Indictment!

Have all the charges been laid?

This picture was accompanied by a story of a young man on criminal charges and his mother’s allegations of injury and abuse suffered by him. [Reportedly taken at a police cell – Weekend Nation May 20, 2016]

We’ve heard this before. Technology allows us to see more. But a few things about this are disturbing. By now we can recite the stock response from the police, because as you know word of these incidents never reaches police officials before the press and the public. So we wait for the investigation.

Meanwhile, The youngster’s mother and grandmother claim that he left home in high spirits and apparent good health before they became aware that he was in custody. Should it surprise us to know that the ladies further claim that the police allege that he came to them that way? Why then did they not take him for medical care immediately, as coughing up blood is to say the least, a red flag? Even without knowledge of basic first aid, this should indicate a response other than interrogation – surely a sign that the person in custody is under some level of distress.

But if the young man did not come in as the family say, there is another explanation for his condition and hospitalisation. It seems that the police would be in possession of the facts and that objective and independent medical personnel could offer an informed opinion. Then there is the allegation that while at the location the family members and his attorney found the young man, police officers were giving very different answers as to his whereabouts. None of this so far looks good for the Royal Barbados Police Force.

Something this serious should not be left to speculation – neither by police officials, the family of the suspect nor the public. A thorough investigation must be done and with the same vigour and expediency as if were any crime that should outrage the public. In this situation we need to know that we can depend on the honesty and integrity of first, the investigators, and just as importantly, those who will receive the reports and make the decisions as to how many criminals were discovered based on the evidence.

A Bajan Mystery

Some Bajans were overheard talking. It could have been at a church or at a rum shop, so I am not sure what spirits were driving the conversation.

Bajan #1: I know a man that should get the contract for security at the White House

Bajan #2: I know a man that wrote the book “How to Get Away With Murder”

Bajan #3: I hear that a man I know can make a cement plant at a port so that Mayor Blue Peter can make a cement plant into a port

Bajan #4: It’s true that Bajans have short memories. I introduced each of you to him.

I Gun Talk Straight!

ENOUGH. Let me start again. TOO MUCH!

The gun situation or more precisely the shooting situation is horrendous. When submachine guns turn up in Nelson Street, it gives deeper meaning to the term gung ho.

What is the seeming fascination with guns? A feeling of power? Needed for protection? Status symbol? Bloodlust? Imagine all of these in a single person. Whatever the reasons, recent history has brought even the loudest advocates of privacy, and individual rights to the point of volunteering to surrender some rights and be willing to submit to random stop and search in order to tackle the gun problem.

Quite frankly, I don’t care whether gun amnesty only nets a small fraction of illegal weapons. Try it. If increased police patrols only detect a small amount of crime, do them. If police are short of vans, have more foot, bike and segway patrols. Any and all of this would do more than having a station full of desk jockeys telling callers “We have no vehicle” or “The car has gone to a more serious matter” or “There are several reports ahead of yours” when the gunman who just broke into your home can still be seen halfway down your lane.

The criminals are bolder and more aggressive. They are also often more stupid. For a start, in believing that they are going to get away with their crimes. So we, the citizenry, have to be smarter – in the way we prevent, detect, report, prosecute and punish crime. Our response has to be that we will not let up. What are we going to do?

• Report, report, report: Sightings, suspicions, information.
• Let every family member know that crime in the home (domestic threats and violence) or outside will not be tolerated and other family members will not protect them if they become involved
• Get Civics classes back in schools. Start from that first day of term when teachers and children just expect to breeze. Get Guidance Counsellors interacting with children about community life and responsibility
• Do the stop and search. If there are increasing numbers of ‘drive by’ shootings, they are getting to the scenes in vehicles
• Use Crime Stoppers 1-800-8477
• Forget the foolish “I ent no informer/snitch” idea or the criminals will be free to come back for you. Realise that they can still kill you if they just think you might be the informant.
• Invoke the penalties for illegal use or possession – make it hurt the offenders and deter all others

Perhaps more of us can understand why the Commissioner of Police wanted to be more circumspect in the issuance of weapons licences for sport shooting. There are a couple points to be made here. These owners too are susceptible to theft; they too have to be willing to submit to scrutiny as to their handling, storage and use of their weapons.

We also have to be mindful that there are only a few ways to get guns into the country unless we have gunsmiths among us. Let’s be entirely honest and say that we are either missing them as they come in or there could be some degree of complicity with officers who are trained in detecting what enters Bim. It is also not unknown that legal holders of weapons rent, lend, sell or give weapons to unauthorised users.

Bottom line: right now anyone who owns or uses a gun legally should be extra cautious while ANYONE who keeps or uses a gun illegally should be terrified of the consequences of being caught.

Beachfront Bullies

The practice of covering desirable swaths of beach with chairs and umbrellas is offensive. They are placed, often from early morning, so closely together that locals and others not patronising some beachfront businesses are made to feel as though they are invading a reserved area or ‘scotching’ among private articles placed on our public beach. It is inconvenient. It is inconsiderate. It is greedy. It is not to be encouraged.

One business, known as the Boatyard appears to engage in this practice. But according to other beach-based businessmen, the Boatyard is actively seeking to stop users of their facilities from engaging with operators of certain water craft. Statements attributed to a supervisor of the business suggest they are protecting patrons while wearing their armbands. What nonsense. They are bordering on holding people hostage after taking their money.

They at the Boatyard are playing on the vulnerability of their guests. Their patrons have assumed that if their cruise ship or taxi driver has recommended the place, they can rely on the establishment. They therefore put some confidence in whatever it is staff tell the patrons about the beach operators. In effect they are forcing customers to make a ‘choice’ of us or them, accompanied by the implication that the water craft operators are dangerous or otherwise not fit to do business with. If they have specific concerns about a particular person or incident, say that. How would they like it if some persons stood outside their place of business warning potential customers not to do business there? Or if taxi drivers told travellers, having paid for a round trip, if you patronise Boatyard we can’t take you back to the ship, hotel, Bridgetown, whatever. That’s a lot like what they are doing.

This is different from a place or event with an “all exits final” policy but to feel threatened with expulsion if you exercise your right to associate? Or do business with someone of your choice, and not get what you paid for with them? If they want that people entering their premises spend all their money with them, then say so. But if part of what you offer allows your guests to freely go outside, how can you expect to restrict them in what they legally do once there? Don’t come with a flimsy excuse that you protecting them while wearing the armbands. The bands have magic powers? The protection only works within a certain radius of the Boatyard cash machines?

Don’t vex me.

I will not encourage anyone to spend with Boatyard while they appear to bully people or restrict law abiding citizens, residents and visitors’ rights to relax and to associate freely.

Public Transport Matters

There has been another Public Service Vehicle accident resulting in serious injury to passengers. If you’re familiar with the way things go in Barbados, you knew to expect that some people would run ‘hot and sweaty’ to make changes and flex some muscle.

And so we heard – from no less than the Minister of Transport, Michael Lashley – that the operating Permit of the owner would be suspended. Then we heard that an investigation is to be done and that there is due process to be followed. Cart before the horse you say? I don’t blame you. Alarming, I say. Because this minister is an attorney-at-law and unless there is information not released that points to this owner or the particular vehicle being the subject of an ongoing investigation for transport infractions, could the minister be wading , nay jumping into a legal quagmire?

Owners are being admonished to be more circumspect in their hiring practices. On the surface, that’s great advice. But when you consider that owners choose from a pool generated by the Ministry of Transport, it seems that admonishment needs closer examination. I did not misspeak. The available Drivers and Conductors of Public Service Vehicles are licensed/permitted/registered by the Ministry of Transport. What does that mean? It could be assumed that candidates go through training/assessment designed, administered and rated by the Ministry of Transport. Wrong and wrong again.

You might think it unfathomable that the Ministry of Transport would license (for a fee) a random group of people intended to take care of the crucial mass transit sector without first ensuring the content, the level or the frequency of their training. Unfortunately this is the case in Barbados.

Let’s also discuss the threat of suspension or revocation of the vehicle owner’s Permit to operate. Put that in the context of the threat having been made before the sun had set on the day of this latest horrible crash. Then ask yourself when did you last hear that the operating privileges of the Transport Board would be suspended following an accident. Before the accusations of siding with or supporting or encouraging those louts in their dangerous behaviour, let me make it clear that I am thinking about common sense and equity. Cast your mind further and think of the last train crash or a recent airline tragedy and note that internationally it is NOT the practice to revoke a business’s operating Licence immediately. What is more likely to happen is that the Driver/Operator and the circumstances leading to the incident are thoroughly investigated. If it is found that the business/owner has a history of infractions, warnings or failure to comply with the terms of the Permit or to correct violations of standards, THEN the serious step of suspension or revocation is taken. The reality is that we are considering the ability of the owner- and this could be an individual or a firm – to conduct business beyond the incident.

After every incident of this kind, the cry goes up “Why don’t those associations that are always asking for concessions do something about those hooligans?” The answer is amazingly simple. The organizations do not have any legal authority to control operators! This remains in the hands of the Police, the Courts and the Ministry of Transport. What of the owners that hire a driver with multiple traffic convictions? Did you know that the Courts, the Police, the Ministry of Transport do not update this information to employers?

It is time that the Ministry of Transport devise a comprehensive, practical transport policy and implement and administer such with equity and consistency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fight For Peace

War Is Stupid!

I remember saying this as a child and I feel the same way now.  Adults would always tell us that there are better ways to resolve disputes than by hitting. True, but the same adults have shown us that the adult way to end a dispute is through violence and fighting.

How ironic that the successful end to a war is seen as the negotiation of peace.  Doesn’t that kind of put you back where you started, but not quite, because now there is that distrust and uneasy tension? How about the irony when you think on it long enough and realise that you could be bombing or shooting a relative just because your ‘leaders’ declared war? Imagine you are a fighter pilot and you engage a foe who might actually share your beliefs or support a cause that you do, but your orders are to kill because your opponent is dressed in the colours of ‘the enemy’.

Oversimplified, you say? Break it down for me, because the way I see it people resort to war when they lose reason. A lot like how somebody is losing an argument and they start to swear or go off topic because anything rational escapes them while enraged.

If most of us are reasonable, why do we not raise our voices in protest of war? If our leaders are not prepared to be reasonable, why do we keep them? You say our countries have to spend on defence against those who might attack. So let’s convince those decision makers to spend on stockpiling food in case our children, seniors and disabled become hungry. What about spending on education and housing because at some time our citizens might be in need of those? Another idea: Suppose we cut spending on talk shops which are often no more than opportunities for some big wigs and their entourages to have some ‘free holidays’ that generate little more than useless mountains of paper. Instead let’s introduce them to this wonderful thing called the internet where people can Skype and Go To Meeting without leaving their desk, their office or their country?

Are we admitting that we have so many uncreative idiots at the forefront that they can’t think of ways to prevent armed conflict? Again, if this is the case, what are we the majority doing to let them know that we want an end to it?

Are parents resigned to watching their children go to fight and possibly die to support the egos of ‘leaders’ who won’t be leading on the front lines?

Are we going to be content with the “Your country appreciates your sacrifice” speech when a loved one is buried?

Russia/Ukraine; ISIS; Syria; Boko Haram; Shabab; Israel/Palestine; Iraq; Al Qaeda. Get the picture? Is another world war looming?

I can almost hear the sound of the jiggling “jewels” as our men race to show who’s the baddest ass out there. But I think I also hear the horrible crack of gunfire, the shrieks of the defenceless and the sickening thud of bodies piled into another mass grave. Could it be the sound of tons of collateral damage? And of course the anguished screams of the grieving loudest of all.

War is stupid!

This Municipal Solid Waste Tax Smells

Is it a solid a solid waste tax or just solid waste?

This new tax on Bajans is supposedly a tax to assist with the handling of everyone’s solid waste. But shouldn’t a specific tax target and be collected from those at whom it is aimed?

If this is so, what has it got to do with property value?  Why should a solid waste tax be determined by the size, location or value of a citizen’s property?  If one owns a large or desirable piece of property and is very environmentally conscious (reusing, recycling) why would you be happy to pay a solid waste tax based on your property value, while a family of ten pays nothing, simply because they don’t own the place where they live? Similarly, if a property owner lives overseas but already contributes via his income and land taxes, how is it fair that he then pays a solid waste tax for waste that he does not generate?

Fact: Everyone generates waste. But the truth is, I would rather the government return the VAT to 15% (as they led us to believe they would have done) and then a few months later tack on a 1% on sales to assist with the disposal of solid waste if it has become a burden financially.

Fact: Even the sale receipt generated on sale eventually becomes waste; cigarettes become ash, butts and matchsticks are left; babies create without trying. This way everyone would be paying for waste generated by everyone!

As it stands this method is unfair and puts further stress on a group of taxpayers who might even have to help out retired, ill, or elderly relatives.  And if you thought inheriting a bit of property was a good thing…

Please, Mr. Government, this method stinks.  Don’t let it turn into a life sore.