Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley issued a Press Release over the weekend which strongly condemned a recent position taken by the David Thompson led government. CEO’s and other political appointees at statutory boards are now expected to offer their resignations should there be a change in government. This position has created heated discussion in Barbados and in the Bajan blogosphere. Many on the government side have questioned the sincerity of Mottley’s position. One such person is Ruedon Eversley, a former Editor of the Advocate newspaper who was literally chased out of that job by former Prime Minister Owen Arthur. It is well known on Fontebelle that both newspapers parted company with thousands of dollars to Arthur and others of his government just to keep the “peace’, ooops it extended to River Road as well!
At the request of Reudon Eversley we have published his article in full. We have to say that if half the things mentioned in the article are true, it is not only an indictment on former Prime Minister Arthur but also on the people who surrounded at the time.
EVIL AS HELL THE LOT OF THEM
Reudon Eversley
The long dark night of the BLP has come to an end. May Barbados never see the likes of it again. By the way, I want to encourage other Barbadians who were similarly targetted by the BLP because they were Dems or were otherwise affiliated, to tell their story. Barbadians must get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It must no longer be kept under the carpet. So Mia Mottley is calling for justice for BLP supporters. Why didn’t she call for justice for me, when I was editor of the Advocate and was being persecuted almost on a daily basis by the BLP?
The full story of how I was treated by the Barbados Labour Party has not been told but I will do so one day and Barbadians will see what an authoritarian government we had. How we were on the brink of dictatorship because when the press is attacked and bullied into submission, freedom is always in danger.
Some ill-informed Barbadians said I was too big for my boots when I reported Owen Arthur to the World Press Freedom Committee. If you do not stand up for yourself, no one else will. If they only knew what was happening to me, they would have been in full agreement. The media in Barbados were afraid of carrying the story. They apparently did not want to experience the wrath of the BLP.
How many Barbadians know, for example, that the BLP complained to the Advocate’s management because I refused to eat their food at a media luncheon to launch their 1999 general election campaign? As a result, I was threatened with dismissal. Well, I sought legal advice and was prepared to sue the Advocate for breach of my human rights so they backed off.
Let me say that the then CEO of the Advocate Mr Metzgen was a decent man who recognized what was going on and tried to defend me. I cannot say the same for certain members of the then Board who seemed more eager to please the BLP than to defend their employee – see supporting documents submitted by Reudon Eversley.
Why would I want to eat from the BLP ? Their yardfowls used to leave the most foul messages on my voicemail, telling me they are going to get my … you know what .. out of the Advocate because I am a Dem. They could have easily poisoned me had I eaten their food and I certainly was not going to expose myself to that risk. I have my children to live for.
The BLP wanted someone else to be editor of the Advocate. I never asked why the person in question did not get the job. I knew I was chosen on the basis of my professional track record, qualifications and vision. Systems Caribbean Ltd., after interviewing a short list, recommended me for the job. And, let me say this, without blowing my trumpet, the Advocate made a dramatic turn-around under my leadership. The record is there.
I have a copy of a letter which Owen Arthur personally wrote to my chairman. I have kept it so that my grandchildren one day will see how this man tried to take bread out of my mouth. And I had done nothing wrong. He called my office one morning hopping mad. I told him I had just come in for the day and had neither pen nor paper in my hand to take notes of what he was saying. His letter, claiming I was disrespectful, said I told him I was taking no note of what he had to say. Different meaning!
When all the crap was happening, I spoke to a certain well-connected BLP person and he told me they would have a problem with me because David Thompson is my friend. Imagine that? In fact, he even went as far as to tell me that I was on the phone in my office talking to David Thompson two days before, which was true. Talking to David Thompson was obviously a sin in the BLP’s books. Now, the person could have only found out this information from two sources: either the BLP had someone in the Advocate’s newsroom who was spying on me and reporting back to them or they had my telephone bugged.
I will have more to say later and it will make uncomfortable reading or listening for Owen Arthur. I will relate an experience which convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Barbadians had made a grave mistake in choosing Arthur as their leader. He should know what I am talking about if he remembers a certain phone call he made to the Advocate one day.
The BLP is now demanding the justice they denied others. But they are getting a good deal. A well-known BLP person was recently appointed to a senior post at a statutory corporation which the BLP had refused to give that person. That would have never happened with a Dem under a BLP government. But I will say this: David Thompson is a gentleman – has always been. He has treated them all with decency and fairness which they did not show to Dems when they were in power.
After I was forced to leave the Advocate, I could not find work in Barbados. I had to go overseas to earn a living to feed my children. I applied for a job at a government institution for which I was perfectly suited. I was invited to an interview but I was warned it was just a sham. My source told me that a certain person said I would never work in Barbados as long as the BLP was in power. I called up the HR person at the organization in question, told him to withdraw my name and keep the job because I didn’t need it as I had a better one overseas. A BLP yardfowl even saw me at a public event overseas and remarked, in front of everyone present, that the BLP had made a “refugee”. Incredible but true.
My respect for David Thompson grew immensely during this period. You know why? He showed me his human side. He would call me quite regularly – not to discuss politics – but to enquire how I was doing. That meant a lot to me because you know who your real friends are, not when you are up, but when you are perceived as being down. This is the quality person who today is the prime minister of Barbados. It gave me great pleasure to work for him in the DLP election campaign in January as Communications Director and to have played a role in rescuing Barbados from the clutches of the BLP.
I have told half of the story. The best is yet to come. You do not have to like me personally but, on the basis of what I have shared with you: Wasn’t I denied justice by the BLP? I am a citizen of Barbados – certain foreigners were treated better than some Barbadians by the BLP – and the Constitution of Barbados gives me the right of freedom of association. By associating with the DLP, I broke no law but the BLP government targetted me.
But you see, the BLP always believes they are entitled to special treatment. Other people, however, can be treated like doormats. I wish them well, personally, but may they remain in the political wilderness for a long, long time to reflect on the evil things they have done and to repent for their sins. Perhaps the BLP was hoping I would have buckled and come to them on bended knee, like how some persons did, to beg them for a pick. If they were, they would have waited in vain. I would have preferred to die with my dignity than to debase myself by doing such.
Further, I knew the God I serve would not have allowed it. God is good! God is great! I thank my greatgrandmother for my Christian upbringing. During those dark BLP days, it served me in good stead. It gave me the assurance that with patience this too would have passed, that the BLP would not be in power forever and that they would eventually fall in humiliation. Secondly, my Christian upbringing assured me of my ability to survive once I believed it was possible. “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
I expect certain BLPites on this blog will respond in their usual nasty way by going into the gutter because they can never face the truth. The truth always hurts. Going down in the gutter is not for me. The gutter is home to centipedes, slugs, cockroaches and other types of vermin and I am not at their level. Others however are free to make that choice through their behaviour.














192 responses so far ↓
Sundowner // July 28, 2008 at 7:37 PM
I think you are a very brave man and commend your actions.
Andrew // July 28, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Wow!
Sounds like what I’ve always heard whispered about the man O S Arthur.
Whispered, because everyone (including those BLP touts who come here to defend him) was afraid . They had to keep their picks and so would have to ‘brown-nose’.
But God is a good God and his mercy endureth forever – Amen
Getting it off my chest.... // July 28, 2008 at 8:54 PM
It is fascinating the amount of time that the blogs spend on the former PM. One might be tempted to think that January 16th never happened.
While BU is devoting all of this time to Reuden Eversley’s literary equivalent of “getting a boot in”, we have a central bank report that shows NO GROWTH in the second quarter of this year. Interestingly this is the first full 3 month period under DLP stewardship.
But BU is quite happy to spend time kicking around Owen Seymour.
More worryingly having racked up a higher deficit that the previous government in the first quarter, this administration went on to post a deficit of DOUBLE that of the same quarter a year ago. All this while saying they are going to “balance the budget/run a small deficit” – The budget is not balanced and the deficit is growing.
But BU is quite happy to spend time kicking around Owen Seymour.
Unemployment is up. Inflation is up. Both are projected to get worse.
But BU is quite happy to spend time kicking around Owen Seymour.
David // July 28, 2008 at 9:19 PM
@Getting it off my chest….
Thanks for sharing the information and the BU family would be please if you would elaborate on the statistics. In case you have not noticed the blogs write about any and every thing happening in Barbados. Sometimes it is good to expose the dark side of politics to ensure that that those who follow remain pure.
Getting it off my chest.... // July 28, 2008 at 9:27 PM
David,
The silence of the blogs on the central bank report is deafening.
Bush tea // July 28, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Getting if off your chest..
….what is even more fascinating is people like you who seriously seem to want us to forget the people who ran this country for the last 14 years and who obviously will be FULLY responsible for our economic position for at least another two to three years at the very least.
It will take months and years for any policies established by the DLP to play major roles in our macro economic results….
…and why should we forget Arthur? It is only now that the true extent of his indiscretions are coming to light…. what do you want hidden?
David, BU is doing a FIRST CLASS job for this country, you are doing it in such a professional manner that Bush tea is tempted to wonder what you must do in your day job….
What getting it off what chest what!?!
… better check if a weight is not resting on your conscience….some body want locking up!!!
Reaganomics // July 28, 2008 at 9:34 PM
“It is well known on Fontebelle that both newspapers parted company with thousands of dollars to Arthur and others of his government just to keep the “peace’, ooops it extended to Constitution Road as well! ”
******************************************
Constitution Road or River Road?
Reagonomics is confused. The Ministry of Education is on Constitution Road.
Tony Hall // July 28, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Let us get some more information Reudon. I remember when you were going through hell.
“Getting It Off My Chest” is an obvious BLP yardfowl. As David said come with statistics. Don’t come with that foolishness trying to blame this Gov’t for the slow growth. Is Barbados immuned from the problems the global community is facing? Show some logical reasoning, not political bias.
David // July 28, 2008 at 9:41 PM
@Reaganomics
Don’t be confused, you picked up an error which shows our infallibility and we corrected it.
Thanks!
Wunna like dah nuh // July 28, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Ok Ruedon Eversley, you have cleared your chest, time to move on. The BLP were voted out of office, we voted for your party to make a difference not to continue the status quo. It is silly to suggest that Arthur and the BLP did nothing positive for our little country, they made mistakes yes as all do. I am a public servant and I have already started to see meddling of politicians in this government, the pettiness of politicians amazes me.
Getting it off my chest.... // July 28, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Gentlemen,
Everything I have said is readily available in the Central Bank Report. Read the Nation’s reporting of it.
@Bush Tea
David Thompson has direct responsibility for the fiscal deficit. It is perhaps the most immediate thing under his control
Nation July 25th “Central Government’s posting of a larger fiscal deficit – $294.3 million, compared to a deficit of $142.9 million in 2007.”
The whole fiasco with the overnight removal of subsidies off of diesel didn’t take years to be felt, it was felt the very next day – ask anyone who lives in Barbados.
But no we now have a DLP apologist disclaiming any responsibility for anything happening for the next three years.
Pathetic.
The statistics are there for anyone to read.
Reaganomics // July 28, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Don’t be confused, you picked up an error which shows our infallibility and we corrected it.
Thanks!
******************************************
Reaganomics thinks you mean “fallibility” unless u r trying 2 b facetious. ONLY GOD IS INFALLIBLE.
Reaganomics // July 28, 2008 at 10:14 PM
@ Getting it off my chest
Good luck trying to convince your people to read, analyze and discuss facts dispassionately.
LMAO.
Here’s the Governor’s report and there are several economic glossaries online.
http://www.centralbank.org.bb/WEBCBB.nsf/(hpNews)/0A62D78FC74BD65A042574910074419F/$FILE/1st6MonthsReview2008.pdf
Carson C. Cadogan // July 28, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Getting it off my chest
Get a life!
Reaganomics // July 28, 2008 at 10:17 PM
“Yes indeed you are catching on as the old people would say but you are not quite there yet!”
******************************************
Ok! So it was a facetious comment. My bad, as de young people would say!
Bush tea // July 28, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Getting it off my Chest
So are you suggesting that upon taking office and reading one budget speech suddenly a new PM is fully responsible for the macro economic results? The current deficit is the result of years of policies, actions, politics and waste.
…and what subsidies are you talking about? You mean the situation where Owing used BNOC funds to mislead us into thinking that we were immune from the realities of world oil prices?
…encouraging an attitude of waste and unrealistic expectations for months, and to a tune of over $80.00 million….. which now has to be corrected and RECOUPED?
Years ago, Owing complained about the fiscal deficit, but refused, or did not know how, to bite the bullet and address the fundamentals…
…now with a global downturn of near biblical proportions and after 6 months in office, you want to forget the Owing indiscretions??
Which country is now NOT seriously challenged with its fiscal performance?
Can’t you see that intelligent people are on this blog?
Bush tea – a DLP apologist? Ha!
Bush tea just don’t like foolishness….
Reaganomics // July 28, 2008 at 10:50 PM
The Realities of the US Economic Downturn and Its Effects on Poor Little Barbados. We really feeling it:
******************************************
A family in Baxter’s Road was puzzled when the coffin of their dead mother arrived from the US (Brooklyn to be specific), sent by their sister.
The tiny corpse was so tightly squeezed inside the large coffin that their mother’s face was practically touching the glass cover.
When they opened the coffin, they found a letter from their sister pinned to their mother’s chest, which read: ……
‘MY
Dearest Brother and Sisters,
I am sending you our mother’s remains for the funeral , please bury her in Westbury Cemetery as we agreed. Sorry I could not come along, as the expenses were so high.
You will find inside the coffin, under Mah’s body, 12 cans of Bumble Bee Tuna, 12 Dax Hair Grease, 12 Vaseline Intensive Care Skin Lotion, 12 Colgate Toothpaste and 12 cans of Spam. Just divide it among yourselves.
On Mah’s feet is a brand-new pair of Reeboks (Size 8) for Junior. There are four pairs of Reeboks under Mah’s head for Delroy’s sons. Mah is wearing six Ralph Lauren T-shirts, one for Wilfred and the rest are for my dear nephews.
Mah is also wearing one dozen Wonder Bras (your favorite), just divide it among yourselves. The 2 dozen Victoria Secrets panties that Mah is wearing should be distributed fairly between my nieces and cousins.
Mah is also wearing two apple bottoms. Please get one for yourself and the next one is for Dorothy. The eight dockers she wearing are for the boys. The Swiss watch you asked for is on Mah’s left wrist, please take it.
Dear Aunt Jeanie,
PS. Mah is wearing what you asked for, earrings, ring s and necklaces, just please get them, you know if you forget dem so and so tiefing grave diggers at Westbury goin be real happy, dem real expensive. Also the six pairs of Chanel stockings that Mah is wearing must be divided among the teenage girls there. Hope they like the colors.
Your loving sister,
Mathilda
Carson C. Cadogan // July 28, 2008 at 10:51 PM
While OA was boasting to all the Caribbean that illegal Guyanese were working on his house, the crooked BLP were busy preventing a Barbadian from working in Barbados.
What a sweet bunch!
The People's Democratic Congress // July 28, 2008 at 11:36 PM
“Last Friday, Central Bank of Barbados Governor, Dr. Marion Williams, said that for the first time in five years, growth in the economy’s total output for the first half of the year fell significantly below the average 36 per cent,” and furthermore, ” economic output was virtually flat from April to June and ‘as a result, total output growth was limited to an estimated 1.4 per cent’”. Extracted from the 28 th of July 2008 issue of the Barbados Business Authority, the pg 1 story entitled: Global issues slow growth.
RESTORING BALANCE IN MONETARY POLICY
Fiscal prudence will be the hallmark of a DLP Gpovernment. A DLP Government will restore fiscal stability to the management of the affairs of government. This objective is a central plank of good and responsible governance; it is absolutely essential to the credibility and maintenance of the fixed exchange rate regime. In light of this, (just two objectives PDC cites ) a new DLP Government will:
Give priority to achieving a balanced budget while allowing for small manageable fiscal deficits where necessary to facilitate the development objectives of the country;
Implement taxation policies that reduce fiscal drag on the economy. We shall avoid taxation policies that act asd diincentives to investment and productivity…………. Extracted from pg 23-24, Manifesto of the Democratic Labour Party 2008.
However, “according to preliminary estimates for the half-year, Government recorded a $ 294.3 million fiscal deficit, more than twice the amount ($142.9 million) for the same period last year”. Also, said Dr. Williams, ” an ever present feature of economic activity during the six-month review period was the UPWARD TREND IN DOMESTIC RETAIL PRICES. In addition, the most recent labour market data for the first quarter of 2008 indicate that the unemployment rate was slightly higher than the comparable rate at the end of the first quarter of 2007.” Extracted from the said 28 th of July, 2008 issue of the Barbados Business Authority, the pg 1 story entitled: Global issues slow growth.
And, in the Financial and Budgetary Proposals 2008, the Minister of Finance grossly and recklessly proceeded to impose further mammoth and despicable TAXATION assaults on various people, businesses and other entities in Barbados, to the tune of $ 104 million. What a merciless cold-blooded attack by this DLP Government on the incomes of the relevant masses and middle classes of people of this country, and which no doubt will have widespread contractionary effects upon the so-called economy of Barbados and will make the goods and services of this country more costly to produce.
Moreover, greater hardship and misery among the masses and middle classes will be experienced in the short and medium term in this country primarily as a result of the stark failure of DLP and BLP Governments to reduce the cost of living in this country. Once again we are ABSOLUTELY SURE why we the vast majority of the masses and middle classes of people of Barbados must quickly come to the firm and unshakeable conclusion that we MUST STOP electing DLP and BLP Governments in the future in this country.
PDC
Wishing In Vain // July 28, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Getting it off my chest…. you sound so Mascot like I am really sad for what you have become a LAPDOG looking for scraps from the blp table.
Negro man // July 28, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Reudon Eversley
It happened to a lot more Barbadians.We need courageous people like you to stand up for what is right,honorable and decent.I am very proud of you that you did not sell yout dignity for a job.
Negroman was in that position too and I did just like you tell the manager where to get off. Reudon Eversley you are a strong black man and you will be redeem.
It is shameful that the good office of the Prime Minister was sullied by the presence of Owen Seymour Arthur.As Freundel Stuart said Owen Seymour Arthur is a national disgrace.
Freundel Stuart words not Negroman words.
Reaganomics // July 28, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Reaganomics finds this political tribalism that has descended on Barbados hilarious.
Were any of you yardfowls at the US Embassy’s Independence celebrations to observe both bees and dees drinking and laffin wid each other. Shupessss!
Bdos is run by a tripartite arrangement: black politicians, de white econimic elite and de masonic lodge. All 3 groups go to the same lodges, send their children to the same schools at home and abroad. The political families all intermarry, their children hang out together. Their law firms collaborate with each other.
It’s a game! It’s one big illusion!
The rich and upper middle class in Barbados will benefit no matter which party is in power – by simply making a phonecall.
Read Domhoff and understand how power and elites operate. It’s a game and if they let u in u have to become just like them.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica
Move beyond education to enlightenment!
Adrian Hinds // July 29, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Years ago, Owing complained about the fiscal deficit, but refused, or did not know how, to bite the bullet and address the fundamentals…
================================
Arthur December 2004
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3843463694885040445
A contrasting tone, attitude and position on the economy.
Arthur July 2008
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2019527438308288553
Wishing In Vain // July 29, 2008 at 12:23 AM
I happen to know Reudon Eversley better than many and not as good as some but one thing I can share with you that he is as straight as an arrow and calls a spade a spade, so when he goes to great depths to explain his torture under Owing and his gang of thugs and crooks I have no reason to doubt him in the slightest.
The just evicted Gov’t now replaced has a lot to answer to in terms of freedom of the press and freedom of expression, they destroyed both of these cherished conditions of life in a Democratic society.
Wishing In Vain // July 29, 2008 at 12:24 AM
I happen to know Reudon Eversley better than many and not as good as some but one thing I can share with you that he is as straight as an arrow and calls a spade a spade, so when he goes to great depths to explain his torture under Owing and his gang of crooks I have no reason to doubt him in the slightest.
The just evicted Gov’t now replaced has a lot to answer to in terms of freedom of the press and freedom of expression, they destroyed both of these cherished conditions of life in a Democratic society.
Chuckles // July 29, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Attention Getting it off
The following copied from BBC Website
The White House has cut its growth prediction for the US economy this year from 2.7% to 1.6%, and for next year from 3% to 2.2%.
The administration has accepted that the problems in the housing market and financial markets, as well as rising oil prices, will take their toll.
The jobless rate is forecast to hit 5.3% this year and 5.6% in 2009.
This is up from the administration’s previous prediction of 4.9% for both years. It was 4.7% in 2007.
Consumer price inflation is expected to hit 3.8% this year, up from the previous forecast of 2.7% and well above the Federal Reserve’s target of 2.0%.
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 12:57 AM
“After I was forced to leave the Advocate”
————————
Details?
You write a lot without actually saying anything
How were you “forced out” exactly?
You could not get a job in Barbados and this is the fault of the BLP? Really? they controlled every possible opportunity? how did other dems get jobs?
You were threatened with dismissal over the food incident? what was the threat? go back and eat the food or you are fired?
Really this was a pathetic article.
If you were hounded out of your job, lets get some details.
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 1:01 AM
“I will relate an experience which convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Barbadians had made a grave mistake in choosing Arthur as their leader”
————-
why not tell us now?
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 1:04 AM
You think you could have poisoned, spied on and your phone bugged.
You really have megalomaniacal delusions
(PS I did not vote for BLP and spoke to dems regularly yet survived)
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 1:07 AM
“I spoke to a certain well-connected BLP person and he told me they would have a problem with me because David Thompson is my friend.”
—————-
why not name him?
Did any other “Thompson friends” also struggle to find work in Barbados? Were they all targeted?
Bimbro // July 29, 2008 at 3:00 AM
Have n’t read the entire thing yet, BU, but, once again hearty congratulations, David!! Continue to expose the evil *astards!!!!
Anonymous // July 29, 2008 at 7:29 AM
Amused, are you saying that Eversley is lying?
Former Barbados Advocate Editor Says Owen Arthur, Mia Mottley “Evil As Hell The Lot Of Them” « Barbados Free Press // July 29, 2008 at 7:44 AM
[...] … Reudon Eversley writing at Barbados Underground Evil As Hell The Lot Of Them [...]
Reaganomics // July 29, 2008 at 7:47 AM
@ Amused
In all fairness Mr. Eversley said “I have told half of the story. The best is yet to come. ”
Reaganomics thinks he should be lauded and continue to make his ’story’ public.
Tony Hall // July 29, 2008 at 8:19 AM
You will still encounter many BLP apologists on this blog. They are in a state of hallucination. They still have not gotten over the fact that Owen Arthur and his blasted crooks are not running the Gov’t of Barbados.
Trained economist // July 29, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Page six of the central bank review speaks to the fiscal deficit. The report states that the fiscal deficit for the first six months of the year was 294.3 million compared to 142.9 million in 2007.
The report then goes on to say that 84.3 million of the increase was because of higher transfers to UWI, BADMC and the Transport Board. How on earth can these be attributed to the new DLP government? Surely all the experts who post on this blog recognize that the new government was paying the bills racked up under the last administration.
Of course none of these experts have questioned the blank cheque given to the UWI by the last government.
The report then points to an increase of 53.1 million associated with the ABC highway. Is that to be balmed on the new government as well?
The report then states that spending omn goods and services jumped 41.5% due to the reclassification of of items. Surely the experts who post here are aware that the government of barbados is now operating an accrual based accounting system as opposed to the old cash system. The switch has occasioned the reclassification of certian expenditures. Is this to be blamed on the new government?
Of course earlier I made much of the fact that the budget should not be discussed without the backdrop of the estimates. The estimates showed all of these expenditures quite clearly. The taxation measures in the budget werte quite responsible given the overhang of public expenditure from the spedthrift days of the Arthur administration.
Is barbados somehow immune for the global stagflation being experienced?
In the context of the current global stagflation and the heavy spending on world cup related expenditures of the last two years, was growth not pretty much bound to slow?
Reudon Eversley // July 29, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Don’t worry, Anonymous.
As soon as I get some scanning issues resolved, the likes of Amused who comes across as a typical BLP apologist will either shut up or get nasty as is the habit of the Bees when their backs are against the wall. The problem with some of these guys, you see, is that they thought I would have rolled over, died and faded into oblivion. They do not realize the validity of the Biblical truth that to everything, there is a time and a season. You must just be patient and your time will come.
Let me make it clear. I have nothing personally against these guys, including Owen Arthur, and wish them well in their personal lives. Indeed, I have prayed for him because it is my Christian duty to do so. I understand his weaknesses, having studied him carefully. However, that does not mean I am going to remain silent about what he tried to do to me. There has to be a catharsis.
Others who have suffered, come forward and let the whole of Barbados know. Hold nothing back! The chains of BLP oppression have been broken. The dark side of the BLP regime must be brought to light. Put aside the spirit of fear. History shows that fear has always been an effective tool for controlling Barbadians. It is the modus operandi of the BLP. But really, when you look at it, the only thing to fear is fear itself.
Whatever // July 29, 2008 at 8:37 AM
“Of course none of these experts have questioned the blank cheque given to the UWI by the last government. ” wrote Trained Economist.
But doesn’t the new DLP gov’t support this “blank cheque”? It even put a $4/month charge on cell phones to pay for it.
Whatever // July 29, 2008 at 8:43 AM
I would have been much more impressed if the “new” gov’t had told UWI to forget the FIFA quality football field, that UWI students could pay the $700 facilities fee and that funds be diverted from UWI (MSc in cicket studies or integrative studies ?) and into skills training for agriculture, construction and manufacturing.
Whatever // July 29, 2008 at 8:46 AM
And does Trained Economist expect a decrease in spending on the Transport Board given its recently increased duty.
We are pouring new wine in old skins.
Reaganomics // July 29, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Whatever is happening is the responsiblity of whichever government is in pewer. It’s like a man marrying a woman dat already got children. He cant marry de woman and forget she children. Shupesssssss! it’s not about blaming who is responsible. It about governance and management. If it’s in a mess and ya cant turn it around and get it managed den de electorate will deal with u. That’s y people change governments and fire others.
This is so elementary.
The bees were fired and the dees were hired to do the job. PRONTO
Now they must do the job. De young people aint give two wuk-ups who responsible for what. They want immediate results.
Wishing In Vain // July 29, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Reaganomics Now they must do the job. De young people aint give two wuk-ups who responsible for what. They want immediate results.
It makes me happy to know that we have a mature community of people that think straight, and are more sensible than blp clowns like Reaganomics who believe that because the electorate washed their hands of them that they can be removed from being held responsible for their corrupt and dishonest actions, they may not want us to talk about the 1, 2, 3 men of URBAN, the BOOZA KING $ 40,000.00 dinner for less than a 100 persons, the LEO BREWSTER AND GIRLFRIEND FRAUD of in excess of a million dollars, the GLYNE BANNISTER ‘S, the HALLAM NICHOLLS’S, the DAVID SHOREY’S, the RODNEY WILKINSON’S of this scam infested previous blp gov’t or the STANTON ALLEYNE and LIZ THOMPSON connection and apartment buildings they both now own, the HARDWOOD HOUSING scam and MASCOT, MURRELL, HOYOS and OWING fraud, nor would you want to discuss the over 500 homes built by URBAN in 14 years that they have no records for, or the case of HOUSE RENTS BEING COLLECTED BY JOE ATHERLEY’S WIFE AND GOING TO HER OWN PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT AND NOT MAKING IT TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE URBAN COMMISSSION, or what about that land at Holders that the inner circle changed the use of and then robbed the previous owner blindly and the group sold it for a small fortune to the SANDY LANE GROUP????
I am sure you will not want to comment or want us to comment or any of the above, but you know what ??
It is a case that each and everyone of these charges are real and they all did happpen under your charge and your care, you really have balls to come to the people with your self serving nonsense.
I can confirm that you and your party will go down in the records of Barbados political history as the party who did the most destruction to the moral frabric of society and did more to destroy the good name of Barbados and Barbadians here and overseas, but most importantly you will be remember by the extent of your fraud and by the extent of your dishonesty with the taxpayers monies.
Take a bow mottley and Owing you two have combined to take us where no man, woman or thing has taken us before, thankfully we have a new beginning and a new direction and a new LEADERSHIP with decency and caring at the helm.
deMarlehole // July 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Hello David
I am one of those persons who can walk and chew gum at the same time. Imagine the balls (I don’t know how he can walk) of Mr. Reudon Eversley a know DLP supporter. Not now, but for years. In fact it was people like him to whom Mr. David Thompson referred. When one is as “A” political as he is, “One need not apply!” since you cannot have it both ways. I’ll save you the time with a few links.
http://dlpbarbados.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/ezra-alleyne-sings-for-his-daily-bread/
http://bajan.wordpress.com/2007/05/13/prime-minister-owen-arthur-should-resign/
http://dlpbarbados.wordpress.com/2007/08/
One only needed to “Google” his name and you will see the venom with which he wrote, against the government. He was always a Dem long before the 1999 event to which he referred, when one is that open, “You should ask no quarters”, for that I admire him.
Those of us who were around long enough to remember, Heratio Cook worked in the J.M.G.M “Tom” Adams ministry for years after the 1976 election. Reudon was still at school then. David, I am surprised you allow your blog to be used in this manner.
On second thought, I’ll use the other piece of “gum” later. However, can anyone be surprised at the Central Bank’s report? I remember being home earlier this year, the Governor addressing financial groups in reference to the US Foreclosures “housing crisis” said in a quote, Barbados will not be affected, since most of the imports and tourist were from Canada and Europe. I remember saying to my sister, what is this lady smoking? The Barbados currency is tied to the (US dollar) and she is uttering this nonsense.
My opinion, she failed to advise a young government, it has not been 6 months fasten your seatbelts; you’re in for a real ride. Note: Neither a fellow, nor member of the press made a peep.
Trained economist // July 29, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Okay then, acording to this logic anything that happens in the economy is now the new administration’s fault or to their credit. I can live with that.
Reaganomics // July 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM
@ WIV
If part of the job when the man marries the woman with children is to take care of the son who’s a drug addict or a thief, then that’s his responsibility.
TRANSLATION: If the Dees have found all this mess and corruption then they have the responsibilty of cleaning it up. There is due process in the law!
Barbados is a country of law and order.
So do the job and go after all these corrupt people. That is what good governance is about.
Lead by example.
Start the enquiries and the investigations NOW.
Is Reaganomics losing it?
Reaganomics // July 29, 2008 at 12:07 PM
@ Trained Economist
“Okay then, acording to this logic anything that happens in the economy is now the new administration’s fault or to their credit. I can live with that.”
******************************************
Do you remember the 1981 manifesto (or perhaps 1986) when the Dees showed all the projects that they proposed that the Bees took credit for because they were in office?
Look at what is happening right now. Only last week the official opening of the Baxters Road Fish market was done by the government is office.
Whose name will go on the plaque? A BLP elected official or a DLP’s?
It’s called BUSINESS CONTINUITY. If you are in office, you inherit the good and you inherit the bad. Your responsibility it to manage and govern efficiently until your contract is either renewed by the electorate (if they have the confidence) or you are fired by the electorate.
What’s so difficult about this democratic principle to understand.
It’d be foolhardy for the DEMS to spend the next five yrs passing the buck rather than delivering the goods. Listen to RPB, “all eyes are on you.”
Anonymous // July 29, 2008 at 1:33 PM
The dems are even taking “credit” for the plan to review the ways and means of determining unemployment statistics.
Adrian Hinds // July 29, 2008 at 2:04 PM
……But was Reudon Eversley really an innocent victim? Did Owen just went out of his way to attack Reudon? I don’t believe um. There has got to be more in this mortar than wuh Reudon is telling.
Don’t get me wrong none deserves the humbling being meted out to them more than Owen Arthur, and rest assured in the knowledge that i am enjoying the exposition of his post Jan 15 nakedness.
…..But Reudon tell us about the incident at BCC in at Sherbourne 1977..
…..Tell us how and why you became a staunch Tom Adams supporter during your time at BCC.
….Is it possible that you threaten airing BLP secrets if you didn’t get your kind of access to Owen Arthur?
Seems like only the political Leader is good enough to be your friend. Thompson should be careful.
Banjoman // July 29, 2008 at 4:24 PM
From the start I was telling people close to me when the history of Barbados is written that Owen would at last be seen as nothing but a vertically challenged dictator who went around bribing all those who opposed him in any serious way.
What appeared most sickening was the admiration which some Bajans had for that policy. They will try it all again if allowed.
Pig with a Monkey Face // July 29, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Lies and more Lies
Believe half of what you see
and none of what you hear
Pig with a Monkey Face // July 29, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Wishing In Vain
–is talking bare unadulterated you know what
–SHITE-
foolish accusations without any proof
you think people so ignorant to just run off with this nonsense you are spouting-STOP IT NOW !
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM
“I was threatened with dismissal. Well, I sought legal advice and was prepared to sue the Advocate for breach of my human rights so they backed off.”
————————-
and what “human rights” would they be?
The advocate owes you a human right of a job? I think not.
Perhaps you could sue for breach of contract or wrongful dismissal but I would like to know what human rights were breached? did they threaten to torture you if you did not eat the ‘poisoned’ food?
Now if they “hounded” you out of a job, why did you not sue then? (since your threat to sue was so effective)
Carson C. Cadogan // July 29, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Owen seemed to have been a nasty piece of work.
Now Mr. Mottley wants his turn.
What is Mr. David Thompson going to do to ensure that the people of Barbados are never again subjected to this rabid behavior as seen under the crooked BLP?
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 6:39 PM
“As soon as I get some scanning issues resolved, the likes of Amused who comes across as a typical BLP apologist will either shut up or get nasty as is the habit of the Bees when their backs are against the wall.”
—————–
Please resolve those scanning issues and give us the details.
Your article was so poor, it desperately needs some evidence.
We see of course you respond to criticism, you respond with an ad hominem – I am a “typical BLP apologist” accordingly to you. (funny considering that I did not vote for them nor have I ever been a member)
Quite the name calling and back up your claims with something of substance
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 6:52 PM
“They could have easily poisoned me”
“either the BLP had someone in the Advocate’s newsroom who was spying on me and reporting back to them or they had my telephone bugged.”
“I was invited to an interview but I was warned it was just a sham”
“My source told me that a certain person said I would never work in Barbados as long as the BLP was in power.”
“By associating with the DLP, I broke no law but the BLP government targetted (sic) me.”
“Perhaps the BLP was hoping I would have buckled and come to them on bended knee”
—————————————————–
I see a common theme to these statements by Mr Eversley
Anonymous // July 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Is that theme called schizophrenia?
David // July 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM
BU family please note that we have updated a link in the blog to documents received from Reudon Eversley today.
Redds // July 29, 2008 at 8:10 PM
deMarhole
One only needed to “Google” his name and you will see the venom with which he wrote, against the government. He was always a Dem long before the 1999 event to which he referred, when one is that open,…
I agree with you wholeheartedly, I too googled his name in the nation and came to the conclusion that he already had his preconceived notions. The man was already partial for
God sake was we ever to believe that he would write a glowing report about the BLP gov’t policies, I am tired of people like WIV “carry go, bring come”, Tony Hall and now Reudon “long suffering” Eversley trying to insult my intelligence.
Reudon Eversley
Let me make it clear. I have nothing personally against these guys, including Owen Arthur, and wish them well in their personal lives. Indeed, I have prayed for him because it is my Christian duty to do so. I understand his weaknesses, having studied him carefully.
Wickham today said it all tody bajans use christianity conveniently, in 2 ways (1)crutch (2) sword but that is another subject. Why you study him Reudon so you could ready your attack, old silly person.
Pat // July 29, 2008 at 8:52 PM
After reading the attached correspondence, I take my hat off to Mr. Eversley. It appears to me that the BLP were behaving as schoolyard bullies. Can you imagine a Canadian Prime Minister asking the Press to let him and his government okay EDITORIALS? An Editorial is that, an objective piece by the Editor! One may write a letter to the Editor with criticisms or other comments, but to write the Chairman of the Board is unheard of.
For God’s sake, the man is a graduate of one of the best schools of Journalism in North America. In Canada students need over 90% average to get in and then the class is limited, so the higher the average, the better the chances. He sounds credible! Go Ravens Go!
Redds // July 29, 2008 at 8:53 PM
David I enjoy posting here and must commend you on your balance and thank you for giving me a voice, yes I am a BLP supporter, but are these 3 letters Mr. Eversley posted the smoking gun, now really David, lol. I believe the former PM assertions and I will state what I said before, before reading the abovementioned letters and posting my 8:20 contribution, Mr. Eversley went to the gathering or press conference with his preconceived, partial notions.
SWEETNESS // July 29, 2008 at 9:09 PM
I was silent too long to allow reudon to attack the dignity of a great man. A man who many caribbean people adore and admire and who up today still thinks he is the PM of our country. So I say to Eversley stop the whinning and complaining and accept that he had done a wonderful job within the last 14 years.
Wishing In Vain // July 29, 2008 at 9:18 PM
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/478349.html
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST TODAY, THE FBI ARE GETTING THEIR MEN ONE BY ONE .
I wonder if HALLAM NICHOLLS, GLYNE BANNISTER and OWING SEE THRU ARTHUR getting a queasy feeling as yet???
It should feel queasy from the weed killer they may have ingested after the revelations today by the PRIME MINISTER THE HON MR. DAVID THOMPSON about the in depth knowledge he has on their many scams.
The other newly released scam where Ian STUPID Gill was awarded a contract for $ 2.3 million of your taxpayers money to repair a road he collected 90 % of the fee and has dropped no more than 2 loads of marl on location, and no one can locate where this money has gone to, jus another display of gross contempt and crass dishonest behaviour.
J // July 29, 2008 at 9:19 PM
” I applied for a job at a government institution for which I was perfectly suited. I was invited to an interview but I was warned it was just a sham. My source told me that a certain person said I would never work in Barbados as long as the BLP was in power. I called up the HR person at the organization in question, told him to withdraw my name and keep the job because I didn’t need it as I had a better one” Reudon Eversley
Dear Reudon:
If you were invited for an interview and failed to show up because of hearsay, or if you showed up and because of hearsay withdrew your application, please explain to me and to the BU family how that can be Owen Arthur’s fault ? or the BLP’s fault? or how can that be considered persecution? since by your own words you voluntarily withdrew your job application?
And as a reminder “J” has never been a member of any political party, and has voted multiple times for both the DLP and the BLP. “J” has never met Owen Arthur nor David Thompson and has no desire to meet either.
Georgie Porgie // July 29, 2008 at 9:30 PM
I do not know Mr Reudon Eversley, nor do I know of his political persuasion.
BUT I KNOW that I suffered similar experiences as this man did, even though I was/am not a member of any party.
I have no difficulty in believing what he has said in his post.
Georgie Porgie // July 29, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I agree with Pat that an Editorial is an objective piece by the Editor! Why should the BLP government think that they should be able to ask the Press to let him and his government okay EDITORIALS?
Who did Arthur and company think they were?
Redds // July 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Georgie Porgie it is really sad, the PM posturing about the allege corruption, Maxine McClean posturing about the immigration issue, all this posturing the silence is deafening. Reudon Eversley was posturing, don’t posture speak your mind. It really speaks alot about the nation’s leadership, no decisiveness whatsoever.
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Let me be clear ;
1) I have no doubt Mr Arthur probably did not like Mr Eversley and no doubt complained about him. Editors and politicians often dont get along just ask any republican about the NYT.
2) I have no doubt that political victimisation takes place and has been taking place by both parties for years
But lets us look carefully at Mr Eversleys claims:
He says he was spied on (or phone bugged), hounded out of job (but he does not explain why he did not sue), specifically targeted by the BLP party including the PM no less, and even more incredible was denied the opportunity to work ANYWHERE in Barbados. Moreover, he feared he might be assassinated.
Now these are spectacular claims. To keep him out of work would require the cooperation of hundreds of people.
For these spectacular claims, lets see some evidence (why he even claims to have evidence that would show what a mistake it was to make Arthur the PM, imagine that!)
He does not explain why he would be so targeted. I can think of a 100 ranking dems more important to suppress than him.
It seems incredible so much time, effort and resources to keep one man out of job and no explanation as to why him.
Incredible.
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Pat (aka BFP), you are incorrect on two important counts
- It was not an Editorial but an article
- The Govt did not ask or demand the article (or editorial) to be “OKed” by them. They referenced an agreement where in any article of that nature, the Govt’s views would be sought. That is something completely different.
It is common practice in Canada to ask the view of the relevant minister on articles on Govt policy
J // July 29, 2008 at 10:05 PM
I read the letters, and these are my observatons.
Boy, oh boy.
Owen Arthur can’t write.
Peter Evelyn can’t write.
Reudon Eversley can’t write.
Bajan men petty as hell.
Pompous too.
If Peter Evelyn was my boss and wrote me such a letter I would ball it up and stuff it in file 13.
And tell Reudon since he was at the luncheon to work, and not to eat, it does not matter that the invitation came 3 hours before the event.
He was suposed to be there for the news (if any) not the food.
It was an invitation to working lunch for Christ’s sake, not a wedding invitation.
For weddings 6 weeks before. For working lnches as soon as possible which may mean 1 minute before.
Of course it would be rude to accept an invitation to a wedding and then refuse to eat what is offered.
However for a working lunch, especially one at a poblic place like a hotel different rules apply and Reudon was under no obligation to eat, drink and make merry.
He was owever under an abligation to work.
Georgie Porgie // July 29, 2008 at 10:12 PM
@ Redds
I agree with you that there seems to be a lot of posturing by the DLP government, and that there seems to be NO decisiveness whatsoever about the nation’s leadership. I pointed that out most clearly in the two threads that BU run on health matters.
@ Amused
I can understand that the BLP government could determine and execute orders that Eversley be denied the opportunity to work ANYWHERE in Barbados. IT HAPPENED TO ME!
Eversley does not have to satisfy your curiosity about the methodology of his exclusion, or why he was so targeted, and it does not require the cooperation of hundreds of people, as you think.
And whereas you can think of a 100 ranking dems more important to suppress than him; clearly the suppressors didn’t share your view. After all none of them were not the Editor of the Advocate! .
It is not as incredible as you think that so much time, effort and resources would be employed to keep one man out of a job. What is incredible to me is that you don’t understand HATE and its inner workings, and you do not understand the FEAR OF EXPOSURE and what it does in the attempt to eliminate folk that some see as a real threat to their power.
People in positions of lesser positions than Eversley were effectively targeted, silenced and edicts issued to ensure that they starved!
BUT there is a GOD!
I find Eversley a credible in the BU court of opinion.
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Yes you have a constitutional right to freedom of expression.
That right gives you the ability to honour your contractual obligations or ignore them.
It gives you the right to face the consequences of your actions.
Freedom of expression is not a defense to breach of contract. Mr Evelyn, an excellent lawyer, must have had a good laugh at that one.
J // July 29, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Following quote is from Owen’s letter “this was in contravention of an undertaking given to me by your CEO that the views of the government would be sought whenever any major article is to appear that bears upon the policies by…government”
Dear Reudon:
If the Advocate’s CEO had indeed given Owen such as undertaking, then your were screwed by your CEO, not by Owen. And that is the time when if your balls were so big you should have quit.
Your CEO must have been mad to give such an undertaking to anybody. No CEO who understands the role of the non-government owned media would ever give such an undertaking to anyone, not Owen, not David, not to anyone. NEVER.
Hell!!!! the Advocate ain’t supposed to be the Government Information Service. If Owen wanted such an undertaking or if David wants such tell them that is why they have GIS on the governments payroll and the Advocate and the Nation aren’t
Redds // July 29, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Amused
- The Govt did not ask or demand the article (or editorial) to be “OKed” by them. They referenced an agreement where in any article of that nature, the Govt’s views would be sought. That is something completely different.
I thought it was only me who understood what the letter from the former PM office was stating, I hoped that Mr. Eversley objective would be to report the news fairly and accurately, and not to appear partial/slanted would have asked/sought out the gov’t or minister’s views. David what would be nice if you could please post the article that was written in the Advocate that caused all this brouhaha or did I miss something.
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 10:25 PM
GP,
He was no longer the editor when they were allegedly keeping out of any job. So why was he so specially targeted?
If you say it happened to you, why not give us the details.
I am aware victimisation takes place. If you and Everley are two examples, why not share the evidence.
You are right, Eversley does not have to satisfy my “curiosity” but the claims without evidence will get the credibility they deserve. It is more in his interest than mine to provide the evidence.
Even the BU court likes a little evidence (am I wrong David?)
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Good point J.
Redds, J understands too
me // July 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Owen is no longer PM so of course now all these stories will surface… tsk tsk tsk!
Pat // July 29, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Pat (aka BFP), you are incorrect on two important counts
- It was not an Editorial but an article
**************************************
My dear good man, I am basing my opinion from a read of Owens letter and that of the Evelyn person to Mr. Eversley from the Advocate. Go read the letters at the link. If it was not an editorial, then blame Owen!
Sargeant // July 29, 2008 at 10:51 PM
After reading the letter sent to the Advocate by Arthur all I can say is WOW!!! It is clear that the gov’t wanted to vet any article which was critical of its policy prior to publication. I am not so naïve as to believe that the only reason they wanted to see the articles was to offer a contrary view, I firmly believe the only reason they wanted to see these articles was for reason of censorship. They wanted to change the content to make it more ameliorable to them or have them withdrawn altogether.
This is how it works, if you don’t change or withdraw the article then we will raise the issue to your board or management to get it removed and as any one can see the BLP politicians and by extension the gov’t was hardly afraid to go forward with their complaints. I suppose this was their modus operandi with the other publication (Nation) and also VOB, they didn’t need to do it with CBC because they controlled that medium.
For all those with short memories who are disinclined to believe Mr. Eversley, didn’t David Ellis say after the election that journalists in Barbados were working under tremendous pressure and intimidation from the former Administration? I suppose he is also lying.
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Pat,
Sorry read the letter again,
Arthur is writing the Advocate to complain that a 2 page article on the IMF did not contain the Govt views on the matter (as per his agreement)
He is not complaining to the Advocate about their editorial
Perhaps you are getting confused by the reference to an editorial by Eversley that appeared subsequently. That is not the basis of the complaint to the Advocate
You central claim that Arthur demanded approval of editorials is incorrect
Amused // July 29, 2008 at 10:58 PM
can i be released from permanent moderation?
Someone said the 'BLP Stalwart' // July 29, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Wait up! Do you people know who is the Eversley that you are defending? He has ran from pillar to post; he has been an antagonist in every political party in Barbados; he is a man whose ass has been exposed to all imaginable breezes. People, Owen’s record is certainly not one of shame or disloyalty even if we question some of his decisions. The point is, these decisions worked for the better part of 14 years. Tell Eversley to deal with current occurrences, offer some hope for the Barbadians at this critical juncture in our economy, and for crying out loud, stop selling your ass to the highest bidder. One love!
Someone said the 'BLP Stalwart' // July 29, 2008 at 11:58 PM
I expected just that from BU.
The People's Democratic Congress // July 30, 2008 at 12:13 AM
LET US REPEAT!! It is high time that the broad masses and the middle classes of people of Barbados STOP ELECTING DLP and BLP Governments in the future in this country. Both the DLP and the BLP are essentially the same, philosophically, ideologically, and practically, and do share some of the same characteristics, e.g. being two essentially visionless and intellectually bankrupt and wasting political organizations. Yes, they are in common but disgraceful opposition to the greater progress and development of the broad masses and middle classes of people, whatever their many pretensions to the contrary.
Moreso, the fact is that the DLP and BLP are primarily political historic labels under which a certain brand of selfish, egotistical, power-hungry and money worshipping people ( more than any others are able to do so) associates and organizes and so seeks to achieve governmental office in this country, so that – by having achieved governmental office itself – they go in relentlessly pursuit of – and with a view of securing such – their own greater interests and those of their families, friends and business, far more than the furthering of the interests of the people and nation state of Barbados. Of course, there are some conniving persons within and without the public sector that aid and abet and work in tandem with these so-called party members and supporters in the latter’s achievement of their narrow-minded interests. What a repugnant and deplorable state of affairs!!
Another fact is that both the DLP and the BLP were formed in the pre-independence era of this country. Thus, their structures and cultures are very often informed and conditioned by a sweep of colonialist and Eurocentric based notions and adaptations. In this modern era then, these parties are therefore totally ill-equpped and ill-positioned to deal successfully with a great many of the modern survival challenges and opportunities for development that exist at this stage in local and world history. Thus, at the top of their miserable excuses for having failed or failing to do far better for the people of this country and the country itself, is unspoken and unenviable conduct that largely relates to their continuing to jostle and compete for the attention of the elite, and for political centre positions, while at the same time continuing to represent the status quo in this Barbadian society. Thus, as the Mighty Gabby expressed in his wonderfully written and very melodic song – Windforce – in the 1990s, the BLP, DLP, NDP ( now defunct) are of the same philosophy.
So, what was the damn point in electing the DLP into government, when the last BLP Government was the worst and most obnoxious post-independence government in the history of this country? What was the real point, if many of us in Barbados already think/know that so many facets of political governance and management of the affairs of this country are going to be very poor and deficient under this DLP Government also? Why NOT support and help to further build other newer and more serious people centered progressive parties in Barbados? Why NOT? Huh!!!
Anyhow, while we are at it, we would have clearly noticed that before the last elections many members and supporters of the DLP – including one Irene Sandiford Garner – used to be engaging us in political discussions that centred on the need to realize the electoral removal of the former BLP Government from office, whereas many members and supporters of the then BLP Government used to be refraining from interrelating with us on any political discussions that seriously pointed to the removal of the last BLP Government.
Well, now that there has been a change in government – since the 15 Jan 2008 – we have come to realize that many of those same members and supporters of the DLP who used to help provide us with anti-BLP discussions, have now shamelessly fled from around us – including the said Irene Sandiford-Garner, and many of the same BLP members and supporters who were NOT inclined to participate in what were essentially these anti-BLP discussions, are now some of the same persons who wish at this stage to so insolently lend support to anti-DLP discussions. What a disgusting state of affairs!! While we anticipated those kinds of political behaviourisms, we are ashamed and appalled at the naked opportunism that has been displayed by such persons – esp from Sandiford Garner who – since she having become a Senator – walks the streets in Bridgetown as if she is some kind of false note that has been struck – turning a blind eye to some of those whom she once sought to be politically in tune and in harmony with, in the past. What an inglorious set of circumstances!! Indeed, the behaviourisms of these persons do help to expose DLP and BLP Governments for what they really are – mere evidences of the personal and impersonal legacies of our colonial and atavistic past.
PDC
David // July 30, 2008 at 2:27 AM
A couple questions to Reudon Eversley to clarify a few things for the BU family.
1) Why did you not go public before now with your story?
2) If this was Arthur’s modus operandi shouldn’t there by other stories out there in media land? If so why have those journalists not come forward?
3) Why did you not put your case to the BAJ? Would it not have been more effective? The fact that the BAJ was ineffective would not have helped your cause when you went to the World Press body.
4) We are puzzled that Arthur would have felt so strongly that he would have put his concerns in writing to become a matter of public record.
Please give us your thoughts.
Tell me Why // July 30, 2008 at 2:58 AM
Do all of you with political vengeance realise that you are missing the other views, The Advocate, Mr Arthur and the truth? None of these posters really know what really happened during Reudon’s stinct at the Advocate but prefer to post political statements .
The first letter dealt with a simple condition on fairness which have been extended to the great Errol Barrow and it has nothing to do with any political party. Reudon knowns that professional journalist should always get both sides to a story so as not to show bias and allow the public to judge. We should always have a dialogue with both concerns. In that case, the ex-PM is correct. The second letter I can accept since your job should not be viewed for you to eat and dine with anyone, it is not in your contract. But the letter goes on to remind Reudon that other issues are documented based on his political position and he knows, and I know that his leaning was purely for the DLP. Mr. Jackman should never have been employed during electioneering to be connected to a sensitive area like the newsroom when he was a major player in the hierarchy of the party and Reudon knows that and I know why. Also it was not correct to dismiss Ms. Gajadhar and you know why you did it.
Everyone is taking the subject out of perspective and not focusing on the substance of the letters that are in the public domain. People who bring stories never give the true facts.
Amused // July 30, 2008 at 3:11 AM
“The second letter I can accept since your job should not be viewed for you to eat and dine with anyone, it is not in your contract. ”
————————
The chairman’s letter complained about Mr Eversley behaviour. It said nothing about his refusal to eat the food.
It is Mr Eversley who has assumed that the chairman’s complaint is with the reference to his refusal to eat the food. This may not be the case at all.
In any case if the chairman complaint is about the food refusal, the manner in which Eversley refused is all important.
No rational person would demand that an employee must eat a function but there would be an expectation about how Eversley should have handled the matter and perhaps this is the basis of the complaint.
Wishing In Vain // July 30, 2008 at 3:32 AM
Tell me Why
If you are attempting to move this away from what is very clearly it is a brash attempt by your former dictator, Hitler Arthur to muzzle and control the press and to seek only good press as was his dictator style, you always saw once there was bad news to deliver it was never arthur to deliver it.
To attempt to pass his actions off as one seeking fairness, it is really a sad ask.
This man was a tyrant no if, buts or maybes about it he was even worse than Tom Adams in his wayward and Vindictive manner.
Tom Adams broke womens arms when he wanted them subdued very much like m does with her female relations, let us not forget the blows she has inflicted in many that she deals with and even worse her treatment of the person A, the events that led , Carol and TC to seek care and attention at the QEH speaks volumes of the moraless base that mottley operates from .
In Arthur he did not break womens arms alone nor did he bite, nor did he beat them into submission he destroyed people from within, he broke down families andf family life and he destroyed peoples work opportunities all for his own gain.
Temohpab // July 30, 2008 at 5:08 AM
I laud Mr. Eversley for his intestinal fortitude and courage to expose these states of affairs and the fact he has documentary evidence to support his assertions, makes his story absolutely believable.
My advice to Mr. Eversley though is to make multiple copies of these documents and secure them, because you never know what these people will do to protect their interests.
I am totally amused at the pettiness and childish habits of certain people. Owen Arthur has the classic “issues” inherent in short people, and has a serious Napoleon complex.
David // July 30, 2008 at 6:44 AM
@Amused
We have no idea why your comments are going to Spam. For some reason the Spammer does not like you. Keep commenting and it will change with time, that has been our experience.
Anonymous // July 30, 2008 at 7:14 AM
The letters that Mr Eversley have posted have strengthened my opinion that his claims of victimization by former PM Arthur are UNTRUE.
Tell me Why // July 30, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I laud Mr. Eversley for his intestinal fortitude and courage to expose these states of affairs and the fact he has documentary evidence to support his assertions, makes his story absolutely believable.
…………………………………………………………………….
Can you decipher the documents and explain any points where victimisation might be the base. Let me state for the final time. Journalism have three sides, your side, my side and the real side (truth). Nothing is wrong if a PM or John public ask any media to publish or broadcast they side providing it is not based on defamation. Am I wrong Reudon?
WIV, we are dealing with labour laws and the rights of employer/employee within the media. When we are dealing with love affairs, you can interject.
Anonymous // July 30, 2008 at 12:26 PM
This the same evening that the PM’S cruise is taking place is the same evening that mottley is having her $ 150.00 per ticket party, now tell me is this an not an upper crust event that mottley is hosting at $ 150.00 per ticket ??
It goes back to what I said all along she wants to appear to know about live at the lower levels but will host a party that tickets cost the massive sum of $ 150.00 whereas the PM host a cruise for the meger sum of $ 47.00 chalk and cheese if you ask me.
Now is this the action of a caring representative or an eliteist, how many from the constituency she is supposed to serve will be able to attend an event with prices at $ 150.00 per ticket??
It is most unsettling and uncaring of a representing agent of the people as she is supposed to be.
OOH yes may I also remind mottley that there is no likelyhood that you can scam another $ 150,000.00 worth of tickets off on the scum bags at VECO as was done by yourself last year, and remember the PM has the evidence to prove it and link you to the fraud.
No wonder the prison cost us as it did, the persons behind the scam were paying our good money to people like mottley to host fetes, we should all have been invited as shareholders in the prison and mottleys fete!!!!!
Reaganomics // July 30, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Reaganomics asks what’s the average cost to join a Kadooment band.
Anonymous // July 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM
What was the cost to attend Lara’s fete?!
Wishing In Vain // July 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
This the same evening that the PM’S cruise is taking place is the same evening that mottley is having her $ 150.00 per ticket party, now tell me is this an not an upper crust event that mottley is hosting at $ 150.00 per ticket ??
It goes back to what I said all along she wants to appear to know about live at the lower levels but will host a party that tickets cost the massive sum of $ 150.00 whereas the PM host a cruise for the meger sum of $ 47.00 chalk and cheese if you ask me.
Now is this the action of a caring representative or an eliteist, how many from the constituency she is supposed to serve will be able to attend an event with prices at $ 150.00 per ticket??
It is most unsettling and uncaring of a representing agent of the people as she is supposed to be.
OOH yes may I also remind mottley that there is no likelyhood that you can scam another $ 150,000.00 worth of tickets off on the scum bags at VECO as was done by yourself last year, and remember the PM has the evidence to prove it and link you to the fraud.
No wonder the prison cost us as it did, the persons behind the scam were paying our good money to people like mottley to host fetes, we should all have been invited as shareholders in the prison and mottleys fete!!!!!
Wishing In Vain // July 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM
The DLP PRIME MINISTERS CRUISE is nicely priced at only $ 47.00 so that they are affordable to all.
Wishing In Vain // July 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Not an Elite fuction as we can clearly see with mottleys attempt to make a quick buck.
Anonymous // July 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Not an Elite fuction as we can clearly see with mottleys attempt to make a quick buck.
Reaganomics // July 30, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Reagaonomics asks if you have to pay for drinks (including the recently increased alcoholic beverages) on the Prime Minister’s Cruise, or are alcoholic beverages included in the $47.00?
If the answer is no. Let’s assume that the average cost of a drink is ten dollars. Do the Math!
Of course there’s always the option of not drinking?
How many entertainers are on the PM’s cruise? Are they performing for love of country or must they be paid?
Amused // July 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM
David,
Thank for the comments on the spam issue.
I have to say after being constantly blocked on BFP, your blog is a dream in comparison even with the hiccup of temporary moderation.
Reaganomics // July 30, 2008 at 1:45 PM
The DLP PRIME MINISTERS CRUISE is nicely priced at only $ 47.00 “so that they are affordable to all.”
******************************************
Affordable to all? What the capacity of this boat? How many persons can fit on the boat?
deMarlehole // July 30, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Hello David
I continue to read this post and your link to Mr. Eversley’s letters, and only in Barbados. Imagine a chairman’s response by implicating his company in the termination of an employee (Ms Gajadhar) by saying this: “This action by you following so closely on the warning letter of the 21st December and our discussions on the18th December are forcing the Directors to the conclusion….”; “You terminated Ms. Nalita Gajadhar writing on women’s affairs because you stated she was a likely candidate in elections yet to be called, when you terminated her. Yet you allowed Mr. Carl Jackman ………” “The Board of Directors has resolved that you be given the severest reprimand…..” Listen pal as if you don’t know, you were on the skids. (Has the legal statute of limitations expired on Ms. Gajadhar’s firing?)
Mr. Eversley my opinion, you do lack people skills pal, as Managing Editor your slips showed and they were “pink” a color not associated with real men in those days. You might have turned that company around, I don’t know how much, because I still see the grammatical errors and a photo of five persons with the person in the middle being referred to as 3rd from left and the person to their left as 4th from left.
However, I must still give him credit. In a letter of response to the chairman accusing him of being “political” he wrote, “I commissioned the librarian to undertake an analysis of front page stories and pictures for the months September through December 1998. The findings show Barbados Labour Party and its government received 70% of coverage as opposed to 30% for the DLP.” Letter to a Chairman and Board who might have been more BLP than Owen; he was lucky to have been fired without a kick in you know where. I mentioned in an earlier thread him having so much balls, not knowing how he can walk, but man they do sweep the ground.
Finally, Mr. Eversley must be congratulated for having much stock in Mr. David Thompson and I therefore hope he is paid well; if not, there is still hope for him on the “Options Market”. If he were long Oil as he did Mr. Thompson he would have made a killing.
Peter // July 30, 2008 at 3:24 PM
First Quarter Results?
What pinhead would dare to measure the performance of a government during their first quarter in office? Were you an finance official from the last adminisration? Obviously you have the numbers upside down, BLP style. Public policy and the cleanup of the sewerage left by your last government is not a 90 day process, sir.
The last time I checked, we are in a global slowdown, that is crippling the performance across many economic sectors of the global giants. So, what would make Barbados any different? Oil, Gold, Copper and diamonds; the commodities we do not possess? Please base your conclusions on educated principles; or if you need coaching, watch this government in action.
Anon27 // July 30, 2008 at 3:24 PM
WIV: As a people, when we vote, hopefully we can vote for someone who is in touch with what life is like for the average Bajan, someone who can relate to the issues that face the everyman/woman in the day to day struggle to make ends meet. Someone who is in tune with the issues that face Bajan families and the dreams they have for a better future.
Irrespective of all the things that have been said of Mottley re: her sexual orientation, her enormous ego and her lack of tact, she is an ELITIST who is completely out of touch with ordinary Bajan life. It is my belief that her main motivation in the political life she has chosen is strictly to clime ever higher in that elitist life and to secure her already considerable financial future. Fulfilling the will of the people, who would be so foolish as to put her in the highest position in the land, would always come a very distant second.
me // July 30, 2008 at 6:03 PM
well i gine to Mia ’s fete as I always do….it caan miss me…!
Reaganomics // July 30, 2008 at 6:07 PM
@ Anon27
“hopefully we can vote for someone who is in touch with what life is like for the average Bajan”
******************************************
Reaganomics asks pray tell what is the average Bajan.
It seems like we like to call the poor black man card when it’s convenient, just like we call the “we’re a christian society card.”
When it’s convenient we pull the UN statistics with a US$11 000 p.c.i (PPP) and we brag and say that we aint poor no mo’.
So pray tell what is dis average Bajan?
A high p.c.i. ; 120 000 registered vehicles to approx 300 000 inhabitants; moving towards one university graduate per household; one computer per household; telephone, light and water for 95% of the households.
Reaganomics is confused.
What makes someone elitist because they’re throwing an all-inclusive charity fete for BS$150.oo?
Would u vote for the average bajan next door?
David // July 30, 2008 at 7:26 PM
It is our understanding that the Mia fete the proceeds goes to a charity as it has from exception.
Reudon Eversley // July 30, 2008 at 7:44 PM
A couple questions to Reudon Eversley to clarify a few things for the BU family.
1) Why did you not go public before now with your story?
2) If this was Arthur’s modus operandi shouldn’t there by other stories out there in media land? If so why have those journalists not come forward?
3) Why did you not put your case to the BAJ? Would it not have been more effective? The fact that the BAJ was ineffective would not have helped your cause when you went to the World Press body.
4) We are puzzled that Arthur would have felt so strongly that he would have put his concerns in writing to become a matter of public record.
Please give us your thoughts.
David, here are my responses to your questions.
Response to Question #1: Quite a number of people in this country are aware of what went on because I related my experience. I wanted to do so before but the media simply did not wish to touch it. There was considerable fear of Arthur in media circles, you know. You also have the issue of self-censorship. In the same way Arthur went to my superiors to complain about me, perhaps he did the same in respect of others. I have always maintained that the general public had a right to know what happened and I had always intended to tell the full story one day. An injustice was done to me and I did not intend to sweep it under the carpet forever. So when our $3.5 million Opposition Leader is speaking about justice, she must be told in no uncertain terms because there can’t be justice for Peter and not Paul. There must be justice for everyone. Mind you, I am fully aware that the BLP’s outlook is informed by its motto — A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR PEOPLE – which inherently espouses discrimination. Its message is clear: to have a better life, you must be one of them. I wasn’t so I was denied justice.
Response to Question #2: Yes, I have heard quite a few other stories. For example, there is a former female reporter at the Nation who, based on what I have heard, should have more than a mouthful to say if she ever decides to speak up. I cannot speak for other journalists who have not spoken up. They have to answer for themselves. But you know Barbadians; they are usually afraid to speak out against anyone in authority because of the fear of retaliation. Ours is a country traditionally controlled by fear. The BLP understands the role of fear in the socialization of Barbadians, especially the masses, and effectively uses it as a tool to have its way. When onlookers saw, for example, how some people were publicly fired from their jobs – like the QEH management team for example — the average person is inclined to take his or her insults quietly because they fear they too would be made an example. What did the blogger who made mention of the early morning phone calls admit even though he or she wrote under a pseudonym? The person admitted to being fearful. This is Barbados.
Response to Question #3: The BAJ was incapable of representing itself. How, therefore, could it have represented me? Most journalists did not take the BAJ seriously. Otherwise, it would have been still in existence. There are divisions in the journalism profession, some of it based on who is liked and who is disliked. I attended a few BAJ meetings in its early days and came to the conclusion it was a waste of time. So, I was not a member. Indeed, when I had my challenges with Arthur over the IMF story, a BAJ representative called me up and came across as if he was speaking more in defence of Owen Arthur than a fellow journalist. Perhaps this person was “included”. You never know because my understanding was that certain journalists got little picks on a side doing communication-related projects for government under the BLP. I sent you a copy of a nasty fax — which you are not to publish — that was used as part of a vicious smear campaign against me in which the writer, suspected to be a known BLP hack, rejoiced that the BAJ was not supporting me. “DE BAJ GOT …. REUDON EVERSLEY BY THE BALLS” was the opening line of the obnoxious fax. So it seemed the BAJ was not supporting me. It seemed my employers were quite willing to sacrifice me to please the BLP. In fact, I was asked by a certain director if I wanted Mr Arthur to pull the government’s advertising from the Advocate. Well, I certainly had no intention of going calmly like a lamb to the slaughter. I lodged a complaint with the World Press Freedom Committee because I felt they would have represented me and effectively too. Furthermore, some of my colleagues overseas were incensed about what was happening and were prepared to take up my case. I only backed down only because my CEO, whom I deeply respected, asked me to.
Response to Question #4: I can’t say why Arthur chose to write my chairman. What I can say is that the BLP wanted to control and dictate editorial policy at the Advocate and I was seen as an obstacle. This was clearly the objective of Arthur insisting that everything we wrote about the government, should be referred to them first for comment before publication. Nonsense! In my view, the Advocate was not CBC or the GIS and I was not going to have it because the same treatment was not extended to other interest groups and private individuals in Barbados. Stories about them were carried and, if anything, they had to respond afterwards. So why should the BLP government be given “special treatment”? The Dems did not ask for special treatment. In fact, when I came to the Advocate, I was told by insiders of cases where DLP press releases had unreasonably ended up in the waste paper basket. I also heard of at least one instance where an operative close to Arthur had come into the newsroom and said he had page one for the next day …. and it happened. Now that was not going to happen while I was editor. If my CEO had given such an undertaking to Arthur, it most likely would have been under pressure. He received early morning calls from Arthur and I always knew because, in turn, I would be called about the issues Arthur had raised. He was under even more pressure than I was, including for agreeing to pay me a decent salary which some Board members objected to.
In Barbados, you see, journalists are to be paid peanuts. The Advocate was a subsidiary of one of the wealthiest conglomerates in the Caribbean and my position was very simple. If I was creating wealth for them, I had to get my fair share and it was to be reflected through increments. That is what I negotiated for. I did not spend two years at Carleton University just because I wanted a piece of paper. I wanted to increase my earning power. What was wrong with that? I wasn’t coming to the Advocate because I loved them so much. Advocate staffers can confirm that during my tenure, they received the biggest Christmas bonus in the company’s history in 1998. Before, they were given hams some years. We also introduced a pension plan which was opposed by the big-ups who believed the NIS could have taken care of those needs.
To get back to your question, David, even if I had tried to reach Arthur for a comment, he would not have complied. His rigid position throughout my tenure was that he was not speaking to me, even though I had made various attempts to mend fences and improve the working relationship between his government and the Advocate. I requested an interview with him once and it was denied. So, in the circumstances, I was not going to ask one of my junior reporters to call Arthur. I wrote the IMF story and if his position was that he was not speaking to me as the editor, then he was not going to hold up what I had write about in the public interest. Simple as that! Before going to the Advocate as editor, I had worked at CANA for 15 years, including three as Director of News and Current Affairs, and my professionalism as a journalist was never questioned. I covered politics all over the Caribbean and nothing of this sort ever happened. As expected, you would have your occasional skirmishes with politicians because you will not see eye to eye with them on some issues some times. However, as a journalist, I separated my politics from my journalism. A columnist, however, is different. A columnist expresses his opinion.
So much for answering your questions, David. Now, I have some questions to ask Owen Arthur publicly.
(1) Will you name the lady who carried my name to you and on whose lying information, it seems, you based your whole view of me?
(2) Will you admit calling the Advocate one afternoon in 1998, providing a phone number, and asking management to call this lady in question who worked on Broad Street so that she could tell the Advocate’s management what she knew about me?
(3) Are you aware that when you called, fate had it that I was there at the time? Are you aware that when this lady was called, she admitted up front that she carried my name to you but then agonizingly remarked to the effect: “I did not expect the prime minister would do this to try to make the guy lose his job?” I can NEVER forget those words.
(4) Will you confirm that the lady’s name begins with L? I am refraining from publishing her name because I don’t wish to create problems for her. She has to live with her conscience.
(5) Do you recall when I stopped next to your car – a silver Peugeot — as you were parked on a Christ Church road one afternoon a few years ago? Do you remember me saying that I wanted you to know something and you told me to call your office the next day to make an appointment which I never did?
(6) Have you ever wondered what I had to tell you? In case you did, I wanted to tell you that I was disappointed in you because it seems you allowed a name-carrier to colour your judgement of me when you could have easily obtained clarification of any concerns you had, if you had only responded to the various efforts I had made as editor to meet with you to establish a good working relationship with your office instead of having the stand-off which existed. Whether you liked me or not, your role as prime minister was to look out for all citizens of Barbados, including myself. You failed me as a citizen of Barbados.
(7) Were you aware that some of the biggest ‘leakers’ of information about your government to the Advocate during my time as editor, were your own people who had various issues with you which some of them told me about in confidence? Therefore, if any story was written which you felt was intended to embarrass your government, you cannot blame me. You have to blame your own people. I was just the messenger.
(8) Will you admit that you made a mistake and committed a wrong against me?
I must explain, for the benefit of the BU family, the name-carrying episode. The lady in question and I had a conversation in Aventura Mall, Miami in May 1997. We went to Miami to attend a conference. The conversation was triggered by a book I had purchased entitled HOW TO WIN AN ELECTION. I was working with a local PR firm at the time and was advising a political party in another Caribbean island which scored a handsome victory in general elections the same month.
A discussion on politics ensued and I was asked by the lady if I had to work as a PR person for a political party in Barbados, which one would it be? I said the DLP. The woman looked puzzled. I did not know at the time she was a die-hard B with name-carrying propensities. She asked why. I gave three reasons: that the DLP was formed in the home of my relatives; that ideologically I felt at home with the DLP, and that I had known David Thompson from the time we were teenagers hanging out at Community Development with Ralph Walker and had respected him. She responded: “So you would work against Owen?” I replied: “Yes”.
Little did I know that response would have caused me so much trouble. The comment was embellished and the word was apparently delivered that I had to be watched because I was bent on bringing down the BLP government. And that, apparently, is how Arthur saw me in my role at the Advocate. Being in the right place at the right time when that particular call came through and the subsequent call was put through to the woman, solved the puzzle of why Arthur was so hostile towards me. Incidentally, I had heard the same comment previously from a certain Cabinet minister, with whom I spoke one afternoon, and he told me that he understood that I was committed to bringing down the BLP government. It was baffling but I could not establish the link at the time.
Now this is serious business. The experience taught me a lot about Arthur. It was most revealing. My conclusion was that he is not a strong person and it became clear to me that he exercised power in a way to create a perception of being strong when, in fact, he was a weak man whose behaviour, certainly in my case, suggests he grappled with insecurity and fear. That an ordinary village boy from St Philip, as I am, could have caused such anxiety for the Prime Minister of Barbados is rather flattering indeed. His weakness is also seen in the constant calls he made to my CEO to complain about trivia. Strong people usually look at those things and laugh and get on with what is important.
When I saw the pitiful sight of Arthur jumping up and down on the BLP platform in Carlisle Car Park during the recent election campaign and talking about wanton soup, I knew the end was near. It was his political death rattle. His body language communicated defeat. That is why I found Freundel Stuart’s recent analysis of post-prime ministerial Arthur to be so profound and relevant. “A naked man, stripped down to the skin, of all of the arrogance and all of the hubris that the people of Barbados had to endure particularly over the last ten years”.
I experienced it; therefore, I know it. Those who are rushing to condemn me in defence of Arthur never had my experience. They cannot relate to it. Perhaps they share similarities with Arthur. Birds of a feather always flock together. I rest my case.
Roland A Waithe // July 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Mr Eversley you are so right. I live in St John and during the terror reign of the BLP many residents in St John told me that every time they went job hunting(Civil Service) they were ask where did they reside. All of them were bluntly told that they where from the wrong parish. In our words if your are from St John we have to be a member of the then opposition DLP. this is discrimination as its national worst. I trust that now that we are in power that our party remember when St John people had to suck salt , surviving just above the breadline. As The former Prime Minister Owen Seymour Arthur said” We are here to ensure that the opposition never see power again in this country’ Only at the time he said those words he unknowingly referred to the wrong party.
Reflections // July 30, 2008 at 8:14 PM
What a gripping story Ruedon. It was like a really good book .I could not stop reading. If your account is true and I believe it is the Special Branch may have been trailing you too. Arthur and his blatant paranoia actually thought you could bring down the BLP government . You were not even a national personality. You and which army was bringing down the BLP? Shame on runt Owen and his reprehensible tactics.
Georgie Porgie // July 30, 2008 at 10:13 PM
It was most important that Eversley share his story.
It is important for other Bajans to understand that they were not alone in the things they suffered.
Many others doubtless suffered like Eversley did.
JC // July 30, 2008 at 11:13 PM
That was SAD! INHUMANE AND CRUEL!
Asiba-The Buffalo Soldier-still 2 much FAT on the road // July 30, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I dont get mix -up in political discussion but I read everything in the last comment by Mr. Eversley and I simply dont get it.
As a calypsonian/songwriter I am always looking for material and this account sounds strange
it sounds funny funny funny. Do I detect some sort of psychological or psychiatric imbalance ?
Straight talk // July 30, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Unfortunately, Reudon, you portray the problem with our fourth estate rather than the solution.
These facts should have been laid before the Barbadian public whilst hot, not now in some false feeling of retribution.
As a journalist you betrayed your profession and your readers. You kept quiet about the slings and arrows and by so doing forewent the protection of public opinion.
You took the easy path of abeisance to keep Bajans ignorant of the way their government operated.
Declaring your protests now is both triumphalist
and cowardly.
A larger man, or more legitimate journalist, would have appealed to the common decency of the Barbadian people for his protection.
You kept quiet.
And now your expose s are hollow through their irrelevance, their impact was greatest when we all needed such info, while this quasi- dictatorship was in place.
Now you’re just kicking the short man while he’s down, again portraying a cowardly streak.
I am pleased you have left journalism, we have no need for information after its sell by date.
me // July 31, 2008 at 4:36 AM
poor poor Reudon, against the big bad wolf from St Peter….. LMAO
so let me assume that all is right in the world now Mr Eversley!
My mother always told me if you cant take the heat stay out of the kitchen…. LMAO
Anonymous // July 31, 2008 at 5:31 AM
Reudon
I hope you don’t take people like straight talk seriously.
Writing a lot of pompous crap at no cost to himself.
That is why you post as reudon eversley and he as straight talk.
Thank you for your insights into a dangerous period in Barbados’ political life.
JC // July 31, 2008 at 6:40 AM
I remember a day a girlfirend of mine was crying soooooo bad; because her boss had told her you dont have no job you from St. John.
I felt sooo bad for her, I, like an idiot ended up crying because although my girlfriend is from St. John she voted B ha ha ha ha lol. I can now laugh but it really hurt to see that it mattered where you were from although you are a BAJAN!
Ooops i forgot we aint saying nothing in our country anyhow!
Reaganomics // July 31, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Reagonomics asks if anyone remembers when the great Errol Barrow filled the QEH and School Meals Department with people from St. John.
Reagonomics asks if anyone drove through St. John recently.
What’s happening up there?
Where’s are the agri-programs for the area?
All these years of loyal DLP representation!
SOS St. John!
Reaganomics // July 31, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Reaganomics thinks this is why it’s called politics and this is why people are jaded.
Reaganomics // July 31, 2008 at 9:52 AM
So de people from St. Peter aint gonna get no wuk now?
ganong // July 31, 2008 at 11:58 AM
@ Asiba The Buffalo
The reason you didn’t get what Eversley said is because you are most probably an illiterate and void of comprehension.
I personally don’t get the significance of you phrase “as a calypsonian/songwriter”. What is so special about a calypsonian/songwriter? You jackasses take yourself too seriously.
How does being “a calypsonian/songwriter” qualify you to talk about psychological or psychiatric imbalance, seeing that you are most likely unschooled in these disciplines?
Yes you have access to a computer and the internet, and freedom of speech, but are you really qualified to opine on anyone’s psychological or psychiatric imbalance? BULL SHIT!
ganong // July 31, 2008 at 11:59 AM
@ Straight talk
Unfortunately, Reudon, you portray the problem with our fourth estate rather than the solution.
=================================
Howmany folk on BU offer solutions to any problems. Most of you just produce a lot of pithy piffle, and pretend that you are knowledgable.
Who are you to decide that Eversley should have presented his dilemma to the Barbadian public whilst hot.? Would you have helped? Would the Bajan public have cared?
What is a “false feeling of retribution.” Is that a phrase you heard some one use in the rum shop?
How did he betray his profession and his your readers? By not producing juicy gossip for you to read?
Why should he not keep quiet about the slings and arrows hurled at him? Was it not his choice to suffer in silence like Job, and pray and wait for divine intervention and deliverance?
You reveal that you are a jackass by declaring that by keeping silent that Eversley did not avail himself “the protection of public opinion.” Which public? What protection? Did the last Government care about the public or their opinion, except around election time?
You made me howl when I read your bales of bull shit >>>> A larger man, or more legitimate journalist, would have appealed to the common decency of the Barbadian people for his protection.
Did the Bajan public protect the President of the BCA from a heart attack secondary to a early morning phone call?
What would Bajans have done if they knew the way their government operated? What would you or the public have done while this quasi- dictatorship was in place? Why would the public intervene because one man was having trouble with OSA?
The reason why people like Eversley did not speak up before, is that scoffers like you would have had fuel to use to attempt to humiliate him just as you are doing now.
He did the correct thing. He told it to Jesus as the gospel song says. And he has lived to sing the triumph of his faith.
His expose is relevant if it will help idiots like you to see that the dictatorship never happens again. But your intellectual myopia and relative lack of functioning brain cells only allows you to his declaration as information after its sell by date.
Kicking the short man while he’s down, does not portray a cowardly streak. It is rather an acknowledgement that God is still on the throne, and that he remembers his own.
ganong // July 31, 2008 at 12:00 PM
@ me
Your comments are in the same vein as straight talk.
Poor poor Reudon, like many others, were indeed up against the big bad wolf from St Peter. And for some of us things are better in their world today, because God is still on the throne.
You can mock as much as you like, but the short dictator has been overthrown!
Mr Eversley left the kitchen didn’t he? But God delivered him from the fiery furnace like he did the three Hebrew boys in the book of Daniel.
Ian Bourne // July 31, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Reudon is true, Atherley tried to get me fired because of my objections to Emmerton relocations – but sad to say I am sure it gos both ways, BLP & DLP play the same game
Redds // July 31, 2008 at 12:33 PM
You gang need to stop using God name in vain, ain’t no one oppress that man, he just full of hate and deceit
Reaganomics // July 31, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Reagonomics cannot believe that Owen Arthur just brought Barbados through 14 years of sustained growth and the largest economic expansion ever recorded, together with the lowest unemployment rate ever. And this is inheriting a 24% unemployment, meaning one in every four persons was unemployed in 1994.
Now these hypocrites are lambasting him after gloating in and boasting about the country’s success.
Reagonomics is totally confused now.
SOS!
J // July 31, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I said it before but I will say it again.
BAJAN MEN ARE UNBELIEVELY PETTY.
Owen is.
Reudon too.
Adrian Hinds // July 31, 2008 at 2:42 PM
J // July 31, 2008 at 1:35 pm
BAJAN MEN ARE UNBELIEVEABLY PETTY.
Owen is.
Reudon too.
=================================
Yuh mean both uh dem short? :D
—————————–
Somebody respond to rea-gon-o-mice nuh? :D
@Straight Talk
I agree with you that Ruedon’s exposition would have been relevant and very hot if delivered fresh. I do not agree with you that it is no longer relevant although I concede it is not has hot. Either one has an appreciation for the level of victimization that is threatened on a daily basis in Barbados or they don’t. They are also others that are fully aware of this practice are turning a blind eye to it. I was somewhat skeptical of Ruedon’s initial article after I learned that he was a big Tom Adams man sometime in the past. Knowing back then that it would be rare for someone to support a PM but not his party, I wondered if he was just another disgruntle party hack. He has not address that to my satisfaction, and continue to believe that his pass associations will takes some heat away from his revelation. However it is still hot enough to cause a lot of discomfort for Owen. His updated details identifying what he believes is the root cause for Owen going for his jugular portrays the former PM as a childish person. This can damage the PM’s goal of Elder statesman’s legacy.
Anonymous // July 31, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Reagonomics cannot believe that Owen Arthur just brought Barbados through 14 years of sustained growth
——————————
I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMENTS BY
REAGONOMICS
-
ganong // July 31, 2008 at 4:01 PM
@Reagonomics
You say that that Owen Arthur just brought Barbados through 14 years of sustained growth and the largest economic expansion ever recorded, together with the lowest unemployment rate ever. And this is inheriting a 24% unemployment, meaning one in every four persons was unemployed in 1994.
Now no one is lambasting him for doing WHAT HE WAS PAID WELL TO DO. Rather they are lambasting him for terrorizing folk, for being vindicative, for selling the country out, for the concentrated and cooperative thiefing within the BLP while in office.
The reason that you are totally confused now is because your brain needs wiring properly. Something is wrong with your cognitive functions and your capacity to reason along more than one tract.
Adrian Hinds // July 31, 2008 at 4:49 PM
ganong // July 31, 2008 at 4:01 pm
@Reagonomics
The reason that you are totally confused now is because your brain needs wiring properly. Something is wrong with your cognitive functions and your capacity to reason along more than one tract.
=================================
Ganong, I am not one tuh tell uh fella what to do, but just so you know, Rea-gon-o-mice, don’t garner much attention in here dese days, and if you reflect on your response to him, the reason would stare you back in your face. But never the less um would be fun to see you attempt to “rewire” someone who thinks that they can “rewire” others.
Reaganomics // July 31, 2008 at 5:42 PM
“Now no one is lambasting him for doing WHAT HE WAS PAID WELL TO DO.”
******************************************
Once the above achievements of Barbados under his stewardship are acknowledged then Reaganomics is happy.
Now ya all can go back to Mr. Eversley.
J // July 31, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Dear Adrian Hinds:
Both of them short.
And both of them petty.
I wouldda say womanish, but would be to insult the very rational women we have ’bout hey.
UNBELIEVEABLY PETTY.
Amused // July 31, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Another long diatribe from Eversley with no evidence to back his claims that he was
- forced out of the job
- kept from working anywhere in Barbados
- risked being killed
- specifically targeted by the entire BLP
In fact we see more from the theme I referenced earlier ;
“What I can say is that the BLP wanted to control and dictate editorial policy at the Advocate and I was seen as an obstacle. ”
“I requested an interview with him once and it was denied.” (so it must be that the PM was “not speaking” to Eversley)
“Do you remember me saying that I wanted you to know something ………….. Have you ever wondered what I had to tell you? ”
“The comment was embellished and the word was apparently delivered that I had to be watched because I was bent on bringing down the BLP government”
” an ordinary village boy from St Philip, as I am, could have caused such anxiety for the Prime Minister of Barbados is rather flattering indeed”
Eversley, blissfully reveling in a delusion of his own importance.
Hate to break it to you, but many thousands of loyal dems were working to bring down the BLP, you were hardy special.
Victimisation happens and many commenters on this blog seem to assume that since it happens then anyone who moans must be a victim. Not so.
Let the real victims come forward with their story.
This is a pathetic (love ?) story involving a woman (L) (are we surprised a woman is involved?) who apparently Eversley does not want named because he does not to “create problems” for her, yet he wants Arthur to name her.
Hilarious.
Amused // July 31, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Eversley ask Arthur;
“Will you admit calling the Advocate one afternoon in 1998, providing a phone number, and asking management to call this lady in question”
then he asks;
“Are you aware that when you called, fate had it that I was there at the time? ”
Huh???
When he (the PM?) called who? (the management of the Advocate) you and the lady were there?
I thought you said the PM called the management and asked them (the management) to call this lady? Did they call her or was it the PM?
Who is management?
Reaganomics // July 31, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Ok Amused.
So the root of evil is not only money but also sex.
???
Please let Mr. Eversley tell his story. Dont run de man!
Though ten years later, it still takes guts to do what he’s doing.
Reaganomics // July 31, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Amused, leff de man nuhh! He aint pon trial. Dont x xamine de man!
Amused // July 31, 2008 at 6:45 PM
ok ok ok
Asiba-The Buffalo Soldier-still 2 much FAT on the road // July 31, 2008 at 7:10 PM
ganong // July 31, 2008 at 11:58 am
@ Asiba The Buffalo
The reason you didn’t get what Eversley said is because you are most probably an illiterate and void of comprehension.
———————————————
SORRY SIR/MADAM
Non-psychotic // July 31, 2008 at 7:27 PM
@Asiba, there is no need to apologise. Ganong has been empirically shown, by his own post, to be “void of comprehension”.
J // July 31, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Reudon Eversley says: “I am fully aware that the BLP’s outlook is informed by its motto — A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR PEOPLE – which inherently espouses discrimination. Its message is clear: to have a better life, you must be one of them. ”
Isn’t is possible Reudon that the OUR PEOPLE is meant to refer to the Barbadian people?
And if unemployment in 1994 was 24% and dropped to about 6% during Owen Arthur’s administration isn’t it possible that some of those who found work were non-BLP? Isn’t it posible that a lot of non-partisan people found work? and a lot of Dems too?
If there is one fault with the Arthur administration it is that the cost of land, houses and so too rents were permitted to rise too sharply so that a lot of yong people who want to start families have difficulty buying or even renting a place. I was i nSpeightstown when Arthur first made the statement that land must be put to use at its highest value. I though then and I think now that that was a piece of foolishness. Maybe he meant its highest price (not value) because surely one of the highest value use of land it to provide housing for young families. But of course housing yong families is not the most “profitable” use of land.
If the DLP wants to be re-elected it should do all that it can to help young families find decent housing.
But the DLP has Reudon who wants to gaze at a 10 year old (non) scar, and Hartley Henry who tells us that the Prime Minister Thompson is “accustomed to living large” as though that is somehow a virtue?
What I would like to know how does the DLP plan to serve those voters who are beteen 18 and 35.
If that group is not servd the DLP cannot win the next election.
I have voted DLP before and I would like to do so again, but I have to see good policy implementation before I can be persuaded.
David is not my friend, so my vote will not be based on freindship.
The DLP has to earn my vote. I ain’t givin’ it away, and i ain’t selling it either.
Owen is not my friend either and at times when I voted BLP my vote was not based on friendship
J // July 31, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Surely land has a social value?
Surely land has a spiritual value? For those who might argue that land has no spiritual value. We do have near Bridgetown a huge unoccupied tract of land that might have been perfectly suited for the expansion of Kensington Oval. But we choose not to put that land – Westbury Cemetery – to its highest economic value. Surely if we can respect the dead we must respect young families just starting out?
Surely land has a cultural value?
Surely land has an economic value?
J // July 31, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Dear Reudon:
You tell us that you spent 2 years at Carleton.
Did they teach you at Carleton that an editor of a daily newspaper should strive to be non-partisan and not be guided by his politically partisan views?
I have no trouble with people holding partisan views. But the Advocate does not have on its masthead “The Advocate: Offical Organ of the DLP” and since it does not then the readers, those of us who put our few cents worth into the Advocate every day expect the newspaper to report the news, and provide room for a broad ranege of opinions. We do NOT expect or want our daily papers to be a party rag (not for D nor B). It was unethicalof Reudon to continue to be the editor of the Advocate when he knew full well that he was unable to be unbiased because of his family connections to the founding fathers of the DLP and to David Thompson.
One an editor of a daily (non-party) newspaper finds that he is unable to run the newspaper in a non-partisan fashion then he should resign.
And go find a job running his party’s paper.
Since Owen know that Reudon had an expressed anti-BLP bias no wonder Arthur was so hostile.
And I don’t think that the World Press Council would have been impressed by Reudon’s case. I certainly am not.
And I’ll say again, I’ve never met Arthur and I don’t plan to. I’ve never been a member of any party, and I don’t plan to be
Amused // August 1, 2008 at 1:05 AM
when did Eversley leave the advocate?
Reudon Eversley // August 1, 2008 at 3:47 AM
J, you seem very misinformed. Therefore, I have to rejoin the discussion — which I really didn’t intend to — to clarify a few issues for you.
You are arguing that it was unethical for me to continue as editor of the Advocate because I was incapable of being unbiased and also because of my ties to two founders of the DLP. Your argument simply does not hold water.
Are you aware that my predecessor as editor of the Advocate, Denzil Agard, worked under Tom Adams as his press secretary? In other words, he was the mouthpiece of Tom Adams. Are you also aware that Glyne Murray, who was personal aide — if my memory serves me correctly — to Tom Adams and worked for the 1976-86 BLP regime in other capacities, subsequently served as features editor of the Nation and editor of the Bajan Magazine? Incidentally, Murray left the Nation to become Information Minister under Owen Arthur. Are you also aware that Elombe Mottley (Mia’s uncle), after being a candidate for the BLP , had served as head of news and current affairs at CBC in the 1980s?
Why haven’t you made the same argument against them? Or, is that you were unaware of these cases? If you were aware of these cases, then you are essentially arguing that they, human beings like myself, are somehow blessed with special qualities which the Creator God did not give me. May I recommend that you get your hand on an excellent book which discusses the media and its relationship with the political establishment. It is called “BIRDS OF A FEATHER: THE PRESS AND THE POLITICIANS”. The author is Allan Fotheringham. He used to be Canada’s leading newspaper columnist. Reading this book should clear up some of the misunderstandings which you clearly have.
Finally, let me share with you what I learnt at J school about bias. Are you aware that the history of the media shows that newspapers began as outlets for the articulation of particular viewpoints. In other words, they were biased as hell. For your information, everyone is biased including media people. There is no escaping that fact. It is a human characteristic shaped by the sum total of our experiences. In Britain and other developed countries, newspapers are known for having a particular political viewpoint. An unbiased press is therefore an illusion. Do not confuse “bias” with “balance”. When the media speak of being unbiased, they essentially mean being balanced. In other words, they will try as much as possible to ensure that stories present the sides of the major parties concerned. Sometimes, this is not possible because one party may decide, for some reason,not to speak. In such cases, you go with the story once it is considered to be of sufficient public importance.
I hope, J, that I have clarified a few issues for you.
Amused // August 1, 2008 at 3:57 AM
Would including the Govt views of the matter in your article about the relationship between the Govt and the IMF have given that article “balance”?
me // August 1, 2008 at 6:15 AM
Still you dont see that you were not prepared to deal with fire… you have to take some of the responsibility for what you say you endured. You just admitted to being biased as an editor. So be it , so face the perceived consequences of your behaviour or fight back.
I dont feel sorry for you more like pity…!
At least Owen was trying to make life better for th e people of this country… what were you doin?
Bush tea // August 1, 2008 at 6:28 AM
Obviously ‘J’ was sleepy when that piece was written about editors needing to have no personal political biases in order to be ethical…
Normally, J’s contributions are logical even if one does not agree, however this last piece fails that test – I would put that down to sleep deprivation…
…i hope you had enough juice to make it through fore day morning J
…and Ruedon, you have made your point – no need to respond to each and every snipe – it tends to detract from the main point.
…any man that would treat his own family the way Owing did, could be expected to behave just as you outlined.
This is why – without knowing David Thompson personally, I am optimistic that his professional treatment of people will be significantly better.
Few of us have perfect family relationships, however Thompson’s PUBLIC family attitudes are impressive.
From all reports, I may have the opposite problem with Thompson – being TOO LENIENT and soft…. allowing obvious saboteurs to remain in sensitive positions, slow to expose and deal with clear cases of illegal activity by past officials etc
….management requires a fine balancing act.
1) Wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove
2) Walk softly…. and carry a big stick.
Thanks for sharing your experience with us Ruedon
Tony Hall // August 1, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Reudon,
You are not the only person who Owen Arthur savaged. You are one who has had the gut to come out and speak about it. Owen Arthur I am sure is living a lonely life now, stripped naked of power. One’s subconscious can be a bitch
Wishing In Vain // August 1, 2008 at 12:20 PM
A very sure sign that this new Gov’t is doing the right thing and that they most certainly have the full undivided support of the people of Barbados was clearly displayed in the event of this morning where the largest gathering ever walked from Independence Square to Bay st for a truly lwonder progam of things Barbadian, Culture, food it was all there to be taken in.
I congratulate you Mr Minister and the Senator for a wonderful presentation.
J // August 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Dear Bush Tea:
J regrets to inform you that J is old and fat and troubled by chronic non-communicatable diseases and is therefore unable to partake of the joys of Fore Day Morning.
But J remembers the “good old days” and wishes the Foreday Morning Revellers well.
J // August 1, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Dear Reudon:
J has been around for more than 50 years, J expects to be around for another 50+ years.
J spent far too much time studying history. If J had studied marketing or accounting instead J would not now be catching the ZR vans.
That said I now make the cast against Denzil, Glyne and Mia’s Uncle Elombe
Just because Denzil did it.
Just because Glyne Murray did it.
Just because Mia’s Uncle Elombe did it.
Just because you did it.
Just because my son did it.
Just because I did it
Still does not make it right.
If we all did it then all of us are wrong.
As your grandmother taught you and as my mummy and daddy surely taught me 4 wrongs do not = right.
I understand that newspapers started as party rags.
I am quite familiar with the writings of Allan Fotheringham.
Amused // August 1, 2008 at 7:14 PM
I am missing something. Are there more documents?
When did Arthur “savage” Eversley?
We have a letter dated May 1998 of Arthur complaining to the Advocate and Eversley is not even the main point of contention. We know Eversley remained editor for quite some time afterwards. Are the more letters? How did Arthur exactly “savage” Eversley, why did he take so long to do it?
In fact from being “savaged”, Eversley claims HE is one who was giving Arthur “anxiety”.
Why does it takes guts for Eversley to claim “victimisation” now? especially when Arthur has been “stripped naked of power”?
Surely it would have be braver to do it while Arthur had power??
Explain please.
Amused // August 1, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Mr Eversley do you still fear you may be politically assassinated??
Is this why some commenters think the telling of “your story” takes “guts” ?
eureka // August 1, 2008 at 8:11 PM
I think people need to realize that LIES always gets the headstart in any race and more often than not, leads for the most part but eventually, the truth catches up and overtakes it.
The time has come for politicians to stop reacting to criticisms of them by members of the public, even if some half-truths are contained within those criticisms. Anytime a leader responds to trash, he is in effect saying that he is in some way guilty because why waste time to respond to nonsense?
My primary school teacher always used to tell his students that small things attract small minds. We have to become more mature as leaders and desist from suing persons for perceived libellous remarks; a perpetual habit of the former BLP administration; especially if we know the things to be untrue. When persons constantly react this way they are in effect saying to the citizens that the remarks were true.
I had admired Owen Arthur in the first two terms of his government but started to see an arrogant and autocratic style developing in his third term. For me, I didn’t care what he said or did during or leading up to the election campaign; he had to go.
To substantiate Mr Eversley’s claim about Prime Minister Thompson being a gentleman, I remember distinctly, either the last or penultimate budget summation given by Owen Arthur, he lambasted Thompson with the use of some harsh words; calling him a dangerous whipper snapper.
He said something about having a conversation with the late Errol Barrow and being told some bad things about Mr Thompson. In the recent budget response by Mr Thompson, I listened to Mr Thompson expecting him to return the favour to Mr Arthur and was pleasantly surprised to see what a vast difference his summation was.
It is patently clear that Mr Thompson, cut from a different cloth, is a very remarkable person as regards to speaking assertively without descending into the toilet and also being very polite to his opponents even when they deserve a good ole cuss out.
Tell me Why // August 1, 2008 at 9:37 PM
These facts should have been laid before the Barbadian public whilst hot, not now in some false feeling of retribution.
………………………………………………………………..
My same sentiments. Too late and Reudon digging himself further by too much talking. Being an editor, Reudon should have realised he should listen instead of talking too much.
Amused // August 1, 2008 at 10:13 PM
david , can you release my posts?
J // August 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM
We know now how Reudon regarded Owen. And we know how he regards David.
But how did Reudon regard the ordinary Advocate reader? You know those people in every town and village who put their dollar coins on a counter to buy an Advocate? Some of them are D’s and some of them are B’s and some of them like me change their vote from time to time
How did Reudon regard the advertisers? Both corporate advertisers, and small occasional advertisers?
How did Reudon regard the Advocate’s shareholders?
How did Reudon regard the Advocate’s Board of Directors?
How did he regard the other members of his editorial team?
How did he regard the Advocates’s columnists?
How did he regard the ordinary reporters on the beat?
And he still has not explained how he justified the dismissal of Nalita when he felt that she might run for elected office as it is her constitutional right to do. Please explain Reudon.
All of the above parties have rights.
Did you respect the rights of all these parties?
Or is this whole thing all about Reudon?
Should Reudon have had
Funny funny funny // August 2, 2008 at 2:28 PM
You guys are too funny.
You labast de man and say he talk too late, now you asking he to answer a whole lot of questions like if the man in an examination.
Reudon, you dont need to answer. Dont fart pun dese jokers man.
You survived, with out asking them for a little bit of rice. You got a job so you still not depending pun dese jokers for a little bit of rice so now DONT PICK YOUR TEET. Let them bray and bray and bray. If it was dem, they would still be hiding. They would not even have written as much as you did!
J // August 2, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Dear Funny, Funny, Funny:
It was Reudon who brought his case to the court of public opinion
So Reudon therefore must be prepared to face cross examination in the court of public opinion.
If Reudon (and you) can’t take the heat of being publicly questioned, then he and you should keep your business out of the court of public opinion.
Methinks that poor Reudon mis-judged and thought that nobody would ask hard questions, that everybody would say “look how poor Reudon get unfair” “look how Owen is a bad boy”
But there was pettiness and bad judgement on BOTH sides.
And “NO” I have never met Owen Arthur, nor David Thmpson either. Don’t belong to any party. Never belonged to any party.
Sargeant // August 2, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I agree with Funny. Owen is known as a vindictive man who didn’t like to be challenged. Many politicians (in his own party) and civil servants have felt his wrath over the years. Reuden has told his story in the only medium that would publish it after all I don’t think it would get pass the editor of the Nation or Advocate. In the USA the politicians often tell the “inside story” after they leave office with an axe to grind and one eye on their wallets, in Barbados they don’t have that luxury. At least Reuden is open about his differences with Owen and isn’t relying on whispers among the cocktail set.
Politicians like all humans have failings, Owen is not above reproach and if he is so great the sum total of his time in office will surpass any criticism. I for one welcome the exchange of correspondence as it shows how petty politics can be even at the highest level. I am sure that there are many other stories which I would love to hear about Owen during his years in power. Are you out there Silent George……..
Funny funny funny // August 2, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I can not count the times I wrote letters to the newspapers in Barbados that were not published.
BU & BFP provide a forum for self expression, and certainly much of what appears here would not be published in the local papers either.
Few folk will sign their names to a post in this forum to be questioned in the manner that Eversley has.
Sargeant // August 2, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Here is my take on the Nation’s position on publishing letters:
Priority 1: Anything that has the word Rihanna, West Indies cricket or Crop Over
Priority 2: Any letter lamenting the state of the world from a Christian POV
There are no other priorities, you place your bets you take your chances.
Didn’t Margaret Knight say on BFP that the Nation published her letter on July 31/08 which she sent in April/08? I presume she dated this letter, can anyone tell me what editor would publish a letter three months after the fact?
My mother always sends me fish wrapped in copies of the Nation; I always knew my mum was smart.
The Advocate’s letter policy: Letters? What letters? You mean those pieces that of paper that we make paper aero planes with.
Sweet Pea // August 3, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I must say that I have very little sympathy for Mr Eversley. Unfortunately, I remember the very dark days of the Advocate under his leadership: the threats, his chauvenism and the arrogance and distain he displayed towards his colleagues. By contrast, Mr Denzil Agard, the former editor, may have been his opposite number in the political field, but he was a decent man who respected his colleagues and treated people with humanity and dignity. I hold no political strings to the BLP or DLP and speak merely as one who has experienced the “Eversley factor”. All I have to say to you Mr “Victim” Eversley is that people in glass houses should not throw stones! You too have caused people to leave the jobs they loved – and jobs in not so high places – and have shown scorn, arrogance and resentment for reasons only your small mind can comprehend.
Straight talk // August 3, 2008 at 1:56 PM
“For the cause that lacks assistance,
‘gainst the wrongs that need resistance,
for the future in the distance,
and the good that I can do”
Reudon, you, as the editor, had the opportunity to make that difference.
dmitting
With your exalted alma mater’s training, you could have resisted government regulation of your editorials.
You decided, for whatever reason to succumb to upstairs pressure.
I can understand your capitulation then, but not your current tirades.
You are in fact admitting to becoming a mouthpiece of government, to protect your job.
That’s fair enough, if that is the society in which you elect to live.
All your supporters on this blog must ask themselves”What exactly did we vote for in January?”
If it was change, you are out of order blogging your admitted collusion with a potentially corrupt regime, much against your true conscience.
What chance have we ever to implement ITAL when the editor of the nation’s secondary newspaper states publicly he sacrificed his beliefs for his paycheck.
That is the true corruption of inclusion.
Amused // August 3, 2008 at 5:07 PM
@straight talk
“you could have resisted government regulation of your editorials.”
————-
Did Eversley present us with any evidence that the Govt attempted to regulate the Advocate’s editorials?
Maybe it was true they did, but Eversley has not provided us with any evidence.
Eversley had written a lot but little that stands up to scrutiny
Georgie Porgie // August 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM
As a looker on………………..
After the way that Eversley has been hounded in this thread on BU, it will be a long time before anyone will tell the populace on this forum of any of thier experiences.
Amused // August 3, 2008 at 6:09 PM
J has responded to that already : (see above)
“it was Reudon who brought his case to the court of public opinion
So Reudon therefore must be prepared to face cross examination in the court of public opinion.”
————-
@GP
If Arthur came here with his perspective should we leave him unchallenged as well?
Barnabas Collins // August 3, 2008 at 8:55 PM
I try not to get embroiled in back and forth with other bloggers. I usually comment on the original article which is used to generate the discussion. But more and more I find it necessary to comment on something that I have noticed on this blog.
I think it is totally unfair to mention persons by name when the writer is doing so under the purview of anonymity. This is a small society and when one makes unsubstantiated assertions of infidelities on individuals (non-politicians), some will see these as facts but more importantly these individuals have to work in Bim and will have no recourse to clear their names. We all have to live and work irrespective of which party is governing in the country. While it seems that some on this and other blogs are suggesting the absurd notion of dividing our country into B or D, the sane ones among us understand that such a suggestion would be divisive to our beloved country.
Therefore, I would suggest that the administrator of this site should offer ALL citizens the ability not to have their names sullied by unsubstantiated and wild comments by some who find this practice acceptable. I am not trying to prohibit discussion but when making an assertion it should be substatiated by proof and not just a hunch or romour….
Just a suggestion.
BC
evanchef // August 4, 2008 at 3:21 AM
OWEN ARTHUR IS A CLEVER MAN! IS HE A NICE MAN? I WOULDN’T BE FOOLED THAT EASILY! RUEDON IS AVERY DECENT GOD FEARING MAN, AND THE FORMER P.M TRY TO STARVE HIM. BUT THE STEPS OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN ARE ORDERED BY THE MOST HIGH GOD!
Tell me Why // August 4, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I presume she dated this letter, can anyone tell me what editor would publish a letter three months after the fact?
………………………………………………………………..
If an editor can wait 8 years to deal wil his own letter, what will you expect in 3 months?
J // August 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Dear Evanchef:
In Reudon’s own words he applied for a job which suited him perfectly, but before the prospective employer could say yes or no Reudon called the human resources department and withdrew his application.
How can it then be said that Owen tried to starve Reudon?
By his own words Reudon told us that he turned down the perfect job.
J // August 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Reudon seems to enjoy portraying himself as a victim.
Amused // August 4, 2008 at 4:04 PM
But dear J, the interview was all set up just as sham to trick Eversley by the BLP !
The scout // August 4, 2008 at 10:25 PM
What I marvel at is these guys who have their political agendas to follow and don’t realise that at some point in time they would get burnt. Which every party is in power, persons from the other side feels the hurt when crunch time comes. Take it like a man, come back strong now but don’t try to regain what was lost or you would hurt theNow party.
Wishing In Vain // August 4, 2008 at 11:45 PM
The Scout you missed the point by a mile, what he is showing the people of Barbados is the fact that Owing See Thru Arthur was a little tryant a dictator and a bully.
He is awaking you to what Arthur was really like behind the facade of a caring lovable person he was nothing more than a scum bag ready to unleash his vile remarks at anyoner who opposed his wishes, not to be left out in this style is mottley who recently fired Mr Norman Barrow from a contract given to him to supply the sound system at their Southern Conference because he attend the Budget Debate in Parliament, now tell what breed of idiot is she???
Adrian Hinds // August 6, 2008 at 11:39 AM
When accusations are leveled at someone, or their image lowered by the revelation of actions attributed to them, and there is no response, or attempted rebuttal, or the provocateur hasn’t being served with a writ, I usually have to conclude that all that have been said must be true.
Ruedon has Owen’s lawyer been in contact with you? Does anyone know if Owen has responded to the charges leveled against him by Ruedon? What am i to make of Owen’s silence? :D
Tell me Why // August 6, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Does anyone know if Owen has responded to the charges leveled against him by Ruedon?
…………………………………………………………………
I see no reason to respond. If the documents are weak and unable to show Reudon’s point, it would be suicidal for Owen to respond. Reudon will have to bring a stronger case to the plate.
Amused // August 6, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Likewise Mr Hinds, where is Eversley’s writ for wrongful dismissal against the Advocate or his writ against the PM for keeping him out of a job
evanchef // August 6, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Ruedon I am only a mango away. I realise that J. HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES. Don’t let him derail you, stay your course. let the truth be told!
JC // August 7, 2008 at 6:49 AM
If Owing after didnt like you HE GOT RID OF YOU!
I aint asking a boy a thing I telling you!
to those who think that he was the sweetest since slice bread lol lol lol!
WAKE UP AND GO AND PEE COZ WANNA GOT BE HALUCINATING!
J // August 7, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Dear Evanchef:
If you can list “the issues” that you believe that J has I’d appreciate getting such list from you and then I can deal with those “issues”.
Thanks.
J
Blackest Beauty // August 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Ruedon Eversley!!!!!!!!!!! Who the fuck cares about what happened then?
Is this the best you can do ?
Your writting reflects that you are a very “speightful” person only ladies begave in this manner. I am not favouring the Barbados Labour party, I will never favout the BLP, Howvwer I know you and I am very disappointed with your writting. Leave things like these in the hands of the Lord. He takes care of everything………….Open your eyes …..see…………beleive…………After all that Owen did to you, you are now standing again and you are standing taller than you were before…………….Behave yaself Rudy behave !!!!!!!!!!!
Real Disappointed
Blackest Beauty
Someone said the 'BLP Stalwart' // August 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Dear Mr. Eversley,
I always heard that “the higher the monkey climbs, the more he shows his ass.” Evidently, you are quite a climber — having reached the top at the Advocate and being so close to the top now with your love for David. All I can say is cheers! Perhaps I should say watch your ass! Since that final bit of advice was never a problem to you, do you mind informing Barbadians how many lives you have ruined because of your willingness to to lie in bed with whomever you felt had the capacity to raise your ambitious claims for fame and fortune. You have always been a sell-out, and sooner or later, the praises you sing for David will become lamentations of victimisation once again. You are not worth the pen you write with, neither do you deserve a medal for bravery. Without being crude, do us a favour and rest your stubborn ass. The world is bigger than your 10 year charade and Barbadians need to hear a lot more on solutions to their everyday problems of battling food and energy costs. Write on these things! Your ass is now truly exposed.
Sweet Pea // August 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I think we should all watch our arses if Reudon’s around!
David // August 9, 2008 at 6:19 PM
The smear campaign obviously being used against Mr. Eversley is a weak strategy. All of Barbados know of Arthur’s autocratic approach to dealing with the media, just ask David Ellis.
Someone said the 'BLP Stalwart' // August 9, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Go ahead, tell me David? What will David Ellis say? Does he have a long epitaph and a never-ending song of lamentations just like Eversley? This does not sound like the Ellis I heard on VOB and Brass-Tacks. Stop fishing in a dry pond.
Sweet Pea // August 9, 2008 at 7:00 PM
I don’t support any political party but having known Mr Eversley at a professional level, I would suggest that his approach is no different from what you see as Arthur’s. There are four words which sum up Reudon’s character:
1. Nasty
2. Egotistical
3. Vindictive
4. Hypocritical
…And I’m sure I could easily find 10 more!
Reudon’s lamentation is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Someone said the 'BLP Stalwart' // August 9, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Sweet Pea, give me more, give me more. You do not need to give me 10, but give me more. Seems like we both know the charmless man that was more foul than feast.
David // August 9, 2008 at 9:11 PM
So we are all in agreement that both Eversley and Arthur are of the same cloth? Let is declare this matter a stalemate and move on then!
Sweet Pea // August 10, 2008 at 7:09 AM
Let’s just say that the “love note” pinned to the Advocate staff noticeboard one day summed him up! I believe it was written by a member of staff as no one seemed too bothered to take it down. I take it Reudon wasn’t in the mood for love when he turned up and saw it as he was quick to take it down. Ashame!
Just for you Rudy XXXXXXX
NOT !!!!
mybuddy // August 22, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I am new to this site but am very interested in hearing Mr. Eversley’s story, I do not reside in Barbados and have not for about 30 years. I lean DLP, do not have a particular gripe with the BLP. I do not know much about Owen’s Gov’t policies, liked the man but was a bit suspiciuos about some of his govenrment policies. It seem as thought they readily ignore the poor and lower middle-class sector except for when there are General Elections. I travelled St. Philip, St. John areas and the roads were in awful shape. St. George was a little better but bad none the less. I see politicians after their second term doing very well but the rest of the society (except for those closely aligned, directly or in directly to the politicians ) struggling to make ends meet. Then again that life everywhere. One is likely to believe Mr. Eversley especially if you harkenback to the Tom Adams days, is this behavior if true part of the BLP playbook/manifesto? I must also say that I was very pleased to see the B’s defeated in the last election. they feet had gotten for their shoes. Some of the BLP ministers behavior was in my opinion ROTTEN, particularly one female minister involve in a Christ Church project, as well as others. Quite honestly I had reach the point where I had very little respect for the government yet I did not dislike any of them personally. I am barbadian living overseas and depend on the media for most of my information.