENCY – not court evidence.
It is to ENSURE that Ralph, Caswell and Tricia. etc are not victimized for personal, political or religious reasons.What will the prosecutor do – arrive in court with a blurry video of a conspirator offering to buy “some stuff”? … or will police arrange to be on location of the planned deal – with handcuffs at the ready…?
In which case, such intelligence is best executed SECRETLY.
So kindly EXPLAIN it’s abject FAILURE for us since everybody bout here was ‘fuh cup’…
Perhaps it was too busily OTHERWISE engaged…Either this latest ‘legal’ thing is another knee jerk distraction (JUST LIKE THE TINT)
Or the illegality became such an open secret that it now needs to be corrected …
… or we are even more BLINDED that even Bushie feared….What a place!!!
-
@ David
I am fairly sure they can not tap a whatsapp call made from whafsapp to whatsapp. The reason is not only is it incripted, but it does not work via phone but via data.
-
@John A
Unlike you the blogmaster is unwilling to be sure about such things. Snowden blew up that trusting nature years ago.
-
Bushie
Now what makes wiretapping an illegal act in this case
-
@ John A
There is no such thing as “CAN NOT….”Indeed, the VERY FACT that whatsapp is touted to be ‘encrypted’ should be a red flag for those who observe such things.
The powerful EVIL forces of this world ACTUALLY PLAN their nefarious objectives meticulously, unlike us BBs.The only effective defence is to put on the ‘whole armor of God’ …
…your helmet of salvation, the breastplate of righteousness, belt of truth, shoes of the gospel of peace, your shield of faith, and take up your sword – the Word.Then, though you walk through the very valley of the shadow of death, … you need fear NO evil….
What a world!!
-
@ John 2
What is ‘illegal’? … a sick bird?Boss, something is only ‘illegal’ because some set of fallible BBs say that it is.
If they previously said NOTHING on the matter, then it was neither here nor there.Is it ‘illegal’ for a child to be riding up and down the damn highway on a POWERED bicycle at highway speeds?
Common sense dictates that it SHOULD be…If some international albino centric pirates provide you with FANTASTIC ‘trojan horse’ technologies – that encourages you to share all your private data on line – having been ‘assured’ that it is ‘end to end encrypted’…(whatever the Hell THAT means)…
What then is ‘illegal’ about someone ‘tapping’ into your freely provided data?Are you aware that ALL this information sits on somebody’s computer – somewhere, awaiting analysis?
Are you aware that who ever ‘encrypted’ your data will also be able to reverse the process?
You MUST know that the service providers have full access….The POLITICAL problem comes where it gets out, that such intercepts have been used for NEFARIOUS reasons….
What do you do then?
…make the process ‘legal’.
…claim it is suddenly about ‘fighting crime’
…talk shiite about national securityKool aid is easily disbursed into brass bowls.
-
I think u would do best if u just forget about about the legal vs illegal and just say wiretapping
-
@ Bushie
Dem could tap me anytime the most they would hear is me cussing them when they need it. LOL
I only use whatsapp as an example. They are so many options out there from services you buy online that offer you a American or British number, which when tied to programs like Norton have some serious levels of protection. Technology is changing so dam fast who knows what the next frontier will be. What we do know is it will come in some form of online or satellite based data platform probably.
-
Thorne: Public with us in rejecting bill
Opposition Leader Ralph Thorne is still not happy with Government’s move to amend the controversial
Interception of Communications Bill, 2025,
which was recently passed in the House of Assembly and amended in the Senate on Wednesday.
He was speaking in the House yesterday after Speaker Arthur Holder announced the amendments to the Interception of Communication Bill, 2025, the Criminal Proceedings (Witness Anonymity) Bill, 2025, and the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, and the Government side moved a resolution to effect this.
A passionate Thorne said it was the Interception of Communications Bill that deeply concerned Barbadians, charging that it was infringing on their constitutional rights.
“If the Government believes that it is a casual matter, the protest in public spaces ought to sensitise the Government at this stage that the public takes this legislative initiative very, very seriously, insofar as it collides with a constitutional right.
“But, of course, the legislation quite properly indicates that it is an exception to the Constitution and expresses itself as an exception to the Constitution, but the public still believes that the right to privacy and the right to conduct private telephone calls is a sacred right.”
The Democratic Labour Party political leader said he could not support the bill as drafted or the amendments.
“We that are here and in the Senate support police action in which there is interception of communications exclusively pertaining to criminal activity, but any legislation that gives powers to a minister or indeed any politician to participate in the practice of intercepting telephone calls, we must oppose it, we must resist it, we must object to it. I think the public is with us on that . . . . This is a matter of military intervention and not for political intervention,” he declared.
The Christ Church South Member of Parliament said Government was wise to remove the exemption clause allowing the Commissioner of Police and the director for anti-terrorism to bypass judicial approval for wire-tapping warrants.
“We protested that Clause 5(2B) ought not to have been there. The mischief against which we complained was an interception conducted without the authority of the court.”
Not resolved
He added: “In removing Section 5(2B) . . . the problem still has not been solved because 5(2) contains other bypasses of the court . . . so the deletion of 5(2B) does not solve the problem. The public needs to know that there are still sections in this legislation which allows phone-tapping to be done without resort to the court.
“Two members of this chamber came in here [on August 8] and told their colleagues that the only way in which you can tap somebody’s phone is if you went to the court. The learned Attorney General and the honourable Member for Christ Church East came in here and trumpeted aloud and abroad that phone-tapping could not be done unless you went through the court . . . . They may not have known, and I’m not going to accuse them of being liars and I will not. What I can do, I can accuse them of coming to this chamber without having read the legislation . . . . They embarrassed the whole Government.”
Thorne also highlighted the changes in Section 13(2) which deals with the duty of reporting, where those requesting the court’s permission to intercept communications must issue a report to the court.
The amendment, he said, replaced the word “authority” with “commission”. He pointed out that Section 1 dictates that the authorities submitting the report to the court must do the same to the Independent Monitoring Commission. This, he maintained, was wrong.
“You know that that is a sin in law . . . . When a court is overseeing something, the court ought to have exclusive jurisdiction. Nobody, no institution, must have equal jurisdiction . . . . We are saying that a report must not be given to a commission when it has also been given to a court.” (SG)
Source: Nation
-
@ Bush Tea,
Mallalieu and four of his white co workers are controlling our domestic real estate industry to such a degree that the racial demographics in our beloved Barbados is becoming undermined.
He’s certainly no lackey! The crackers are controlling Barbados.
“Senator Andrew Mallalieu is a distinguished Chartered Accountant and a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Since assuming leadership of Terra Caribbean in 1997, he has transformed the company into a regional powerhouse in real estate, building on a legacy of innovation and trust. A visionary leader and strategic thinker, Andrew plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of the Terra Group, guiding key client relationships and high-level initiatives that influence not just the company but the broader property landscape across Barbados and the Caribbean. As an Independent Senator in the Barbados Parliament, he brings deep expertise and balanced insight to national discussions. Widely respected for his thought leadership in property development and villa tourism, Andrew is a sought-after voice in both the private and public sectors”
-
Neither Mallalieu or Mia will tell you their dirty little story that the guns on our streets are largely due to Barbados real estate being propped up on the proceeds of money laundering. We can safely say that a large percentage of this money is drug related.
Both individuals and the lawyers on the island who facilitate these deals are fully aware of this fact.
So next time you see Mallalieu grandstanding on the stage, please inform him that it’s his industry who are the cogs in the wheel that are fuelling the gun violence in Barbados.
-
System own them
Babylon control them
System own them
So Johnny Power control themTools of the trade in Mystery Babylon
These laws are just to get a foot in the door for extra-legal activities which will be rolled out and built upon for the next 20+ years
Perhaps the best model to use to understand the surveillance diktats is the Slavery/Racism model in the Americas where every black person is blacklisted as a threat and chained with special laws to remove rights allowed to select privileged citizens allowed freedoms.
Perhaps it is USA sponsors dictating the way to go to compliant Barbados
In USA there has been 20+ years of abuse for surveillance laws and it is getting worse with the Mad Maga Potus who is like Caligua
(this article is more than one year old)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/16/house-fisa-government-surveillance-senate -
Laws of diminishing returns
BARBADOS’ PARLIAMENT has been busy, passing and amending laws that touch deeply on security, rights and governance – the Cybercrime Bill, tint regulations under the Road Traffic Act, the Interception of Communications Bill (“wiretapping”) and amendments to the Police Act.
Beyond their legal content, these measures carry important economic consequences – some obvious, some more subtle – that merit public debate.
Consider first the Cybercrime Bill. In an economy where banking, commerce and government services are increasingly digital, cybercrime is not just a security threat but an economic one. A serious breach can paralyse government operations – as we saw last year with the hacking of the Barbados Revenue Authority – undermine credibility and discourage international investors. By criminalising hacking, data theft and other online offences, the law provides deterrence and gives law enforcement modern tools, necessary preconditions for Barbados’ aspiration as a fintech and digital services hub.
Yet the law is also a double-edged sword. Some of its provisions are vague; enforcement in heavy-handed ways could stifle legitimate online innovation or expression. In a small economy dependent on its reputation, the line between necessary deterrence and regulatory overreach is thin. The economic cost of chilling innovation may be less visible than the cost of a ransomware attack, but no less real.
The new tint regulations, by contrast, seem mundane. Its logic is crime prevention (debatable) and road safety: heavily tinted windows make it harder for police to detect illegal activity and pose risks in traffic stops.
But the economic implications are immediate for ordinary Barbadians.
Tens of thousands of drivers must now strip or replace non-compliant tints, an unplanned expense at a time of high cost of living.
There is a modest silver lining – tint shops will see a bump in demand.
But this is a forced stimulus – citizens are spending, not because they want to, but because they must – diverting consumer spending away from other goods and services. Such diversion matters in an economy where consumer spending is the main engine of growth. Meanwhile, the state adds administrative and equipment costs. The question is whether any long-term reduction in crime clearly attributable to the regulations offsets the short-term fiscal and household burdens.
The wiretapping bill, perhaps the most controversial, sits at the intersection of security, privacy and economics. The government and other proponents argue that law enforcement needs the bill to combat organised crime and corruption. Stronger investigative powers might bolster Barbados’ credibility in global financial and security networks.
But credibility cuts both ways.
Without strong safeguards, such powers risk being perceived as tools of surveillance or political interference.
That perception matters, because international investors and institutions value democratic norms as much as they do low taxes. If the wiretapping bill undermines trust in governance, the economic consequences could rival the costs of crime itself. In such a climate, the intangible cost is trust.
The amendments to the Police Act are perhaps most striking in how they blur civil-military boundaries and shift civic responsibility. Soldiers have now been granted powers of arrest, effectively expanding the frontline of law enforcement.
On one level, this is a cost-saving strategy: rather than hiring more police officers, the state leverages the military it already funds. If this leads to quicker crime response, there may be economic dividends in lower crime-related losses. Yet the risks are also economic. Soldiers are trained for combat, not community policing.
If heavy-handed arrests or abuses occur, the cost could be reputational, undermining Barbados’ image as a rights-respecting democracy. Further, no one feels safe in countries where the military polices the streets.
The Act also introduces penalties for citizens who refuse to aid a police officer under attack with fines or imprisonment. This is a striking redistribution of responsibility. On paper, it enhances police protection; in practice, it makes ordinary citizens bear legal and economic risk. A worker who intervenes in such a situation could suffer injury, job loss or even death; one who does not could face fines. Either way, the burden of enforcement is shifted onto already strained households. This is an unfunded mandate – a cost imposed without compensation. It may increase resentment toward the very institution the law seeks to protect.
Together, these laws demonstrate a fundamental tension in governance: security is essential for growth, but the method of securing it can itself retard growth. Overreach or poor implementation risks eroding trust in government. The economic challenge is not whether to legislate – these are real threats that require response – but how to do so in ways that enhance security without undermining freedom, stifling innovation, or shifting unfair burdens onto citizens.
Professor Troy Lorde is an economist and Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus. Email troy. lorde@cavehill.uwi.edu
Source: Nation
-
Glad somebody has realised the resentment that ordering a civilian to place police safety above his own can induce. Is the life of a police officer more important than one’s own? I was already feeling the resentment and I know I wouldn’t be expected to do a thing. Too old and too female. But I do have a son.
Just yesterday, I saw a video online in which an off duty police officer in Connecticut spit in the face of a neighbour with whom he was having a dispute. When the victim called the police, he was informed that the off duty officer could not be charged for assault because there was no physical harm. Of course, that could not even be determined at that point. Saliva can spread deadly disease.
And so the victim asked a pertinent question, question – what would happen if he spat on that responding officer?
“Then you’d be arrested because I am a police officer,” was the reply.
That would surely make my blood boil!
-
@ John A
According to WhatsApp’s Information for Law Enforcement Agencies:
“We will search for and disclose information that is specified with particularity in an appropriate form of legal process and which we are reasonably able to locate and retrieve. We do not retain data for law enforcement purposes unless we receive a valid preservation request before a user has deleted that content from our service.”
“In the ordinary course of providing our service, WhatsApp does not store messages once they are delivered or transaction logs of such delivered messages. Undelivered messages are deleted from our servers after 30 days.”
“We also offer end-to-end encryption for our services, which is always activated. End-to-end encryption means that messages are encrypted to protect against WhatsApp and third parties from reading them.”
Account Preservation
We will take steps to preserve account records in connection with official criminal investigations for 90 days pending our receipt of formal legal process. You may expeditiously submit formal preservation requests via the WhatsApp Law Enforcement Online Request System as indicated below. -
@ John 2
Intercept evidence was banned in the UK.
The government said the ability of police and security services covertly to intercept private communications was a significant tool in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism.
In particular, intercepts allow police and security services to gain important intelligence on the activities of suspects leading to their arrest and trial.
However, the government claimed this material was important as intelligence, rather than actual evidence against suspects.
That allowing the use of intercept material as evidence, may make suspected criminals and terrorists aware of the specific methods used by the police to intercept their sources of communication.
-
Artax, the man with the facts. So good to have you back doing YOUR JOB. While you were gone, David tried to turn me into you.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
-
“The Act also introduces penalties for citizens who refuse to aid a police officer under attack with fines or imprisonment ”
“Soldiers have now been granted powers of arrest, effectively expanding the frontline of law enforcement.”
Has the bill introduced or increased fines? Don’t police have to be present for soldiers to carry out arrests? Is this a Professor and Dean that does not research before writing? Or half presents the facts? Just asking.
-
The Professor’s abilities would make him an excellent candidate for elected office.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.