Peter Boos
Freedom of information legislation are rules that guarantee access to data held by the state. They establish a “right-to-know” legal process by which requests may be made for government-held information, to be received freely or at minimal cost, barring standard exceptions – Wikipedia
The excuse can be made that Integrity Legislation (IL) is a hard nut for the Barbados government to crack. The smooth implementation of IL is regarded as challenging for small countries like Barbados where nobody is a stranger. The same can’t be said for implementing Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation. Three years into its term the government of Barbados needs to deliver on FOI to be assured of some credibility before entering the gearing-up period for the next general election.
The benefit when FOI is implemented will be to arm the general public with the right of access to state data/information. There is an urgent need to replace vacuous commentary on the Internet, radio and wider society in Barbados. The cynics among us may hold the view that enforcing the legislation will prove to be another hurdle to overcome given the lousy track record of archive management in the public service. Last week BU was able to publish the list of entities who received monies from the Tourism Investment Relief Fund (TIRF). By making the names public some Barbadians were able to ask pertinent questions about the closure of the Silver Sands Hotel. Unfortunately the traditional media has not been able to determine whether the TIRF List is newsworthy.
The story quoted is about Leader of the Opposition of Barbados David Thompson lamenting the fact that the school meals workers who worked around the clock to ensure the “who is who” that attended the CWC 2007 were fed, HAVE NOT BEEN PAID! BU will not even bother to flog a dead horse on this issue except to say that the longer it persists it signifies a callousness on the part of the persons responsible to remedy the matter.
BU reviews the highly publicized incident two months ago when Barbados leading journalist, David Ellis was involved in an unprecedented “on air” clash with Minister of Tourism Noel Lynch, on the popular call-in program Down to Brasstacks. To all those who were fortunate to listen to the program we are reminded by the adage, if yuh start wrong, yuh gine end wrong. It was revealed to listeners that Minister Lynch’s participation on the call-in program was preconditioned on tourism industry expert and hotel owner Adrian Loveridge having to suffer the ignominy of sitting in a different studio to enable his own participation on the same program. David Ellis clarified his decision in a subsequent program to agree to the unusual request from Minister Lynch by saying what amounted to the fact that the need to get Lynch on the program to discuss CWC 2007 justified having Adrian Loveridge’s watered downed participation from another area of the studio. To David Ellis and Starcom Network BU gives you a brick-bat on that one. No one person – and especially a servant of the people – should ever be allowed to feel that they can dictate to the media to the extent where they would participate in a public discourse which is designed to promote their interest over any citizen of Barbados. It is not BU’s intention to rehash all that has been said and written about that fateful show on the 25 March 2007, we prefer to focus on the bigger picture.
would have been a controversial question. To offer a response we have to examine Ellis’s growing stature as the leading journalist in Barbados which has come coincidentally through the call-in programs and even before that the much listened to “Point at Issue” broadcasted on VOB on Sunday afternoons. The growing public perception appears to be that Ellis is well researched when conducting interviews and feeds the public perception of being knowledgeable on a wide range of issues. David Ellis is a journalist who enjoys public confidence but despite his best efforts is always casted in a “rubbish” light by Prime Minister Arthur. Several times the public has heard Arthur engage in “cat and mouse” exchanges when Ellis has sought to request one on one interviews. It seems logical that if David Ellis is regarded as our leading journalist, who happens to work at the leading radio station with the widest listenership, then Prime Minister Arthur should pay Ellis the professional courtesy by ensuring that there is good public dialogue between the two of them. Perhaps the fact that Ellis regards DLP Brandford Taitt as a mentor and friend could provide a clue. The fact that Arthur has been able to continue his estranged relationship with Ellis with little or no fall-out is worthy of analysis. BU will continue to discount the role of the Barbados Association of Journalists (BAJ) and the lack of feedback or support for Ellis of any kind regarding this matter.
It has come to the attention of BU that an anonymous letter raising several concerns about how Barbados tax dollars were expended around CWC 2007 was sent to David Thompson MP, Richard Sealy MP, Denis Kellman MP, Austin Husbands, David Ellis and Adrian Loveridge.
Just when we thought that enough had been said and written about CWC 2007, “bruggadung” another controversy erupts. Can anyone imagine that the government of Barbados expended over 125 million dollars to build Kensington Oval on land which belongs to the Barbados Cricket Association (BCA)? The public would have been in the dark about this matter if Tony Marshall while hosting Barbados favourite call-in program “Down to Brass Tacks” in response to a caller stated that the BCA owned the Oval. Truth be told now that the facts are in the public domain a lay person would have to admit that maybe legally Tony Marshall is correct. The fact that the government proceeded with haste to build the multi-million dollar complex on land owned by a private members club is incompetence of the highest magnitude. It goes without saying that in a private sector scenario “heads would be rolling”. Talking about heads did anyone hear our Minister of Sport speaking out during the CWC 2007? I must say that he is one of the most silent ministers we have had for a while. One would have thought that the CWC would have been the ideal stage for a Minister of Sport to step forward. Any way we will leave Minister Wood for another time.
We revisited the topic in light of recent comments by Tony Greig who is one of the world’s most famous commentators on cricket and Prime Minister Arthur of Barbados.
quick and dirty criteria was if the potential traveller had to journey more than 10 hours to get to the Caribbean. I am sure that our good friend Adrian Loveridge can offer the technical knowledge missing to beef-up the criteria. Readers to BU can make their own judgment call on what we think is an investment which was made on flawed business logic. The conclusion which can be immediately drawn is that with the exception of England, Canada and to a lesser extent Ireland none of the other countries that participated in CWC 2007 offer any significant value-added to increasing our tourist traffic.
I must confess that the wife and I are still pissed in the aftermath of the CWC 2007 final. I do not blame the local organizers for the farcical end. I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the match referee Jeff Crowe who in his infinite wisdom decreed that a 38 over per inning game could have been satisfactorily completed between 12.15PM and 5.30PM, with a 10 minute break between innings tossed in. Don’t you think that such a flawed decision should have been challenged by someone at the ground? Perhaps a Steve Bucknor, a product of the region, who was standing in his fifth consecutive final and who knew the conditions quite well. He might have suggested to Jeff Crowe the folly in his decision to play seventy six overs in five hours and 15 minutes; after all the Australians had three fast bowlers and could not reasonably be expected to bowl more than 13 overs per hour. 
by an elementary error from match officials.
DLP Version of CWC 2007
