HEADS of churches across Barbados last night endorsed a call to make next Sunday (Whit Sunday), a day of prayer for Prime Minister David Thompson.The initial call came yesterday from eucharistic minister Hilford Murrell, who said Barbadians of every denomination should pray for the Prime Minister next Sunday.Murrell made the call as he delivered the vote of thanks at a graduation ceremony for theological students at Codrington College, St John.In a separate interview, Murrell said next Sunday was a special day in the Christian calendar.“It is a day when people spoke in tongues, but it was all for a common purpose. That is why I believe that next Sunday would be a significant day for such prayers.”On Friday, Thompson disclosed at a Press conference at his official residence Ilaro Court that he was ill. He made the announcement with his physician Dr Richard Ishmael by his side.He explained that since early March he had been suffering with stomach pains and had undergone tests both here and at New York Prebysterian Hospital, said to be one of the best hospitals in the world. Thompson said a definitive diagnosis should be known within the next two to three weeks and that “whatever information is necessary” would be made available.Last night, a number of church leaders agreed that they would say special prayers for him on Whit Sunday.Archbishop of the Anglican Church Dr John Holder said: “We pray for him every Sunday, but I have no problem whatsoever in saying a special prayer for him next Sunday.”Monsignor Vincent Blackett of the Catholic Church said he wholeheartedly endorsed such a call.“I support a special day of prayer next Sunday. Just yesterday we asked that people pray for the Prime Minister. It will be wonderful to have a day of prayer.“When I read about his illness, my heart went out to him and his family. He needs our prayers and support.” Rev. Cuthbert Edwards, president of the South CaribbeanDistrict of the Methodist Church and superintendent of the James Street-Speightstown Circuit in Barbados, said the Methodist community would most definitely be participating in the special day of prayer.“First of all, the Prime Minister has acknolwedged that he is a Methodist and so the community will continue to pray for him and his family every day, but next Sunday we will say a special prayer for him and his family.”Rev. Colton Bennett, also of the Methodist Church, said: “He is a personal friend of mine and I was going to pray for him anyway, but we will definitely participate in a national day of prayer.”Reverend Orlando Seale, District Superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene, told the SUNDAY SUN that while he was not informed officially, he would encourage the pastors of his churches to participate in special prayers for the Prime Minister.Rev. Dr Carlisle Williams, district superintendent of the Wesleyan Holiness Church, also endorsed efforts to make next Sunday a special time to lift up Thompson in prayer.He said last night:
“It is our responsibility to do it. We need to pray for our leaders; it is what the Bible says.”
PRAYERS FOR PM
Numbers bring political power
The late Forbes Burnham once defined politics as the science of deals. As time passes, I am drawn to the view that he was right, and the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition which emerged from the horse trading in Britain, after the recent election, supports Burnham’s thesis.In this article I will touch lightly on “hung parliaments”, the position of Mr Gordon Brown after the election; the problem of unelected prime ministers and the office of deputy prime minister nowheld by the leader of theLiberal Democrats.The first truth of all political elections is that there is power in numbers, for he who has the numbers in his favour after the election becomes the country’s leader. As we saw in President Obama’s election, the magic number related to electoral college votes.But in a 650 member House of Commons the magic number was 326 seats, or half the number of seats plus one. The Conservatives won 305, Labour secured 258 and the Lib Dems held 57 seats. Since no party gained the magic number to entitle the leader of that party to form the next government, the question of who would be the next prime minister was left unanswered and “hanging”. Hence the expression, “a hung parliament”, for as Shakespeare wrote: “Thereby hangs a tale!”But we have seen this situation before. Readers will recall the 18/18 split a few years ago in Trinidad and Tobago, when the role and power of President A.N.R. Robinson to appoint a prime minister were vigorously debated and opinions sought from British constitutional experts!Even before then we hada classic hung parliament inSt Vincent. In 1972, Sir James Mitchell (as he is now) “successfully contestedthe general election as an independent candidate. He had first entered parliament in 1966 as a member of the St Vincent Labour Party (SVLP), but with the 1972 election ending ina 6-6 draw between the SVLP and the PPP (People’s Political Party), Sir James, as an independent candidate, struck a deal with the PPP’s leader E.T. Joshua and became premier under the Alliance government”. Such is the power of numbers!Nick Clegg (the Lib Dem leader) has followed in the footsteps of Sir James for he has secured cabinet seats and other government posts for his team and the office of deputy prime minister for himself, proving that “politics makes forstrange bed fellows”. Now when elections produce no “immediate” new prime minister, the focus shifts, albeit for the time being, to the prime minister who called the elections, for he remains prime minister until the dust settles after horse tradingbetween parties. Gordon Brown did not resign immediately and his decision was supported by precedent.In any event, the ship of state could not be abandoned, and Brown was constitutionally bound, in my view, to remainat the helm while “coalition” negotiations between theLib Dems and the Conservatives, and later between (Labour and the Lib-Dems) took place. As we also have in our regional constitutions, there are specific rules governing the appointment or re-appointment to the office of prime minister after elections. Order and not emotion governs the process. Akin to the Duckworth/Lewis rules, one cannot shift the rules to suit one’s inclinations, for chaos and not order will follow as night follows day!Anyways, Clegg, leader ofthe Lib Dems, now occupies the office of Deputy Prime Minister, an office repeatedly said not to exist under the British Constitution. I wrote a full article on this topic in 1987 when Barrow died, and pointed out that not only have Prime Ministers Harold Wilson, Harold Macmillan and Margaret Thatcher declared that no such office exists, but that King George Vl refused to appoint Anthony Eden as deputy prime minister when Winston Churchill sought to sodesignate him.However, Wilson’s assertion that “in normal times there is in the British Constitution no such animal as a deputy prime minister” may justify Clegg’s appointment, since coalitions, in British constitutional practice, are not “normal”. And in any event, in the wartime coalition cabinet, Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) appointed Clement Attlee (leader of the Labour Party) as his deputy prime minister.My final point, for the time being, is that Brown, like Sir Harold St John in 1985 andSir Lloyd Sandiford in 1987, all ascended to the prime minister’s office as “unelected” prime ministers! True, Sir Lloyd won his own mandate in 1991, but that apart, Brown like Sir Lloyd felt intense pressures soon after he occupied the hot seat. Further, Brown, St John and Sandiford as unelected prime ministers succeeded charismatic leaders, (Blair, Tom Adams and Errol Barrow) whose political flair they did not match, even though they were all extremely capable and successful “deputies”.Brown’s defeat like St John’s in 1986 and Sandiford’s in 1994 supports my view that in politics, one must choose one’s leader on a “horses for courses” basis, since he who is successful as a deputy may not always have the guile and style suited to the role of leader. In 2007 I argued that it was not politically wise to force Blair from office. Other local writers argued that “fixed terms” for the office of prime minister, should be imposed and that the ouster of Blair was a good thing for the British Labour Party. Well now we know!
Lessons in trust
by ALBERT BRANDFORDI do not trust Governments either of my own persuasion or of the other political persuasion when they say, Trust me’. – Iain Duncan Smith, House of Commons Debates, March 3, 2008.
IAIN DUNCAN SMITH, is a former leader of the British Conservative Party, and has just been appointed Works and Pensions Secretary (Minister) in the “extraordinary pact” that is the coalition government between his party and thecentre-left Liberal Democrats.Since governments are made up of politicians, Smith might well have said: “I do not trust [politicians] either of my own persuasion or of the other political persuasion . . . .” Two political events of the past few weeks have again given rise to the question of people’s trust in politicians: that Tory-Lib Dem coalition, which one British commentator was moved to describe as “the quickest marriage in political history”; and locally, Hamilton Lashley’s formal return to the fold of the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP) which he had left in Opposition during 1999.“I am identifying with a cause,” Lashley, still an Independent, told the House of Assembly early in its postprandial session on Tuesday, March 4, “because if you cannot stand for something you will fall for anything.“I am, with your [the Speaker’s] permission,of course, now leaving this position as an Independent Member of this honourable chamber, to stand on the side of the Government and the people whoI represent.”Earlier, the St Michael South East MP had said he was fixed in his convictions and as such had taken a decision to continue the legacy of his cause “to always stand with the downtrodden and those who must always have a voice in a sacred place like this”.Political grasshopper“And, Sir, that voice can only be echoed from a position that validates the rights of those same people to be heard.”While acknowledging that some people may see him as a political grasshopper, a traitor or even a double-crosser, Lashley said his purpose in the House has never been about self-aggrandisement; rather, it was about improving the lot of his constituents, especially the youth, single mothers of large householdsand the elderly.Additionally, he was planning to work with the Government in a number of innovative programmes to develop self-employment opportunities. Now, Britain’s new Prime Minister David Cameron, who on a good day would not even give Nick Clegg – his deputy prime minister – the time of day, has been explaining why the Lib Dem leader is his new best friend.“I came into politics,” said Cameron, the youngest British prime minister since Lord Liverpool (42) in 1812, “because I love this country, I think its best days still lie ahead and I believe deeply in public service.Sounds like Hammie-la yet?“Nick Clegg and I are both political leaders who want to put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and for the national interest. I believe that is the best way to get the strong Government we need.“We are announcing a new politics – where the national interest is more important than the party interest, where co-operation wins out over confrontation, where compromise, give and take, reasonable, civilised, grown-up behaviour is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength.”Not to be left out, Clegg added: “This is a new government and a new kind of government. Until today we have been rivals. Now we are colleagues.”How were these two 43-year-old bitter rivals so easily reconciled? Was it because Gordon Brown and Labour were so evil? Or was it simply that the “rivals” would do anything to “grasp the brass ring”? Did the British voters get what they voted for? Were their desires thwarted by a coalition of power hungry politicians who thought the voters could not be trusted to know what they wanted?Discredited and distrustedLook at a new study from Britain on the public trust and expectations of politicians and parliament in the wake of the recent expenses scandal.It noted that politicians have been rarely trusted, and research from the 1970s found that 60 per cent of the public believed people involved in politics only told the truth some of the time.The study was conducted by the Hansard Society, the Political Studies Association and Centre for Citizenship, Globalisation and Governance.The report, authored by Dr Ruth Fox, of the Hansard Society, observed that in the political context, trust was conventionally viewed as essential to maintaining and strengthening the bond – the ‘democratic chain of command’ – between the elected and electors, “which underpins political consent in our democratic system and enables politicians to take difficult public policy decisions”.“In so far as politicians and Parliament are discredited and distrusted, then, so it follows, it willbe exponentially more difficult to take big, far-reaching and potentially unpopular decisions.“Trust is deemed essential because it breeds legitimacy and therefore facilitates a greater willingness among the public to abide by the decisions made by politicians.”The report noted that the 2007 Eurobarometer Survey of public attitudes found that only 34 per cent of the British public trusted Parliament, and the Committee On Standards In Public Life has consistently found in its biennial Trust In Public Life surveys that politicians were “among the least trusted of professions when it comes to telling the truth”.“Parliament was deemed to embody the traits of sly, greedy and deceitful creatures such as rats, weasels, snakes, foxes and vultures.”The report said perceptions of trust were rooted in public views of the truthfulness and honesty of their representatives.“But the public’s concept of trust is more complex than this alone: reflecting perhaps elements of how they determine levels of satisfaction with their elected representatives, the trust concept also appears to embrace a broader framework which includes perceptions of a representative’s competence, hard work, and local community commitment as well.“The public significantly value honesty over hardwork and political success but may be willing to trade on this occasion.”
[email protected]
Lashley: Some parents need help
A GOVERNMENT Minister thinks there is a crisis in relation to the level of parenting in Barbados.Minister of Family, Youth and Sport, Stephen Lashley, made this charge at the weekly lunch time lecture hosted by the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP) at its George Street headquarters, Friday.“I do believe that far too many parents are not taking their parental responsibilities seriously,” he said.Lashley said Government had formulated a plan to help such parents.“The state has determined that it will move in the direction where we will provide support mechanisms for our parents and already the unit of family which in the Ministry of Family, Youth and Sport, has already started a parent training programme through which individuals will be trained in the art of parenting,” he said.Lashley said Government would be partnering with youth, community and church groups “to ensure that we can turn around this problem in relation to parenting.”Lashley told the DLP party faithfuls that he did not think that a high percentage of young people were in crisis, adding that the majority of young people were positive symbolsof excellence. “We have a challengewith some of our young people but I believe they arein the minority.”He said the public should resist the temptation of painting all young people with one brush. (MK)
Fun drive
YESTERDAY 36 lucky children – winners of a Child Month promotion – were pampered and spoilt as they explored the island on an island safari adventure.This event was the result of a promotion conceptualised and organised by real estate agent Julie Dash. The children, whose ages ranged from six to 16, toured the fields, hills and valleys from 10:30 a.m to 3 p.m. in four Island Safari Land Rovers.They were accompanied by popular MC Mac Fingall, broadcaster Maurice Norville and calypso king Stedson RPB Wiltshire. Here, Dash encouraging Nathan Eristlee to pet Suga, a monkey, which they met mingling with his owner Henderson Durant at a bus stop in Bathsheba. Behind them looking on are other young ones who participated in the tour. (AH) (Picture by Donnay Deane.)
Belize’s faith in CCJ is valued
All right-thinking Caribbean people will be especially pleased to have read the announcement earlier this week that Belize will become a member of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in the not-too-distant future. Belize will be the third Caribbean territory accepting the jurisdiction of the court as its final Court of Appeal, and one anticipates that this fillip to the total acceptance of the court will bear fruit, and that very soon every one of the region’s territories will cease to take their appeals to the Privy Council in London.We have previously commented on the need for the acceptance of the CCJ, but the matter has become more pressing in the light of comments by several of the distinguished law lords who serve as members of the Appellate Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. One learned law lord remarked on the fact that about 40 per cent of their time was taken up with appeals from the former Commonwealth. This is a major cost not borne by the former colonies, but cost, though important, is not the major consideration in issue. Rather there are greater and more philosophically rooted reasons for demitting the jurisdiction and signing on to the Caribbean Court of Justice.Lord Hoffman, a retired law lord who sat on many appeals from this region, has often spoken about the need for local judges in their several jurisdictions to decide local cases against the background of the conditions applicable in those jurisdictions. He has on more than one occasion opined that local judges are better able to understand the nuances of the social realities of these islands, and are therefore in a better position to apply the law in that local context. We agree with the reasoning of Lord Hoffman, and others who share his views. Law is not a stagnant discipline. It lives or ought to live since all societies change and the interpretation of a law in 1966 may have to be reconsidered in 2010, if the law is to serve the needs of the society and not hang like an albatross around the neck of the society. Current thought, for example, abhors the institutions of slavery, but in much earlier times, it was supported by the full weight of the law.The argument that local courts and judges are in a better position is the more cogently made when one considers the nature of our constitutions, and the duty of the courts to interpret the human rights provisions in those constitutions. To take an example from this weeks Court Pages, yet another instance has arisen of a person spending six years on remand before being brought to trial. A local judge faced with determining if such a lapse of time is reasonable will better answer that question against his experience of the local economic and social conditions.His counterpart 4 000 miles away in a different social environment might be inclined to apply an interpretation valid for his environment, but totally unsuited to our local reality. Such dislocation may also adversely affect rulings in other than criminal matters, and injustices may therefore be innocently visited upon one or more parties.We therefore urge Jamaica and Trinidad, in particular as two of the larger and more commercially developed islands, to urgently consider their positions and to put the processes in place that would recognise the CCJ as the final Appellate Court for their citizens.The Privy Council has done a remarkable job for the region in times past, but just as we now train our own lawyers, we now need to step up the task of persuading all our regional counterparts to follow the example of Belize . . . .To complete what one learned commentator called the “cycle of independence”, by demonstrating faith in our own courts and judges to be the final arbiters in our legal system.
The Al Gilkes column – Wishing the PM well
I TRY to keep as far as possible from politics and politicians whenever I sit down to write this column, but today I am making an exception following the unexpected news this weekend that Prime Minister David Thompson is not well.Sickness, whether it’s a simple case of the common cold or life-threatening, has no political, racial, religious, social or other boundaries. It matters not if you are Bee or Dee, black, white or Chinese, Christian, Muslim or Jew. Nobody is exempt.As a nation we all suffered the experience together of having two of our previous Prime Ministers literally drop down dead in office, and regardless of which camp we belonged to at the time or on which side of the paling we sat, we all felt the same painful sense of loss with each passing.Neither PM Barrow nor PM Adams had time fora physician to assess their condition and even admit them to the QEH for tests. Fortunately, time is on PM Thompson’s side, and as he uses that time to have his condition diagnosed and treated at home and in New York, let ours be a prayer with one voice for him to survive this fearful episode in his life and that sooner, rather than later, he will back in full stride, leading our nation.I also empathise with him because I once suffered similar excruciating abdominal pains caused by stomach ulcers at such an early age that nobody at the time considered them as a possibility for my affliction. Eventually, a wise old doctor by the name of Goddard dared to go where none before him had gone with a diagnosis that saved my life. . . . . . . . .Today, unless something unexpected happens overnight, I will be among the thousands from all over the world who will be bringing it to Kensington Oval today and enjoying a true clash of the titans, Australia vs England and Australia vs New Zealand, for the two world Twenty20 men’s and women’s titles.Don’t ask me anything about the West Indies men’s team. As far as I am concerned, you stand a better chance of being run over by a bulldozer and escaping without a scratch than having that team bring some joy to your life.It was a one-man team under Brian Lara and it continues to be a one-man team under Chris Gayle. When Lara made a big score, they won or came close to winning. When he didn’t score, they lost. The same thing is happening with Gayle, as seen in their recent victory and defeat in the current tournament.On the other side of the coin, I had hoped that the women would have made it through to the finals despite the fact that they are new to this class of competition and with their lack of experience didn’t have a ghost of a chance against New Zealand. Nevertheless, they made me very proud by making it to the semi-finals.I am sure that one day soon, that is the team we will all be hailing as West Indies fans.Finally, if I went and got married to two women without getting a divorce from one, I would be at a serious loss over what would make that act, though illegal, so heinous that I could be remanded to prison while other people are granted bail for a variety of crimes including indecent assault and manslaughter.Maybe my good friend, the Market Vendor, can help me with an answer to that one.
THE MOORE THINGS CHANGE: Goodbye, Test cricket
KENSINGTON OVAL: The second cricket Test match, West Indies vs England. Within the first half-hour, West Indies are 25 for three: captain Jeff Stollymeyer is run out for a duck after he and J.K. Holt find themselves both at the south end of the pitch; dapper Frank Worrell, in classical style, bat and pad together, is bowled comprehensively by Brian Statham for a duck; and J.K. Holt edges a Trevor Bayley outswinger to nonchalant Tom Graveney at first slip.That event is permanently etched in the inner recesses of my memory since February 6, 1954. I was 13.Clyde Walcott came in after Frank Worrell and dug in, with a young Bruce Pairaudeau, and stopped the rout. The Barbadian and the Guyanese put on 165 runs before Pairaudeau left for a stoic 71. By the end of that first day, Walcott was still there, at 147, and went on to his highest test score of 220.Now, get this, and then LOL – laugh out loud. West Indies won the match . . . on the sixth day! There was even a rest day in between.Kensington Oval: Two weeks ago – and ending today – an apparition of the game just described returns to the same venue. We call it by the same name, while borrowing a term usually associated with perfect vision: 20/20. All I can remember about this two-week burlesque are some attractive young women wukkin’ up in the broiling sun; Mac Fingall bawling all day into a thousand-watt sound system; an exhausted Indian fan dozing off while Chris Gayle slogged sixes over the 3Ws Stand, and a black Barbadian cavorting around the stands dressed up as a green monkey.This, they tell me, is the future of cricket. At the expense of disturbing the tranquility of Morgan Lewis, I am not interested in that future. It’s for those with the attention span of the female mosquito.In search of money and instant satisfaction, a game that once challenged the intellect of men and women (women have been playing Test cricket for decades), has been reduced to “Slam-bam, thank you ma’am” and “Before I go, gimme my pay cheque”. The irony is that the new version was also given birth where the old version originated: England.India, one of the emerging economic titans of the world, has made a money tree out of the game in its new and “exciting” format. Not all Indians are blown away by the razzamatazz, though. One of their outstanding stars, Mushtaq Mohammed, was heard to observe: “Twenty20 cricket is harming cricket technically. Batting does not require any technique and bowlers suffer even more, as their only priority is to avoid being hit out of the ground. Fielding is the only aspect that can benefit.”Another Indian, former fast bowler Khan Mohammad, reflecting on the long form, has said: “Cricket is the most intellectual of all the outdoor sports. It demands observation, calculation and judgment. It brings out qualities like courage, concentration, self-restraint and brotherly teamwork.”But they tell us that change must come; and it must. But it serves us right, those of us who moan and groan of the new turn the game has taken. The long form of the game ought to have undergone change a long time ago.Here I recall the creativity of a simple gentleman from Carrington’s Village, near where I grew up. The late Joe Connell took over the administration of softball cricket and came up with a design which I recall went like this: each side’s first innings compulsorily lasted, say, 20 overs; then the remainder of the match continued in its long form. This format usually made for more exciting finishes and the games usually did not drag on too long.A formula similar to that should have been adapted to all four-innings matches, up to Test cricket.Sadly, it’s too late. Goodbye, Test cricket.•Carl Moore was the first Editor of THE NATION and is a social commentator. Email [email protected]
Connell – a man for the people
The name John Connell is readily associated with jurisprudence – a criminal lawyer of some repute. He was a judge in the local Court of Appeal and also served as a permanent judge on the Human Rights Court for Latin America and the Caribbean. Connell also made a foray into politics, and many will remember his public dismissal from the Barbados Senate in 1976 by National Hero Errol Barrow, then leader of the opposition. As lawyer and politician, John Connell made waves.But the now retired legal luminary regards none of these as the hallmark of his life. While he acknowleges that he has made a contribution in the area of law, the thing dearest to him is his work in the area of conservation.The Government of Barbados recognised his contribution last year with the award of Barbados’ second-highest honour, The Companion of Honour for public service and his contribution to the legal profession.But he says: “When this recent honour was conferred on me, I learnt that it was conferred because of my services to law. That disappointed me because I think that I put more into the environment than I put into law. Law was my job . . . but I loved the environment.”He was the first director of the Parks and Beaches Commission, a forerunner of the National Conservation Commission, working alongside conservationists such as the late Iris Bannochie, Donald Wiles, Courtney Forde, Canon Harold Tudor and Garry Duesbury. Assuming the presidency of the Caribbean Conservation Association, he set about having that constitution changed and lobbied regional governments and NGOs for the kind of support that helped create a vibrant organisation for the preservation of the region’s natural beauty. This is why he regrets that “everything about my contribution to the environment was erased from my résumé”, prepared for delivery by the orator at the presentation of The Companion of Honour.He insists “it was the environment that was dearest to my heart”.Still, he is proud of his achievements. “I came from very poor family. My father was a carpenter, my mother was a needleworker. I got where I am because they had the good sense to make sure that I had a secondary education.”“I left here in 1958 and went to London. There were two types of persons who went to London in those days – either those who won the Barbados Scholarship and went straight into Oxford and Cambridge and those places, and those like me.”Connell worked as a bus conductor, in factories, in restaurants, all to finance a legal education. He was finally awarded a scholarship to Holborn College of Law.The experience in Britain saw what some people considered a radical young lawyer returning to Barbados.“Unlike many lawyers in Barbados, I saw the English society from both sides. I saw how black people were treated in England in those days and I felt that I should come back and tell Barbadians about it.“But I was somewhat disapointed. People in England warned me that Barbadians were not going to accept what I was saying. But I am satisfied with my conscience that I came back and I told them what it was like. “That is the black power chapter of my life for which I make no apologies.” He was about age 29.Many times since then he has questioned his decision to return to Barbados. “I gave up two jobs in England and came back here. “You know the years I have regretted that? I lectured law full time at the Balham and Tooting Polytechnic during the day, and in the evening lectured at the Woolwich Polytechnic.”When he came back he formed a political alliance with a group of like thinkers – the late Leroy Harewood, Calvin Alleyne, Glenroy Straughn. Together they challenged social and political issues of the day under the banner of The People’s Progressive Movement.When that failed, he was invited by a senior member of the Democratic Labour Party to join that political party, there beginning another interesting phase of his life.And in this Sunday Sun interview, he took the opportunity to clear the air on one point: “A lot of people feel that I was appointed to the Senate by Errol Barrow. Errol Barrow would never appoint me to the Senate. He never liked John Connell.“After he lost the election in 1976, he went to Miami on a sabattical and left “Sleepy” [Sir Frederick] Smith as the leader of the opposition and “Sleepy” appointed me to the Senate.“That is why Barrow dismissed me from the Senate. I was never his appointment.”The story of that dismissal is legendary. As an opposition senator appointed by the Democratic Labour Party, Connell voted in support of a Barbados Labour Party Government bill to increase constituencies from 24 to 28.“When [the bill] came to the Senate, I voted in support of it because they had made it clear to me that they had no intention to repeal it and they were doing what both political parties are constantly doing, fooling the people of Barbados and telling them they intend to do one thing, and when they get power they don’t do it.” Another DLP senator, Dennis Hunte, also voted in favour of the bill. A few days later both Connell and Hunte were dismissed from the Senate at a public political meeting.Today Connell speaks humorously about the experience, but posits the view that “there are people who offer themselves for a seat in Parliament and don’t have the testicular fortitude to go and do what they know they should do and as a result Barbados in my view is slipping, because you must have some courage to stand up for your views if you believe in them”.Having undergone double bypass surgery 12 years ago, the 72-year-old has slowed down and enjoys a quiet life with his wife Mary at their Edgehill Heights, St Thomas home.There he ponders his dream to help disadvantaged people in the Caribbean. “I want to get in a position in which I can relieve pain and suffering and illness, particularly among people who cannot afford to pay.”
Police discover election plot
PORT-OF-SPAIN – Acting Police Commissioner James Philbert said on Friday that police had arrested five people believed to be part of a plot unearthed by security forces to disrupt the 2010 general election.The arrests were made after lawmen raided a house in Carenageon Thursday night, where they recovered a deadly AK-47 rifle and T-shirts belonging to the New National Vision (NNV) political party led by Fuad Abu Bakr, the son of 1990 attempted coup leader Yasin Abu Bakr.Among those arrested were a 15-year-old boy from Ariapita Roadin St Ann’s; a 22-year-old woman of McKenzie Drive Point Cumana, Carenage, a 25-year-old former member of the T&T Coast Guard of Gonzales Road, Belmont, and two other suspects, ages 27 and 21, of Ariapita Road St Ann’s, and McKenzie Drive, Point Cumana, Carenage, respectively.Philbert disclosed the threat during an emergency press conference called on Friday evening at the Police Administration Building in Port-of-Spain. Police sources said the suspects are members of a particular religious organisation in the country. They were held at a house at McKenzie Drive, Point Cumana, Carenage.“We have unearthed credible information which suggests that a certain group has expressed its intention to disrupt election proceedings, and acting on that information, as of last night, police from the Western Division responded to information and conducted searches, and in a particular house in the Carenage district. They arrested five people and they foundan AK-47 assault rifle, together with two magazines containinga total of 48 rounds of ammunition,” he said.“We want to reassure the public that the Police Service intends to carry out its mandate to the fullest extent of the law, and no one would be allowed to disrupt the elections campaigns [and] the elections proceedings. “We intend to allow no one and no body and no group, whosoever they are, to stop us from exercising our democratic rights in Trinidad and Tobago,” he said. “Our officers will act fiercely, fearlessly and fairly within the ambit of the law. “We assure the law-abiding citizens of T&T that persons will feel the full brunt of the law if they intend to, and if they show their intentions, to disrupt proceedings or disrupt any aspect of peace in Trinidad and Tobago, not only at this time, but before and after the elections as well,” Philbert said. (Trinidad Express)