Elder Abuse – To be or not to be

Submitted by Cherfleur
Stephen Lashley – Attorney

As we approach our 70s and go beyond, we have to be weary and decide whether it pays to live to ‘that ripe old age’ then be stripped of all assets and control of our own welfare or whether to say goodbye at this point, with our faculties intact and muscles taut and able to fight back.

Today I learned, while attending what should have been the appeal for that matter Stephen Lashley blushed, that the elder and co-applicant died since January 21, 2021.  Nothings pained like this.  It was not murder it was by Pneumonia and Dementia.  Seriously?  Dementia can kill someone?  Why is an elder contracting pneumonia when someone is responsible for their care?  I am asking because I really do not know/understand. 

This very end result was predicted and that was why I took the matter to court.  In the UK and civilized spaces, once in/before the court the matter has to be dealt with properly.  In this case there was no direction to the applicant to re file one way or other (although there were two sittings without the defendants) but a dismissal of the application in favour of another under the mental Health Act, which removes all ‘interested parties’ who are not blood relatives; to the detriment of the elder.

I turned my attention away in December 2020 and he, for all intent and purposes a good whole man, DIED IN JANUARY 2021.  Itn’t it a pity!

The matter was thus withdrawn. The object of the appeal was to get ceases to exist

But Stephen Lashley had the presence of mind to mention cost.  I honestly was so devastated that I can’t say whether he was offering it of otherwise.

Believe it or not, he complained to the three wise men that I like to go to the Press and give my perspective. Whose should I be giving?  Why does my affair with the Press un-nerve him?

“Unless the Lion learns to write, tales of the hunt shall glorify the hunter”

A human died and that was Stephen Lashley’s concern.  Members of that fraternity must now think me an upstart to saunter into their Club house and play that I can play ball.  I merely wanted to bring attention to the plight of an elder that was being abused so greviously and he couldn’t get to his Attorney or any agency to complain. He was held hostage and denied some basic human rights.  Lashley stated that there was ‘no evidence’ (proven/presented) of abuse. 

The man is now dead. Lack of proper care!  God knows what else.  The State should be sued. But who will do it?

Since the application under the Human Rights Act was substituted for a Mental Health Act,  how can such be proven?  The Mental Health Act, simply because persons are older and it is given that they would be presenting with a deterioration of body parts and function, ip so facto, it is a presumptuous position and in my view an abuse of aging people and their rights.

The fight for elders’ rights is going to have to get fierce. Lawyers won’t do it.   The fraternity will fight to lock laymen out of their midst but there needs to be some new ways and attitude in the region of how to protect these vulnerable people.   Though the Judge’s Order addressed the other points I rose under my application, it failed to give protection (remove the offending parties) from the direct care and access to the elder. The Mental Health Act refers to them as ‘patients’. This Act, and under which Stephen Lashley’s clients  brought their application, removed outsiders; persons or organisations which are knowledgeable and unbiased about the scourge of elder abuse from bringing a claim to court.  His death so soon after the Order, which included that all receipts of his expenses be presented to the court each quarter and that only his expenses must be paid for from his money is testimony that such orders without protection are an invitation and recipe for their extinction.  The Order also tells where we are as a region as regards the reality of elder abuse.

Think Hernandez Brothers.

Stephen Lashley Should be Disbarred

Submitted by Cherfleur

My post to BU on July 19, 2020 – Stephen Lashley – He Lie! and on December 18 – Cynthia Forde Do Your Job! – referred to case 397 of 2020 in which Madam Justice Shona Griffith made and signed an Order not drawn and prepared by Stephen Lashley but by another Attorney. The reason being Lashley passed the matter over to avoid adhering to the transparency the Judge requested i.e. being the elder has another child from a previous union and the Claimant (and her brother) are not his only children and really she really should not have been given receivership without that offspring being consulted and refusing to be a party.


Now, this case is trending in Guyana and for quick access, I requested a copy of the Order from the Registry, low and behold, Lashley has prepared another Copy of the Order with his name in the Legend and had it signed by the Deputy Registrar (ag) and filed on October 2, 2020.

My enquiry into the first Order was given the unadulterated response that when a new Order is made the previous is destroyed and the latter forms the records. There was no new Order since there was no new evidence nor did Lashley sit before the Judge and presented a case on behalf of the Claimants.  It is the same Order represented by Lashley to another Officer for signature.

Why didn’t Lashley return to the presiding Judge to sign the copy of the same Order?

What is happening in the Judiciary? I paid for and have a copy of that first order which was signed by the Judge.

Where is the Registry’s copy of that first Order and why Lashley found it necessary to make this change to the Legend and the Court’s records?

Shouldn’t there be an enquiry?

Stephen Lashley – He Lie!

Submitted by Cherfleur

YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW

In The Sunday Sun page 9A Stephen Lashley postulates that Ms Medford did not consult with ‘the patient’s’ attorney and could not act in this matter without adhering to the Mental Health Act and thus that after reading my ‘documents’​ it was clear that I had not consulted the ‘patient’s’ Attorney and that my statement regarding Barbados’ laws are without foundation and further that the proceedings were bad in law. ​Which Law?

Relevant Links:

First of all I did not undertake to assist a ‘patient’ but a human; an older person. Thus I was instructed by the International Human Rights Act, since Barbados has none. I filed a Statement of case with two Claimants. The Attorney General of Barbados and Barbados’ Law does not speak anything to the International Human Rights Act as regards ​older persons​ that I know of. Therefore I was guided by precedents from afield. The Human Rights act regards persons over 65 as older persons, humans not patients. ​Bang!

Thus I did not have to adhere to the Mental Health Act which in itself, used as Mr Lashley and his clients are purporting to use it, is a violation of the older person’s civil liberties. Bang!

Secondly, I have known the ‘older person’s’ attorney, having accompanied him on occasions to conduct matters and I did consult that Attorney and alerted them that the older person was in distress. With the landline removed and the mobile under the control of the perpetrators the Attorneys could not make direct contact and he did advise me to try to get him into the office. I retained my Attorney to meet with the older person but when I went to the premises to get him I was told he cannot leave. From 2018 to 2019 when I decided to put the matter before the court he was denied as well as privacy to speak to me. ​Access to legal services is a civil right of older persons​. ​Bang!

At the end of the hearing on 25 February 2020, which Mr Lashley attended for the first time and was the third of these proceedings, I asked if he had spoken to the older person and he said ​no​ but that he would be representing the entire family in the matter of the . He misled the Judge. He and his clients are circumventing the law. He is proposing to represent an older person without the older person’s knowledge (at the time of requesting the permission to act). In so doing he is denying that older person the right to his own representation.

Thus for all intent and purposes of my case 333 0f 2019, Mr Lashley could not have been the elder’s attorney nor the rules and procedure he refers to could not have or should not have been applied to my case. IT WAS NOT A CASE UNDER MENTAL HEALTH ACT. BARBADOS cannot dictate what act a claimant brings a claim under.

Based on that conversation with Mr Lashley I filed my Submissions quoting the Human Rights Convention on Older Persons and cited cases and academic materials on cases of elder abuse using this Act.

The decision to have the case dealt with under the Mental Health Act was already entertained on the second meeting , 13 February 2020 before Mr Lashley’s appearance and permission was given after he indicated that it was his client’s intention to file such Application. All before my submissions. My submissions were never reviewed. The documents Mr Lashley refered to could not have been my Submissions because they were not filed when the decision was made to go with the Mental Health Act. The court took the position that the matter was best dealt with under the Mental Health Act. ​This is a travesty and miscarriage of justice​ regarding older persons’ protection because the very perpetrators are the ones seeking to manage the older person’s assets and welfare.

In dismissing the case on 26 June 2020, I asked the Judge Why. In reply she stated that my case was not procedurally sound (etc). ​Procedure and Form are not by themselves grounds for dismissing a case that is a matter of Law a​nd​ especially one founded on Human Rights or on older persons. T​his case is not a frivolous matter. In fact it is constitutional.

With regards to cost, Mr Lashley and his clients will be waiting ​a darn long time​ for that. First there were two Claimants; the older person being the 2nd Claimant. This does not obtain under the Mental Health Act. Secondly Mr Lashley before even meeting or speaking with the older person but following instructions and allegations from his clients is prematurely diagnosing the older person as ‘a patient’ (that suggestion that the person is incompetent to make decisions for himself merely because of his age).

There are pieces of legislation, the DPS in the Ministry of Elder Affairs said so. But none of the agencies I approached could use the legislation to move in and investigate and correct unless the older person themself made the complaint. ​That is what frustrated the case. ​Mr Lashley needs to familiarize himself with that technicality. The judge herself was wary of issuing a Protective Order​ to remove the offending party(ies) or the older person for fear of allegations of trespass (?) and opt instead for summoning all parties to appear before her. Mr Lashley’s clients did not pass on the summons or the statement of case delivered for the elder to him. Devious. Contempt of court. (​mail tampering and a violation to the older person’s rights to privacy).​ Therefore he did not appear in court to say one way or another in the matter 333 of 2019 or was he asked whether he agrees to the defendants’ application to represent him as Receivers. ​So we head to Appeal.

The Law is an ass or the people that work it. STEPHEN LASHLEY TRYING TO SCARE PERSONS FROM REPRESENTING THEMSELVES IN COURT

 

The Law and Protecting the Elderly – Managing by Default

Submitted by a Concerned Party (updated 1/07/2020 7:33PM)

In the High Court of Judicature CV#333 of 2019 – When losing is winning big

The law.
A dear elderly friend mentioned to me some difficulties he was experiencing at the hands of his children together with their mother, his ex-wife, I realised it was elder abuse immediately but especially flagrant abuses of his civil liberties.
He wanted to get his attorney to conduct or change some business but was being prevented from so doing.  Since I was well known to the household I told him I will inquire for him but would need his permission. I however made an appointment with my attorney and called him saying I’ll pick him up the next day to take him to the attorney.  When I arrived the next day his daughter was there with him and asked what the mission was about. I ignored the question. This was 2017.
I visited the Welfare/Probation Department and complained. They said he has to make the complaint himself. I went to the Police but they said the same thing. Called the US Embassy they said the same thing. They further said that they have to respect the laws in the host country and there were none that empowered them to intervene.
Bound and in disbelief I consulted an attorney who said there were no elder abuse laws in Barbados but I could bring the case under Neglect or  such but advised that unless they get instructions directly or a written authorization they couldn’t take the case.  No attorney would take the case or bring a case unless the elderly give direct instructions.
I continued to monitor the situation. But subsequent visits the daughter was always very in the midst of us so that no personal or private conversation could be conducted. It is unacceptable that there is not one authority in Barbados that can move in and protect the elderly that are being abused either physically or financially or civilly or sexually or psychologically except the elder makes that complaint themselves.
So what was very peculiar in this instance was the hostage effect. The elder was barred from using the telephone he pays for or visiting or being visited by anyone outside those who bought the talk that he is senile or suffers (incurable) from Alzheimer’s. Everyone is warned that he doesn’t know what he is saying so they let sleeping dogs lie.
There is apathy when dealing with the elderly too. Its as though they have passed their “use by date”. While visiting the Probation Department I collected literature on Elder Abuse under the UN Human Rights Convention. I decided that I would bite the bullet and get some action on this elderly’s behalf using this Law.
I filed a case in the High court in March of 2019 with an emergency application seeking among other orders, primarily a Protection Order and Partial-Custodianship.  I was given April 19th (Good Friday) then that was postponed to July 25 which was postponed again and then to year end, 2019. After some outside intervention I finally got a Judge and date: February 27 2020.
1. On that first appearance January 27, 2020
The Judge said she studied the file and is aufait with the case contents and orders sought. She asked if anyone helped me with the Application and I said no but I did speak with an attorney.  She knew it was flawed. But before sharing this with me and giving me the leave to correct it she continued with it as is. She told me that I will get some of the orders but not all. She adjourned for two weeks  to invite the Probation department to guide her, saying that this matter was new to the courts.  I was relieved that I could then leave this burden to the professionals.
2 Second Appearance: February 13, 2020
On that date I appeared and there was no Officer from the Probation Department (PD). Instead the judge told me that she had decided to deal with the matter under the Mental Health Act (MHA) because the PD doesn’t have power under their Act to deal with such aspects of this matter but only economic assistance. She did not consider any other act. She instructed me to serve all the Defendants. I resisted because I requested an Ex Parte Application for a Protection Order on this action and that wasn’t given. She said that is for Magistrates’ courts. She said serve the defendants.  I tried to explain the dangers in these cases (and trafficking) of alerting the perpetrators/defendants of what is happening while the victim/elderly remained in the dwelling and in a vulnerable state. She said,“that’s a chance we will have to take”.  Distressed and overwhelmed I began canvassing the various agencies that are or should be dealing with elderly abuse or care of the elderly or human rights to try to avoid serving and alerting the defendants of the pending actions while the victim remained in the same space.  No one could do anything but the Ministry of People Empowerment advised that there were many legislations that could have been used that authorize the ance of a Protection Order.  They couldn’t do anything since the matter was already occupying the courts’ attention. At a dead-end and with the deadline for minimum service time nearing I went against my better judgment and decided to go ‘like a lamb for the slaughter.  I served the documents.  No time was I told that the case before the court was procedurally wrong.
3 Appearance February 25, 2020

The Defendants appeared with an Attorney who said that I had no grounds for bringing a case on behalf of the elderly since I did not seek and obtain the courts’ permission. He moved to strike out my case in place for an application for Custodianship of the elderly by the very Defendants who the elder asked to be protected from the Mental Health Act. claiming I did not have the court’s permission. ​I asked for immunity for any possible damages for bringing the case​ and the Judge seemed shocked at the request. The Attorney ventured that I was asking for immunity only because I didn’t want to pay cost. I said I wasn’t bothered about cost. That went over his head. I informed that there was another child from another relationship. The Judge cautioned that the defendants must be transparent and that all relevant parties must be included in the application. The attorney indicated that the Act allows the patient to say who he wants to be involved in his care. To my mind that is under normal circumstances when the elder is in agreement to and part of that decision but not part of the Claim. The Judge then said if by the adjourned date she does not have the MHA application before her “the issue will have to be kept alive” . that is the case on file. The same case with all the ‘not procedurally sound’ issues.

With this conditionality and know it would take some time to get in touch with the other child, ​and knowing that I did not use the MHA but was guided by the Human Rights Act/Principles for Older Persons resolution 46/91 of December 1991 of which Barbados is a signatory I decided to prepare and file my Submissions.

The 2nd Claimant did not appear because although the Court served Take Notices on all parties, he did not receive his service. The defendants purposely and maliciously withheld all this information from him. The matter was adjourned for March 20. ​The Attorney indicated to me after the hearing that he has never met the 2nd Claimant.

The case was further postponed to March 26 then along came Coronavirus.

4 Appearance Friday 26, June
The Judge indicated that she did have the application under the Mental Health Act in her hands and therefore she will dismiss the original case. I asked why and indicated that I filed submissions for my case which stated the law under which a party could bring a case on behalf of another and gives immunity. The Attorney interjected that I went ahead and filed submissions although I was advised that the application for the MHA would be soon coming. He further stated that I did not have the court’s permission to act as the elder’s friend.  I was shocked.  Only then did the judge say to me that my matter is not procedurally sound. He also stated that the Judge should not even have been entertaining me since I was not a legal party. Four sessions. I asked for leave to get permission.

I asked for leave to get permission but the Judge indicated that she had the MHA application in her hands (as if to say the one overrides the other).​ Not being an Attorney they distracted me. The Judge never reviewed my Submissions, it seems, as she clearly had decided to go with only what she knew and what the defendants’

Attorney proposed: the MHA regardless of my response to the defendants that I did have grounds to bring a case under the Human Rights Act as outlined in the submissions before her (filed before the defendants’ MHA) and ​which​ ​is interpreted to state that I did not need the court’s permission in this instance. The Elder was a part of the Claim.

My application was faulty, yes, covering what could be deemed many cases/issues. The remedy therefore could have been to strike out that part of the case which was in conflict with the Law and retain and ventilate those which were covered by the law as per my submissions.

The Deputy Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of People Empowerment and Elder Affairs did say that there were several legislations that could have been used to issue a Protection Order. This is mind-boggling. I bowed out. I however asked for the elder to be allowed his independent attorney as in the first instance it was a violation of his civil liberties;that he was held hostage in his own home and secondly denied access to his attorney and appropriate medical care and attention.

The big irony is that the Attorney asked for cost which I instructed that the 2nd Claimant will have to pay since it was his case I was joined with. ​He has to pay the cost for attempting to bring a case against the defendants who used his money to mount the defence against his case. T​ he very defendants who are again now using his money to bring a MHA application without his knowledge or consent to suggest/ inquire into his capacity to manage his own affairs and for them to do so if he is found to be incompetent.

Stephen Lashley missed it all along…that the elder was also listed as Claimant. LMAO

The Law is an Ass. Or the people that work it.

Nothing in my Statement of Case suggests that I intended to be the party applying for Custodianship of the elder.

MISCARRIAGE  OF JUSTICE

DLP Comfortable in the Political Wilderness

At 1:05AM EST the blogmaster had the uncontrollable urge to lookup the definition of ‘stupidity’.  One of many definitions a trusty Google search brought back was – behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment. The reason to refresh the memory of a a well used word in the every day lexicon of John Public surprisingly had nothing to do with having to read the daily comments posted by certain BU characters. It happened after watching the following video.

The three former ministers and a Senator in the last general election have the right to share views.  What is surprising though is that we have a political party decimated at the polls not feeling any urgency to come to the pubic to make ‘peace’. The majority of the public – we estimate 70% – sent a loud message that it has no confidence in the Democratic Labour Party as it relates to managing the affairs of state. What we want to know is how does the DLP plan to organize itself to be relevant in a period strong opposition will be required to safeguard the interest of Barbadians.

What many of us do not want to hear is a fragmented DLP lot coming to an expectant public looking for change to spout rejected narratives. Where is the credibly to be found in the four soundly defeated candidates pontificating about concerns they were found guilty of on the 24 May 2018?

The first job of the DLP is to organize itself to demonstrate to the public it understands where it has failed as a party, AND,  here is what we have done to correct. As a party it has not taken any positive decisions to assuage recent public opinion it is a credible political party to be considered the government in waiting. Especially given the frenetic pace the Barbados Labour Party has embarked since taking the reins of government

After ten years in government what is the enduring memories of the four by the blogmaster you ask? Donville, hot air. Estwick, puppy and Jesus Christ, Stephen Lashley, $2.00 stadium and Verla, always pun CBC.

 

 

How disespectful is it for four rejected c

Working to Win Back Empire

The DLP continues to do an injustice to the Creative Community… and continues to favor Mark Maloney making a profit from the people’s property…. it has been just over 5 years since DLP gave Maloney this National Treasure on the eve of the last election…. it is soon time for a change!

Jim McGowan

Today the blogmaster was reminded by Jim McGowan’s Facebook post tagged to Mia Mottley that about seven years have passed since he and others attempted to win control of the derelict Empire theatre site- the objective, to ‘retrofit’  give the local Arts community a home.

The blogmaster is aware that Jim McGowan and team ploughed many hours into developing plan, negotiating loans, line of credit etc with venture capitalist agencies to arrange financing for the project. The dream was (still is) that the successful implementation of the Empire project would have served as a catalyst to boost activity in the Arts sector to the next level. Also create needed entertainment in a deserted City which is aligned to government’s objective having worked to achieved the World Heritage designation for Bridgetown. Instead the area continues to be the habitat for vermin and an embarrassment to all who have reason to be in the area.

Minister Stephen Lashley and government in their infinite wisdom gifted the facility to Mark Maloney and his backers, one of many government projects. It will be interesting after May 24, 2018 to observe how this matter develops. For sure members of the Arts community have reason to vote against the government in protest.

Christian, Lent and Hypocrisy!

easterThis is the season of Lent and this weekend represents the highlight of the season when willl Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some Barbadians are justified in their argument that Barbadians have shifted from traditional values with an anchor in a Christian upbringing that have served us well up to recent. This is debate for another time.

The blogmaster is of the view that traditional values with its Christian underpinning should be manifested in how individuals that subscribe to the faith treat with their fellow man on a 24/7 basis. It was with great interest a statement credited to Minister of Youth Stephen Lashley’s resonated with the BU household.

Indeed I believe that we need to spend more time in the media highlighting more of the good work that they continue to do. I think there is an overbalance or excessive commentary in print and electronic media and now on social media, which seeks to highlight every possible negative activity of some of our youth,” he said…

I think that it is a national scandal and it gives an embellished reflection of our young people. I have a lot of confidence in the ability of our young people to rise above an over reliance on negativity.

  • Minister Stephen Lashley

Here is a simple point we want to share with the minister. Nothing wrong with his statement if taken at face value. The blogmaster is also concerned about the malicious and ignorant use of social media. However as leaders, the blogmaster is of the view, we must practice what we preach to achieved positive outcomes.

Surely Minister Stephen Lashley is aware that some of the most vile communication shared in the social media space is perpetrated by ministers of government, Senators, parliamentary secretaries and surrogates from the political class (political parties)? The blogmaster can produce the evidence in a heartbeat to support but we will compromise our position- demonstrated for the past 10 years- that what is shared with the blogmaster, stays with the blogmaster.

The BU household extends best wishes to the BU family for the season.

If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see.
― Henry David Thoreau

A Caswell Franklyn Article – Stephen Lashley is a Bold Faced Liar

Dear Prime Minister

I find myself in the unenviable position where politicians from both political parties see me as an enemy. As such, I expect attacks from time to time. However I do not expect or appreciate being attacked or lied upon from the floor of the Honourable House of Assembly, by a minister of the Crown who knew that he was lying while he was speaking.

On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 Minister Stephen Lashley stated in the House that the Rock Hall Freedom Village Project is being held up by my brother’s refusal to move to allow completion. Further, he alleged that I bore responsibility for the hold-up.

Read full letter – Stephen Lashley is a Bold Faced Liar

Stephen for Mara in St. John?

The following document was received in the BU inbox which promotes the view that Mara Thompson will NOT  be contesting the St. John seat at the next general election. What is surprising is the suggestion that Stephen Lashley is looking to jump the Christ Church West Central ship?

Discuss for 5 marks.

Minister STEPHEN LASHLEY’S Philosophy of Development is Seriously FLAWED

Submitted by David Comissiong, Barbados Citizen

Stephen Lashley, Minister of Culture

Stephen Lashley, Minister of Culture

The Sunday Sun newspaper has reported that Minister of Sport, Youth and Culture, Stephen Lashley, recently addressed a Democratic Labour Party (DLP) gathering on the topic of “50 Years of Independence: The Barbados Story“, and informed the DLP faithful that Barbados Scholars should NOT be required to return and work in Barbados, but should instead be facilitated to work in foreign countries and to send back “remittances” to Barbados.

Well, with all due respect to Mr Lashley– one of the more thoughtful and forward thinking Ministers of the DLP Administration— I totally disagree with this sentiment and with the philosophy on which it is based!

Barbados is a relatively young, economically under-developed country, with very limited NATURAL resources. Thus, our nation’s fundamental developmental  strategy must be one that is firmly based on the cultural and educational attainments and assets of the people of Barbados, and on our people’s capacity to evince energy, initiative, creativity, drive and a spirit of self-reliance in the development of their own country.

In other words, if we are serious about developing our country then we should be able to understand that  the primary architects and builders of the economy of Barbados MUST be the Barbadian people themselves, and in particular  the brilliant, young, highly educated and trained scholars of our nation.

It is an undeniable fact that virtually every single progressive nation on this earth not only seeks to hold on to its most brilliant and highly educated young people, but even go beyond this and seek to entice to their shores the brilliant and highly educated young people of other nations!

Take the little east Asian nation of Singapore as an example. The Government of Singapore actually gives Singapore Government scholarships to brilliant foreign students in order that they might receive their university education in Singapore and be persuaded to settle permanently in Singapore! And the same holds true for larger countries such as Canada and the United States of America.

So, why then should our nation pursue a strategy in which Barbadian citizens and taxpayers– at great expense and sacrifice to themselves— finance the university education of our country’s most brilliant young sons and daughters, and then send them off to use their skills to contribute to and develop the Canadas, USAs and Singapores of this world?

If, after 50 years of supposed “Independence” we still have not learnt that we— and in particular our talented and educated young sons and daughters– have to consciously and passionately assume the role of being the primary craftsmen of our own national fate, then we are well and truly lost as a nation.

No, Brother Lashley, we don’t want the brightest of our young people working in and developing some-body else’s country and merely sending “remittances” to their Barbados-based family members! Rather, we want them right here with us in Barbados, making their contribution to the further positive evolution of our national culture, and utilizing their intelligence, education and talent in the development of our economy and other social, political and cultural structures.

By all means let us permit them to remain outside for an appropriate period of time in their pursuit of knowledge and new experiences and insights, but let us fundamentally understand that there is no quantity of remittances that can compensate for the loss to the nation of the direct intellectual and cultural input of its brightest and most highly educated sons and daughters.

And finally, I need to make the following point to Minister Lashley and to all the other Ministers of our Barbados Government :-  it is your job and DUTY as Ministers of Government to put the relevant policies and mechanisms in place to facilitate and foster the active involvement of our very own educated and trained youth in all aspects of our national development effort. And if you don’t understand this, then you have missed the whole point of and reason for being a Minister of Government!

Anti-Gay Rights View Held by Prominent Persons

Stephen Lashley, Minister of Culture

Stephen Lashley, Minister of Culture

Two significant positions on gay rights and marriage have been restated by Barbados’ Minister Stephen Lashley and Republican 2016 presidential hopeful Ben Carson. In today’s environment it requires ‘balls’ to offer an anti gay position.

Lashley expressed the view he does not embrace […] Continue reading

Lowe Garbage Waste

Dover Stinky Skip

Dover Stinky Skip

BU acknowledges the effort by the Nation newspaper Editor highlighting the garbage disposal problem in Barbados. An overflowing skip dubbed ‘Dover Stinky Skip’ located at Dover, Christ Church – a key tourism location – was featured on todays front page. How the minister responsible, Denis Lowe, continues to head the Sanitation Service Authority (SSA) boggles the minds of sensible Barbadians. There is an obvious breakdown in the waste collection (and disposal) system in Barbados and the buck stops with minister Lowe.

Some interesting information was shared with the public today. We learned that the National Conservation Commission (NCC), a state entity under the ministry of the environment is paying Hinds Transport for the rental of the skip featured on todays front page. Why has garbage collection in Dover/St. Lawrence Gap been outsourced to a private entity? Isn’t the SSA operating under the same ministry? Why does the ministry of the environment headed by minister Denis Lowe continue to outsource collection to the private sector if the SSA is mandated to deliver the same service? Is this a similar arrangement the SSA has with the Williams Group to provide services at Mount Stinkeroo?

Is the NCC the same statutory corporation that sent home staff claiming it not longer had the resources to keep them employed?

Continue reading

Debate on the Cultural Industries Development Bill 2013 BEGINS

Stephen Lashley, Minister of Culture

Stephen Lashley, Minister of Culture

Minister of Culture Stephen Lashley took about 3 hours to introduce the Cultural Industries Development Bill 2013 to parliament today (15/10/2013). BU is happy the government recognizes the opportunity which the cultural industries sector offers. What we are not happy about is that key concerns which were highlighted by the Concerned Creative Citizens Group (CCCG) have not been included in the bill introduced. At the top of the list is the Idi Amin authority which any Minister of culture will have under the proposed bill.  What was downright egregious was the minister’s unwillingness to acknowledge the significant work done by the CCCG providing feedback on the draft bill in his three hour introduction.

Hope springs eternal and we are hopeful that it is not too late to incorporate constructive suggestions. BU takes this opportunity to congratulate Andrea King who has been appointed to the position of Film Commissioner.

See related links:

Continue reading

15 Secondary School Principals Snub Minister Ronald Jones

Memorandum from ministry of education which instructed school to participate in BSSAC

Memorandum from ministry of education which instructed secondary schools to participate in BSSAC

BU continues to critical about the lack of leadership in almost every sphere of activity in Barbados. Have a look at the Barbados Today story Thumbs Up! Never thought the day would arrive when local media would have to run PR stories regarding how safe it is to be in Barbados. One of our enduring characteristics has been a low crime environment. It had been the main ingredient which underpinned the boast of being a stable country.

Continue reading

A Game Changer: The Cultural Industries Bill

Stephen Lashley, Minister of Culture and Sports

Stephen Lashley, Minister of Culture and Sports

It was interesting to note Jamaica’s Prime Minister Portia Simpson’s perspective in the news last week about the importance of forging the creative/cultural industries and sport. She asserted that “these sectors have the potential to be important drivers of economic development.” Bear in mind Jamaica is light years ahead of all the countries in the Caribbean as far as leveraging theses two sectors. It is also noteworthy that Prime Minister Portia Simpson has responsibility for sports supported by a Junior Minister.

To Barbados’ credit we were informed in the lead up to the 2013 General Election that the Cabinet of Barbados approved the Cultural Industries Bill (CIB).  It has been reported that the CIB will be one of the early bills to be read in parliament. It took five years to complete the consultative and drafting process and many of the stakeholders in the Arts sector now eagerly look forward to its implementation. However, others have reviewed the final draft and remain doubtful that it has the ‘meet’ to nurture and grow our nascent cultural industries.

One needs to go no further than page 8 of the CIB, “approved producer of audio-visual content means a film production company incorporated under the Companies Act…that is controlled by a resident of Barbados”. Does anyone believe any reputable film company is going to make films in Barbados with this precondition? What about non-Bajans who are resident in Barbados?

Continue reading