The Cyaptain’s new pen

Well, while people hu’ting dey head ova here in dee UK about hung Parliament – and others preoccupied on dee Rock about how ‘well hung’ – or not - certain politicians might be, dee Cyaptain makin’ he self really happy and contented in he own living space. LOL.

The pen to the left is now a rare item. Trust me, I’ve searched the internet for months. The Pelikan Level L5 is now sold largely in Germany and Austria – you may be lucky to find one on Ebay. Well yuh boy receive’ dis lovely item dis morning in dee post. It is in pristine unused condition. I am so delighted to be a proud owner of this item. I’ll tell you why.

The Level L5, L1 and L65 – were the only major challenge to fountain and cartridge pens in the last few decades. Its unique design is roughly a cross between a cartridge and a true fountain pen – but that is not really a good approximation. I first bought the L1 back in 1997 and that pen lasted me for 10 plus years. It failed only because it accidentally sustained a crack after falling. Since then I’ve got a good pen case.

I am no collector of pens – so doh start mout’ing orf about Montblanc etc etc. Daize dee fus t’ing Donkey rockians does do – anytime you show dem somik nice dat yuh have – dey does bong to flash some headline intelligence ‘bout somik better. [Somebody mus’ take dat bait eh – watch.]

Anyhow, I like dis particular pen, dee Level L5, because it is unique and it works very well. I have a collection of L1 (or L65's). I do a lot of handwriting and these pens are so cool because I need only fill them about once a month!! I always walk with two.

The unique design features of the pen can be seen by scrolling the page below. It looks like the design is a feat of German engineering. Some people have complained about inkflow problems. I’ve had some minor issues with that but no greater than I had had with the regular fountain or cartridge pens (which I now never use).

So – I doz make mehself happy with a few small items. Summer is here and like last year.. I’ll be picking up me fresh West Indian coconuts from Tesco. Ah now have two BBQ pits so is real akshaan dis summer!

Humouring myself

Reports of a plot to assassinate the Leader of the Opposition has surfaced, drawing various comments among citizens and politicians.

Perhaps the most dotish came from… you guessed it… Tattoo. I don’t know if it’s his height but I swear, this man’s shit mixes with his brains so much. It’s like he doesn’t have enough room inside him to separate them!

But rather than rant, I decided to humour myself:

Our immaturity on display

For the past 2 or 3 days, monitoring the news in Trinidad and Tobago has been an exercise in tolerance… and believe you me, it was with a great deal of restraint I found myself hesitant to post anything on this blog for fear my temper get the best of me.

I’ve long cited that Trinbago remains an immature society. Not only in its legislative and judicial arms, but also more obviously in the administrative. Add to that the educational and political immaturity of a population unwilling to rise out of the dark ages and what you get is a formula for violence.

We’ve been lucky enough prior to this election, not to have fallen for the slang, picong, insults etc that is part of the political hustings. Unfortunately, this election seem to have taken leave of both sense and sensibility.

For the past 2 days, headlines have dominated the local newspapers that indicate a rising trend to violence. From a $5M ‘hit’ on the leader of the Opposition, a bucket of red paint thrown on one candidate to seeing objects thrown at others in a crowd… I never once thought our political immaturity would translate into open intolerance and violence.

It disgusts me. What is even more disgusting is that with the exception of Keith Rowley, I have not heard one single other person condemn these acts! The rapidity which these incidents follow each other is more than enough cause for alarm. And duncey coppers notwithstanding, the chances of prevention and/or solving incidents is about the same as seeing snow in Sando.

I’ll have to keep an eye on this…

Communicable disease alert!

Get the full-screen view by clicking screen icon at bottom left of the document.

Volney’s bovine reasonings

’People should read my judgment and they would quite well understand why I ruled as I had. Most people don’t recall the facts of the Brad Boyce trial. It was a case of mismanagement and a matter of intervening cause of death-broncho pneumonia, he said.

’The person (Johnson) died from something totally unrelated to the initial injury. And the onus was on the State..to negate that, that intervening event was not the substantial cause of death. The State had failed to do so,’ he added.

’The guy (Johnson) died not from the injuries sustained (from the blow from Boyce) but from broncho-pneumonia, (which came) because the nurses put a feeding tube down into his lungs and because of all the food that went down into his lungs. They placed him on a ventilator and the ventilator malfunctioned. And the State had to prove that it was not medical negligence on the part of the San Fernando Hospital that had been the substantial cause of death. And the State failed to do so. So I upheld the submission of no case. People don’t seem to understand the law. They just see the result and they conclude ’travesty’ (of justice).

He stated further that his decision in this case was reviewed by the Court of Appeal. The State lost its appeal against his decision and they (Court of Appeal) did not order a retrial, he noted. The State appealed again to the Privy Council which did not order a retrial, Volney said. ’The system has three layers and I was just the first. I can’t be blamed for the eventual so-called travesty of justice. There are two courts of review after me. Why don’t they (the protestors and his detractors) blame the other courts including the Court of Appeal in which three judges reviewed my decision? Why don’t they blame them? Why didn’t they order a retrial? Why don’t they blame the Privy Council for not ordering a retrial? Why are they only training their guns on me and not at the Court of Appeal or the Privy Council? They want to blame me because it is expedient to them to blame me,’ Volney stated.

Your excuses are pitiful, Volney. I've read the Privy Council judgment, and the Law Lords ruled you were plain wrong, despite your present posturing.

The reason no retrial was ordered was because 9 years had elapsed between the initial trial (and also because Boyce skipped the country to Australia). That was made clear in the Privy Council judgment.

All this smoke about pneumonia and ventilators is nonsense. You directed the jury on the matter of Des Vignes’ qualifications. The Privy Council soundly chastised you for this:

5. Events then took an unusual course. After Dr Daisley had been cross-examined, but before re-examination, the judge of his own motion recalled Dr des Vignes to ask him about his qualifications in forensic pathology. It appeared that he was not registered as such with the Trinidad and Tobago Medical Board and that his fellowship in Alberta was more in the nature of an apprenticeship than a formal course leading to a certificate or diploma. Instead, the Chief Medical Examiner, under whose general supervision he had performed some 270 autopsies, had simply written a letter recommending Dr des Vignes as competent to act as a forensic pathologist and he had been so employed by the Forensic Science Centre.

6. The judge then, still acting of his own accord, called Professor Chandulal, the Chief Forensic Pathologist, to ask him about the qualifications required for civil service appointment as a forensic pathologist. He said that one needed a medical degree followed by a postgraduate degree in forensic pathology which would be accepted as registrable by the Medical Board of Trinidad and Tobago. Professor Chandulal said that he was registered as a forensic pathologist but that Dr des Vignes was not.

7. After hearing this evidence and submissions from counsel, the judge decided that Dr des Vignes was not qualified as an expert for the purpose of giving an opinion on the cause of death and that his evidence was inadmissible and should be withdrawn from the jury. He then ruled that the evidence of Dr des Etanges [house officer attending to Johnson at hospital] did not provide a sufficient basis for a finding by the jury that Boyce had caused Johnson’s death and directed the jury to acquit.

And you would know that all actions following Boyce's blow can be directly attributed to him, hence had Johnson not be struck, he would not have been in hospital, not been needing a feeding tube, not gotten pneumonia...

You have made a mockery of the law, then and now. Your excuses remain abhorrent, not only to the population but to the family of Johnson..

The State v. Brad Boyce.final

Court of Appeal affirms rule of law

A recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in England has the potential to rock the legal process to its core.

The 6 UK men held in Guantanamo Bay for 7 years under terrorism charges were actually held, in their reasoning, without respect and consideration for their fundamental human rights. It seems now that the men, having sued the MI5, MI6, the Foreign Office, the Home Office and attorney general saying that they played a part in, or failed to stop, their detention and ill-treatment were correct all along.

More importantly than the fact that they appear to be correct, according to the ruling of the Court of Appeal, are the reasons they are so deemed (to be correct). Hearings were held in secret and information withheld from the claimants.

But in a strongly-worded ruling, the Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, sitting with two other senior Court of Appeal judges, said that no damages hearing could be heard in secret because the courts had not been empowered by Parliament to withhold evidence from the claimants.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the Government, in the various arms (MI5/6 etc) have breached fundamental principles of common law.

"In our view, the principle that a litigant should be able to see and hear all the evidence which is seen and heard by a court determining his case is so fundamental, so embedded in the common law, that, in the absence of parliamentary authority, no judge should override it," said Lord Neuberger.

"At least so far as the common law is concerned, we would accept the submission that this principle represents an irreducible minimum requirement of an ordinary civil trial.

"Unlike principles such as open justice, or the right to disclosure of relevant documents, a litigant's right to know the case against him and to know the reasons why he has lost or won is fundamental to the notion of a fair trial."

More upsetting news followed:

…in their judgement, Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Sullivan said senior judges had to "take a clear stand".

"Quite apart from the fact that the issue is one of principle, it is a melancholy truth that a procedure or approach which is sanctioned by a court expressly on the basis that it is applicable only in exceptional circumstances nonetheless often becomes common practice," said Lord Neuberger.

In other words, the excuse of using ‘exceptional circumstances’ was becoming far too common to be classed as exceptional. No more of that nonsense. The senior judges have taken a clear stance after all.

The last word comes from Corinna Ferguson, a lawyer at campaign group Liberty, said:

"Yet again, the Court of Appeal has sent the strongest signal to the security establishment that it cannot play fast and loose with the rule of law.

"Fair and open justice belongs to people not governments.”

The politics of politics

Last night I was having a conversation with a friend in Trinidad, using Skype. The conversation came round as expected, to the political situation currently attracting the attention of everyone there.

People are expressing unhappiness with the UNC/COP/nonentities for the selection of candidates. One the one hand, I am amazed that they are disgruntled with the rejection of the 2 Pandays… Subhas and Mikela. Basdeo took himself out. I understand though why the coalition can’t trust the Pandays. People seem to forget after the thrashing (aka the party’s internal election) that Mikela and Subhas were among 8 or so MPs who failed to support the newly elected leader. They walked out of meetings, held ‘alternative’ caucuses etc.

If the coalition wins with a minimum of 21 seats (out of 41) how can it chance the possible betrayal of the party, or possible hijacking/blackmail? What if one of the Pandays threaten to walk unless the old Bas is made El Presidente? These are scenarios that are possible, and need to be taken into consideration.

Some of the other candidates are also sceptical. I for one do not approve of Jack Warner, a man recognised as a thief in many circles. Nor do I approve of Hubert Volney, who despite many protestations has brought the judiciary and himself into disrepute through his actions.

There is a reason that, for centuries, the judiciary has steered clear of being involved in the political process. Anyone with a modicum of sense can use Google to check out this out; I need not expound it further here.

Volney has essentially broken centuries of tradition in keeping the judicial arm and the legislative arm of the Government separate. Sure, we can proffer the argument that he isn’t the first, nor will be the last. Does that make it any less wrong or more right? Not in my thoughts.

I personally am curious to see how this all plays out. Would I want the PNM removed and a man like Jack Warner feeding at the trough instead? Would I want Hubert Volney instead of JJ as AG? Emphatically no, and I dare say a few more persons may feel as strongly. This seems to be 2 big mistakes Kamla has already made. Would the PNM jump onto this and ride it like a first place winner in a donkey derby?

DO SO.. NOT SO, and no so by so puhleese!

 

Download and print your free ‘DO SO’ poster from below (click little arrow or print button at bottom of picture).

Share it around any which way - one for every window in the Nation!! Text (SMS) or email this link to everybody: http://bit.ly/do_so – easy!

 

Comment in the Guardian

"Well the judiciary is politicised and Manning carries as much responsibility for this as anyone. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the population on the background to the appointment of the present Chief Justice. What role did the Prime Minister play in the appointment of this born again Christian to the office of Chief Justice? Why did Archie leapfrog over better qualified, more senior judges to be appointed to the highest judicial office in the land? Judging by his performance since his appointment as Chief Justice was it really merit?

Also tell us about former deputy chief magistrate Deborah Thomas Felix. She moved very smoothly from judicial office to the PNM. We won't even mention the political impartiality of Sherman McNichol.

Why was nothing said about the appointment of Gillian Lucky to the Bench? Is it true that Nafeeza Mohammed is also looking to follow in the footsteps of Gillian Lucky and has applied for a judicial appointment?

Many lawyers say that it is not so much the party political bias of our judges that threatens the independence of the judiciary. Rather it is the fact that we have so many homosexual and lesbian judges, especially in the Court of Appeal, who may be open to blackmail.

As for Volney the issue is not that he has resigned from the bench to join the UNC but how someone like that came to be appointed a Judge in the first place. It may be time to review the membership of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission."

http://guardian.co.tt/news/politics/2010/05/03/kamla-must-answer-queries-volney-pm#comment-56630

I have reformatted it for easier reading and to highlight certain points.

The speech to come

P**rick:

My dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, lend me your ears;
I come to defend Hart, not to praise him;
The CEPEP wuk and free jersey I provide for you,
Is oft forgot with the baying of hounds,
So let it be with Hart... The noble COP
Hath told you Hart was corrupt:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Hart answered it ...
Here, under leave of COP and the rest,
(For COP is of honourable men;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Hart's arrest...
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But COP says he was corrupt;
And COP is of honourable men….
He hath brought many relatives home to roost,
Whose hiring did the general coffers empty:
Did this in Hart seem corrupt?
When all they wanted was to build and earn?
When that the poor have cried of wanton waste, Hart hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet COP says he was corrupt;
And COP is of honourable men.
You all did see that on the many occasions
I defended and presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did refuse: was this ambition?
Yet COP says he was corrupt;
And, sure, they are all honourable men.
I speak not to disprove what COP spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What causes you then to chastise him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the court there with Hart,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

Given the rumours circulating that Hart is returning to be arrested on Monday for perjury (something that may result in a slap-on-the-wrist fine instead of well deserved imprisonment) I undertook the role of speechwriter for P**rick.

New PNM Logo

The fundamentals of Politics..

Bright little Johnny goes to his dad and asks, 'What is Politics?'

Dad says, 'Well son, let me try to explain it this way: I am the head of the family, so call me The Prime Minister. Your mother is the administrator of the money, so we call her the Government. We are here to take care of your needs, so we will call you the People. The nanny, we will consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we will call him the Future. Now think about that and see if it makes sense.'

So Johnny goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said.

Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his nappy. So little Johnny goes to his parent's room and finds his mother asleep.

Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks through the keyhole into the nanny’s room to see his father in bed with her, having a romp. He gives up and goes back to bed, distraught and with much to think about. [Nanny = dee maid in Dongkey Rock]

The next morning, Johnny say's to his father, 'Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now. '

The father says, 'Good, son, tell me in your own words what you understood about politics.'

Johnny: 'The Prime Minister screws the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep. The People are ignored or neglected and the Future is in deep shit.'

Thought of the Day

To build a nation, we must exceed our own expectations.

Nelson Mandela (char)

in the movie Invictus

I’ve seen a few movies which centred around Nelson Mandela, the man. Goodbye Bafana and Invictus being the 2 latest, and both of which I urge readers to view. Maybe the ‘fictionalised’ versions of the stories were written to be different but hell, they sure are worth viewing several times over. The powerful impact of the man come through nevertheless.

I realised that Mandela is an extraordinary man. Aside from his unusual way of thinking, he has the extraordinary perception to see people as more than they are, and without prompting them or openly doing so, inspire them to become exceptional in their own right.

I’ve read biographies of famous people, and there are 3 who ever have impressed me. In no particular order, they are Abraham Lincoln, Mohandas Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

If one man can break barriers (racial, political) and unite 43 million people, how then can the politicians in Trinidad and Tobago fail to be as selfless and continue to miserably disappoint and neglect a mere 1.5 million?

With a UNC/COP/non-entities coalition promulgating ‘change’ now is the opportunity to actually bring results. Put your money where your mouth is… I challenge you.

In the news

There were several items in the news I wanted to comment on today. First, the Volney issue raised its head again. Volney, as many readers would know, is not one of my admired people. He has opened himself even in the past to scrutiny. However vociferous the denials, the hounds of bias will forever bay at his heels. With good reason.

Concerns have now surfaced about certain rulings Volney made in the past before his entry into politics. Questions have been specifically raised about rulings made by Volney in the Brad Boyce and Seeromani Narayansingh cases in which they were cleared of separate murder charges.

Same as I’ve been saying all along.

Then there is the small article about Daryan Warner, better known for his part in a certain World Cup ticket scandal, wanting to sue the Public Utilities Minister.

Warner contends that the statements uttered were understood to mean that he was engaged in criminal activity, that he was dishonest, corrupt and disreputable.

Now, I’m not a fan of the minister nor Warner, but I have to wonder why Warner isn’t suing the Soca Warriors who’ve said the same things publicly, and Andrew Jennings, BBC journalist who’d exposed the Warners time and time again. Pay close attention to comments by Marchalis and great2bealive.

The police officer aka duncey who is leading the investigation into corruption in UDeCOTT and Calder Hart has been transferred. We are led to believe it is not political. Seriously. Really … seriously.

And speaking of corruption, Watson Duke, having got his hands on the coffers of the PSA, has now shown that the stereotype of ‘freshie’ black people not being able to control their avarice may have some foundation. Less than a year has passed since he assumed presidency of the union, and here he is suspended for misusing the credit card allocated to him (to the tune of $66,000 if I recall the news correctly). He has since adopted a Manning style autocracy.

If, as one commenter said, Duke is a range 13 public servant, it means he worked for a salary of around $3100 per month. No wonder he ‘get big-eye’ when he see money.

Bacchanal never stops, eh?