A Hart attack

The unthinkable has happened. Calder Hart has resigned, not only from UDeCOTT, but also from ALL other State boards he was involved with. Word has it that though Hart resigned, it was an order 'from de top' that he does so within 24 hours.

This must be a shock to Hart, like a defibrillator passing a high voltage. 

Hart was a 'blue-eyed' boy, protected, nurtured, given a free pass to the PNM elite, the public coffers and inside the political and financial affairs of the nation.

Hart was invited to TnT by Andre Monteil, a former classmate of his. Monteil was treasurer of PNM. By bringing Hart into the fold, he ensured Hart’s meteoric rise to the top.

Over the years, Hart held top positions in many State enterprises, and was looked at as untouchable. He commanded the full support of the Prime Minister and P**rick Manning (the 2 being separate as you all know).

I don’t have the time, or the inclination, to go into the complaints about Hart and UDeCOTT, but suffice to say, there is a lot of jiggery-pokery… (British slang).

That caused a Commission of Enquiry, which was expanded by the PM to encompass ALL of the construction sector. Quite likely it was an attempt to mislead the public. In any event, revelations out of that CoE was startling, and the entire country must have been shocked.

Now that Hart’s sworn testimony, made under oath, appears to be perjury through the revealing of birth and marriage certificates of his wife’s relatives, he is suddenly persona non grata.

The newspapers have revealed that within 24 hours he was asked to resign, and within this time frame his wife and last child also left the country to Canada.

Now, this may not be the end of the story. He can still be held liable under several legal conditions, not the least of which would be lying under oath, and also under the Integrity Act. That is if Max ever gets his thumb out of his arse and appoints one.

More on this later, at the moment, I am happy taking in a few celebratory drinks. (^_^)

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

This short poem by the English poet William Ernest Henley (1849–1903). It was written in 1875 from his hospital bed and first published in 1888.

At the age of 12 Henley contracted tuberculosis of the bone… later losing his leg from below the knee. He was the inspiration for RL Stevenson’s Long John Silver in Treasure Island.

His daughter, Margaret Emma Henley, was the inspiration for the creation of the name Wendy by JM Barrie in his Peter Pan.

Whilst Invictus was defiant of his fate, his poem Margaritae Sorori was seen to be acceptance.

A late lark twitters from the quiet skies:
And from the west,
Where the sun, his day's work ended,
Lingers as in content,
There falls on the old, gray city
An influence luminous and serene,
A shining peace.

The smoke ascends
In a rosy-and-golden haze. The spires
Shine and are changed. In the valley
Shadows rise. The lark sings on. The sun,
Closing his benediction,
Sinks, and the darkening air
Thrills with a sense of the triumphing night--
Night with her train of stars
And her great gift of sleep.

So be my passing!
My task accomplish'd and the long day done,
My wages taken, and in my heart
Some late lark singing,
Let me be gather'd to the quiet west,
The sundown splendid and serene,
Death.

This post was partly inspired by the movie Invictus, starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon.

I have Na’vi in the family

Anyone seeing James Cameron’s visionary movie Avatar will know what I am talking about here.

Cameron’s Navi

This is what the one’s in my family look like.

The occasion was the celebration of Phagwa.

Thought of the Day

Go to the People;

Live among them;

Love them;

Learn from them;

Start from where they are;

Work with them;

Build on what they have.

But of the best leaders,

When the task is accomplished,

The work completed,

The people all remark:

"We have done it ourselves"

                    Lao Tsu

Horses with anchors

I know the Cyaptain going to have a field day with this one...

Panday, that aged but perennial child, is once again throwing one of his mindless tantrums. Once again, I won't insult the jackass by calling Panday asinine but I think readers will get the drift.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. The biggest stumbling block to progress is Basdeo Panday and the only hope now is for his 'ticky-ticker' to give out. Progress, with Panday in the way, is like a horse race with the horses anchored.

Thought of the Day

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

by Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Curb thy tongue”

Can a leopard change his spots?

No more than a current PNM politician can stop lying, it seems.

Remember when Calder Hart (I know he’s not a ‘politician’) said he wasn’t a relative or related to the directors of Sunway Corporation? This was supported in full by P**rick, and his short sidekick… Tattoo even went on record denying this. Even the issue of the fax number on the company’s letter being the same as Calder Hart’s was airily dismissed.

Now that the COP has revealed the birth and marriage certificates of the parties involved to support the statements of Carl Khan who is the former spouse (and ‘spurned lover’) of Sherine Hart, more shit has hit the fan. Everybody getting splattered it seems.

Avoidance of the mess now seems to be upper most on everyone’s minds.

Imagine the ‘mouthpiece of the Government’ is now in a state of denial… to be sure it is somewhat late and there are statements floating around the Internet and blogosphere that makes a liar of him.

Personally, his current statement also appears to be a lie:

'Let me repeat. I do not know these people. I have never met them. And therefore I cannot answer you.'

Honestly, how many readers believe this? Raise your hands… I don’t. Can you imagine a man, at ‘butt’ level of the Prime Minister, not ever meeting the ‘right’ hand of the PM at all those private and public functions? If ‘im tell meh ‘im butt never see de sun, meh quicker believe ‘im, wot wit all dem SUV and ting floating arong now.

Even were I to give him the benefit of the doubt, merely because I have no time to search out the proof of his tattle tales, I bet someone else will air it ere too long.

Ouch… I just had an image of the prophetess – pointing a finger from the pulpit of the new church – and saying, “Blasphemer, curb thy tongue!”

The fall of the house of…

The fall of the house of the lion was expected. After years of selfish and arrogant behaviour that became more and more outlandish and comfy with the ‘parasitic oligarchy’, the population showed signs of increasing unrest. Finally, unable to bear it any more, the ‘hero worshippers’ cracked and booted out the aged lion in an unceremonious yet commendable display of unification.

Signs of unrest are showing too, for the ‘Father of the Nation’ who is a self-titled Christian (big C or not!). Daily, one can see more discomfort and shame over his behaviour, not only from ‘others’ in the population, but also from his own sect. Or should I say sects?

For Christians, political supporters, detractors alike are not only fed up with the status quo of maximum dictatorship leadership, they are so pissed off, they actually (gasp) voice their annoyance. In letters to the editors of newspapers (oddly, no response from I’m-a-Butt), in newspaper articles, in political commentary – even from former stalwarts – the die is cast… no more!

First the pillar that was Rowley was repeatedly pounded until it weakened, though it did not give way… it remains hanging by a thread. Perhaps knowledge that it barely holds up the house is all keeping it from being battered down to dust.

Then the pillar that is UDeCOTT is taking a beating from the outside… by the winds of change you may say. This is the one pillar fully exposed to  the harsh climatic conditions, and no amount of shoring up or defences put up around it can prevent the exposure from slowly beating and conquering it. Licks coming all the way from Malaysia and includes family and friends, would you believe?

Finally, the pillar of faith - I hope it is not the rock upon which the church is built - (sorry, I could not resist) is taking a beating that not even the best demolition team can match. The licks may have started in Parliament by Jack, but soon gave way to the Heights of Guanapo and even reached overseas, to places like Zimbabwe.

Yes, the changes are a-coming, even if those with prophetesses and “see-ah ‘oman” cannot see. Disgruntlement is giving way to disgust, annoyance to anger and pretty soon we may see the fall of the house of… P**rick.

It pays to gih dem presshaaahhhh!

Dee Cyaptain took on British Gas 2 years ago, fought tooth and nail  over some crazy bill fuh roughly £800.00. Many of my closest colleagues had a given up tone in dey voice. Yuh know, like when you meet Goliath cower in a corner. Even one of the Cyaptain’s tribe said, “Give up! Yuh was’ing yuh time.. you does pick dee wrong battles!” And true to form dee Cyaptain said, “NAHEEE!! I’s pure preshaahhh fuh dem!!”

Dey nearly cut orf my gyas man – in winter. But I was determined as F*! I even bought a sleeping bag – jes in case push come to shove ah could wrap up warm in meh house.

Dee battle continued and dee Cyaptain beat back the giant! One of my close colleagues was absolutely gobsmacked that the giant fell. Yep – British Gas caved-in – and found a way to obliterate the £800 for 4 years of arrears they were claiming. [All dis was out of court].

War Again!! [Dis is a long one]

Well today, dee Cyaptain went to ‘war’ again. Dis time it was a motor car insurance company. Basically dey give me a quotation for 4 drivers on one car including of course Mrs Walker. LOL. Yeah ova here each driver has to be named on dee policy. Come to purchase dee policy dey, realise’ dat Mrs Walker only in dee country less dan 3 months fuh dee year. And dey go ‘We can’t cover her unless she’s living in the country for more than 9 months in the year!’ Three frontline staff consult their managers and come back wid dee same story.

Den dey do dee usual crap i.e. dey start repeatin’ dey self and dey blasted policy… and daize one t’ing does get me hot! So I tell dem like it is, “Don’t repeat to me what I already told you I understand, please! I’m not going to believe you or go away just because you repeat yourself or the policy… where is the policy?” Right so they refer me to the policy online and quote para 14 headed ‘Residency’. Well who tell dem do dat? Because now dee Cyaptain had the opportunity to dissect their policy.

The policy stated: “We will only provide you with the cover set out in this policy if you and/or any additional drivers, on your policy, are permanent UK residents.” Well ah launch into dem as follows by email:

1. There was nothing in para 14 that referred to a timescale, for what may lead to an interpretation of 'Residency' or 'permanent UK residents'.
2. There was no other information available on your website or in the public domain that clarified how those words were to be interpreted.
3. At the points of sale there were no questions asked about 'residency', any applicable time limits. It was only by pure chance when Mr X asked me about Mrs Walker travelling to work that this point emerged. Up to that point her 'status' was not a matter at all.
4. I made the point to Mr X that I found the policy difficult reconcile with the principles of European law which positively support non-discrimination and free movement of workers. I said that if the policy was to be applied with the interpretation to exclude Mrs Walker, for the reasons given, it was potentially discriminatory (and I was clear that I did NOT use 'discriminatory' in the sense of any racial discrimination).

My interpretation of your policy:

1. The heading 'Residency' in para 14 and the word 'permanent UK residents' in their natural reasonable construction, are meant to exclude persons who are not UK citizens for migratory or immigration purposes i.e. not to exclude people who are UK citizens who work in and out of Europe.
2. The interpretation taken by your Company up to this time is most unusual.
3. If (I emphasise if) your policy under para 14 (Residency) had been worded  -  'living in or on UK territories for greater than 9 months of the year' - which is the construction given to it at this time, lots of people who are UK citizens would be excluded e.g. armed services personnel, those in diplomatic services, and workers who have no fixed assignments abroad.
4. If the existing policy does not exclude UK citizens working abroad in overseas UK territories, I find it difficult why the policy should then seek to exclude UK citizens working in EU territories.
5. The potential effects of your policy if applied, in the interpretation given up to the time of sending this email are:
   1. To exclude UK citizens, who are normally resident for immigration purposes, who work in Europe or any other country for lengthy periods of time.
   2. To discriminate against the rights to freedom of movement in and among European nations.

I put the above to them on the phone and by email and requested a response today! All dis was before lunch time. By 15:24 dey call back saying ‘It was a mistake.. we are sorry”. Sorry? Mistake? Well daize like waving a red rag to a bull! Dee Cyaptain doh like dem words at all.. at all.. at all! So I go “Well sorry is a cheap and easy word when four hours of my time has been consumed and I’m stressed out.”  Dis is dee part whey dee big companies does beat yuh up and den pat yuh on dee head and go ‘sorrrryyyy”. Eh eh.. I eh taking dat. So I tell dee uman “Are you gonna make a tangible gesture of goodwill or not?” To which she replies, “Okay we can compensate you for your phonecalls.” I didn’t want to push it, and as it was goodwill I said, “Alright, I’ll have £10”. She agreed to send me a cheque for £10. She had said the call was being recorded… and of course dee Cyaptain has similar technology! So touché – eh!

Later on the deal was completed without complication at 16:40PM.

The above was important to me because my cost savings would have been about £800 overall.

Morals from dee story

1. Doh take shit! Doh do nuthin’ wid shit except get others to clean it up, and keep it far from you.
2. People are generally stupid.
3. People generally cyah read and understand – even in dis great UK.
4. People work on authority more than logic.
5. People in general cannot interpret law and policy, or care much for it. Instead they will do what their bosses tell um, regardless.
6. Never give up – if you know you have some fundamental referenced right and you can clearly see the evidence of how it is being infringed.

Idiot on the loose

Letter from Tattoo to the Guardian…

I have taken note of a letter from Edmund Gall, who is apparently living in England, complaining about the amendments that are being made to the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act.

Gall is aggrieved because the Government is seeking to remove the ambiguity that currently exists in the law with respect to identification marks on vehicles, in particular the identification marks used on vehicles owned by the Office of the Prime Minister. However, Gall is wrong in every respect and these overseas letter writers need to get their facts straight before rushing to print.

In the first place, contrary to Gall's erroneous assertions, the Act does not authorise the President to use the coat of arms on his official vehicles. Instead, all the Act does, at Clause 16, is exempt the President from the requirement for identification marks on his vehicles and there is no reference whatsoever to the coat of arms in the Act. The reality is that the use of the coat of arms is authorised by the Minister of National Security under the National Emblems Act, a completely different piece of legislation. Gall is clearly also unaware of the fact that in 1997, under a previous Government, the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act was changed to give the minister with responsibility for transport the authority to approve the procedures for registration of vehicles. The requirement for licensing of vehicles was abolished at the same time and changes were also made to the requirements for identification marks on vehicles.

As a result, since 1997, the Transport Minister has been empowered to authorise new procedures for the registration of vehicles. However, the necessary changes were not made to the regulations, thus creating a conflict between the primary legislation (the Act) and the subsidiary legislation (the regulations). This is the ambiguity that we are now correcting.

Colm Imbert

Minister of Works and Transport

Jumbie’s response:

So it takes 13 years between changing an Act and changing the regulations to reflect the Act?

By the way, can Martin Joseph (or Imbert) produce the licence or the application for the licence from the Office of the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister, as required by the National Emblems Act to use the Coat of Arms as a number plate?

5. (1) The Minister may grant to a person who makes an application in accordance with subsection (3) a licence to do any one or more of the following things:

(a) to use or display the Coat of Arms in connection with business, trade, profession or calling or with the activities of any body of persons whether corporate or unincorporate;

(b) to sell or offer for sale any articles, goods or things which represent or on which is reproduced or represented the Coat of Arms.

(2) A licence granted by the Minister may contain such terms and conditions as the Minister may think fit and may at any time be revoked or varied by the Minister.

(3) An application for a licence shall be in writing and shall contain such information as the Minister may from time to time require.

I sure we goh see ah licence turn up now dat ah mention it.

And I wonder what use the Coat of Arms comes under: “business, trade, profession or calling or with the activities of any body of persons whether corporate or unincorporate”…?

Immigration rules in the UK

Recently, the UK government has made it a lot harder for people coming to the UK as migrants. Not that it was not already difficult in some cases.

The UK has been described as being ‘over-populated’. With around 65M people here, the ‘system’ is overloaded. The ‘benefits system’ which includes many persons seeking asylum, is on the verge of being ‘broke’. The working population, those paying taxes, is getting smaller, and their taxation is rising to support many whom depend on public funds.

By making the changes to the immigration rules the government might be hoping to cut back on the application for visitors. Last year, it was reported that there were nearly 240 thousand applications for student visas, mainly from India and Pakistan. Many of these persons would come here to study, bring their families and some never return home.

Now the government has made it clear that the criteria for study is definitely stricter. No more can families join persons studying courses lasting below 6 months (a ridiculously short time).

English language skills must be to GCSE (‘O’ level) standard. The person must show they can financially support themselves.

They must have health insurance since ‘free’ NHS treatment will be denied. In fact, if owing money to the NHS, the person can be denied entry next time they visit.

"For the first time the UK's immigration rules would state explicitly that a record of failing to discharge payment obligations to the National Health Service will impact upon a person's ability to enter and stay in this country."

[There] are legitimate concerns that some long-term immigrants, and potential terrorists, could use the student route to gain illegal entry to Britain.

The minimum age someone can asked for a marriage visa has been raised from 18 to 21… a rule designed to prevent forced marriages within the (mainly) Asian community.

There are a lot of arguments back and forth about these new rules… both sides usually do have points worthy of consideration.

However, it impacts on every day life for many people.

To give an example… about 3 days ago, I went to an ATM (bank) machine). In front of me were 5 Asians (those of ‘Indian’ appearance as opposed to Chinese/Japanese extraction).

They did not speak English, were unable to read the instructions on the screen to withdraw money, unable to ask for help (even if they felt like ‘trusting’ another person to help), and finally left, after nearly 20 minutes of randomly pressing buttons, without any success.

There are people who come to England, live here for nearly 20 years and cannot yet speak English… or refuse to do so. They segregate themselves in their own little communities, imposing their views on the larger community around them…

Don’t believe me? Take a look at how banks stopped giving out piggy banks so as to not offend Muslims. Or the case of police ordering a homeowner to remove some porcelain pig figurines from her window because Muslim neighbours complained.

I view this as a type of arrogance… if you want to live in the people’s country, obey their rules, integrate and learn to live in harmony.

PS:

The cost of applying for British citizenship has risen over the past 4 years or so… from £285 to £655 to £720 at present. A joint application by husband and wife will cost £850 and a child under 16 is £460 (plus £50 for each additional child).

These fees are application processing fees and are non-refundable. They exclude the fees for the checking service, the Life in the UK test, the Citizenship Ceremony and the passport application fees and processing cost.

Dictatorships and the need for Eternal Vigilance

I strongly suggest reading Michael Harris’ column today. Here are some relevant bits that stand out.

…there has been a great deal of commentary on the Government's proposal to disband the Inland Revenue division and the Customs and Excise division of the Public Service and to replace them with a new Revenue Authority which would not be part of the Public Service.

The two key issues of the debate were very well defined by Lucie-Smith. The first is the treatment of the employees of the two divisions to be disbanded and the second, 'is that the Board of the Authority would be appointed by the Cabinet and governance would not be subject to public service rules. '

While there are serious implications for industrial relations policy and practice inherent in the Government's approach to the first issue, it is the second issue which really is of far more importance in terms of the political and constitutional future of the country.

…Spence in his article would have none of it. He is of the view that, 'the setting up of the RA is part of a policy position on the part of this Government that intends to replace the Public Service as far as possible with institutions that it can control directly ' And further that 'Since constitutional change may not be achieved the Government is removing the role of service commissions one sector at a time.'

Spence goes on to state that, 'It is important that there be a national debate on this policy which is being implemented surreptitiously without clear enunciated (sic) of it as Government policy. '

…And the critical issue here is not the question of the 'cost-benefit analysis' of these enterprises but the fact that these enterprises are expressly designed to circumvent the oversight provisions of the Constitution.

The first is the danger of corruption… / … what the Government was proposing could lead to the wholesale and wanton looting of the National Treasury. …All we have to realise is that oversight is now effectively limited to the relevant minister and to the integrity, experience, time and interest of the members of the board he appoints.

The second and even greater danger which arises is the political and constitutional one. Here the pattern of intent is even clearer. There can be no doubt that the Government is bent on introducing a model of governance in which the central executive dominates and controls all aspects of national life.

This intent is clear from the Government’s draft constitution and its proposal for an executive presidency. The intent is clear from the provisions of that same draft constitution as they relate to control of the DPP and the Judiciary. The intent is manifest from the Government’s proposals on Local Government reform which would effectively destroy any degree of autonomy and authority in Local Government. And it is clear from all these ’special purpose enterprises’.

And, as Spence points out, the Government is intent on introducing its model of governance without any discussion with the national community. The pattern of surreptitious subversion of our Constitution is clear. It is a pattern of creeping dictatorship.

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck the chances are that it is a duck. And at the very least sensible persons would operate on the premise that it is a duck until there is credible evidence to the contrary.

Eternal vigilance!

Thought of the Day

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong"

"It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere."

Voltaire

(French Philosopher and Writer 1694-1778)