A BUSINESSMAN is fuming over how justice is being dispensed.
He alleged that nearly a decade ago an employee stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from his company. The police eventually charged her for fraud in relation to $125 000 from his company. She was granted bail.
After numerous appearances in a particular Magistrates’ Court on the matter over the next six years, the case was eventually sent to the High Court where it still is bogged down in the molasses-paced court system.
In the interim, and because of his desperation for justice, his company had filed a civil suit against the female. The company received judgment of just over $800 000 against her.
However, his company did not get a cent because the woman claimed she had no money and could not pay. Not satisfied with that, and determined to recoup some of his company’s losses, the businessman hired a private investigator. Eventually a vehicle was found in her name but when they repossessed it, a bank had the lien on it first. So the vehicle was sold and after the bank got its money the company received $15 000.
In the meantime, the same woman was fired from one company and a notice placed in the newspaper that she was no longer employed with that entity and had no authority to transact business on its behalf.
Now, recently the woman appeared in a Magistrates’ Court charged with fraud involving more than $30 000.
What has this businessman so upset is that to date his matter has not been concluded, his company is still out of pocket, yet this woman continues to live happily and has lost two other jobs also relating to missing funds.
The irate businessman wants to know how this sort of thing can happen in a country that supposedly prides itself on law and order.
Testing the waters
THE BELL IS not scheduled to ring for the start of the next general election for at least 18 months, yet both camps are feverishly out in the field testing the waters.
Whether it’s a safe seat or a marginal one, both parties have their operatives knocking on doors and talking to potential voters.
Cou Cou understands that the opposition Barbados Labour Party canvassers have been telling voters that their predicament of tight pockets, poor public services and no jobs is due entirely to the Government’s failed economic policies.
The Bees are reportedly saying that the mounting garbage situation, the continuing problems at the Transport Board and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, among others, are all due to a Government with no real plan to solve this country’s woes.
And they are reportedly pointing to the repayment of the ten per cent on parliamentarians’ salaries as an indication that Government is about looking after themselves with no regard for the people.
On the other hand, the ruling Democratic Labour Party’s operatives are reportedly telling voters that gay marriages are coming if the BLP is ever re-elected, and they will be sneaked in under the guise of gender neutral laws.
They cite the stance taken by Senator Wilfred Abrahams at the BLP’s annual conference two years ago that any legislation brought on domestic violence or spousal abuse should take into consideration relationships between all parties (male and female or same sex) living with each other in the same household as “husband and wife”.
The Dems are reportedly also asking voters if they want to be governed by a party divided against itself and run by a bully. Here they are citing the statements made by former Prime Minister Owen Arthur and Christ Church West MP, Dr Maria Agard, both of whom now sit as Independents in Parliament.
Dems operatives are reportedly also urging voters to have a bit more patience and give their economic policies a chance because they are working. Here they cite the recent International Monetary Fund statement that the Barbados economy has seemingly turned the corner.
Rift widens
THE RIFT among a certain group seems to be getting wider.
And it all has to do with the way a reported backer has seemingly been thrown under the bus.
On the one hand, some in the group feels an example should be made of the individual to save their image. They feel they should talk tough, make moves that fit in with this tough talk, then allow the bureaucracy to bog everything down as it usually does. In a few months people will forget the issue and it would be business as usual.
However, another group feels that it is foolish to hurt someone who could help them in time of need. Though this group also feels the laws have to be followed, they are saying that the bureaucrats are equally responsible for the situation because of their lackadaisical approach.
The different schools of thought is just the latest in what seems to be a splitting of this once tight-knit group who recognise that their greatest strength is in staying together, no matter if they can’t personally stand each other.
