If only we could find a way to package our rumour industry for export, we could kiss the IMF goodbye.

Who better to tell us about the experience of being the butt of popular rumour than The Cool Ruler himself, Gregory Isaacs?

                   “Rumours dem spreadin’
Claim sey a sensi me plantin’
But I man a de Don inna de jugglin’
A pure rumours a gwaan.

I’ll tell you who better.  Nobody is the butt of more rumours than Lindsay Lohan:

                   “But I can tell that you’re watching me
and you’re probably gonna write what you didn’t see.
Well I just need a little space to breathe.
Can you please respect my privacy?

Some recent classics:  The talk shows were abuzz with the news that beloved crooner Beres Hammond was prevented from entering Kings House to collect his National Award because of the way he was dressed.  One popular news talk show asked protocol expert Merrick Needham to explain what had happened.  Merrick knew nothing of the alleged incident and opined that, after a dress rehearsal 48 hours before, he considered such an incident highly improbable.

Well, it didn’t happen.  My usually reliable sources tell me Beres fell before the ceremony began and injured himself (not badly).  Rather than limp up to collect his award, he asked his son to collect it for him.

It’s been more than 2 weeks since I explained in exquisite detail (well, at least as much exquisite detail as an oppressive word-count limit allows) why the D.P.P. was wrong to refuse to accept the Contractor-General’s recommendation that Richard Azan’s case be put to a jury (instead of acting as one herself) to find out if anything was amiss (see Some Guys Have All the Luck; October 8, 2013).  I highlighted that, in rejecting that recommendation, she’d relied on a case subsequently criticised by Jamaica’s highest court the Privy Council (PC).

I suggested she should reconsider her opinion and, at least, accept that a prima facie case exists.  I wrote:

                   “…..the DPP relied heavily on Scott‘s case (1974) and only cited                         Wai Yu-Tsang in passing as if it simply affirmed Scott when in                         fact Wai Yu-Tsang cast doubt on Scott. As a PC decision (Scott is                                   a House of Lords case), we’re bound by Wai Yu-Tsang. She also                       misquoted R v Allsop by leaving out a key word, thus converting                        a general rule to one appearing all encompassing. The correct                        quote is: “generally, the primary objective of fraudsmen is …                                incidental”. In her release, she omitted “generally”. In any event,                                   Allsop was a (barely acceptable) UK Court of Appeal decision.                       The DPP ought to be concentrating on the PC’s Wai Yu-Tsang.

I’ve read subsequent newspapers carefully and listened to many talk shows but there’s no sign of response from the learned D.P.P.  Recently, I heard a rumour on radio that the D.P. P., in a speech, said that persons didn’t want her as DPP because she was a woman and unable to be a member of a lodge.

Say it ain’t so!  I absolutely refuse to believe that our D.P.P. would utter such logical garbage; allow such a brainless argument to be published in her name; or seriously allege that there’s a lodge conspiracy to remove her.  Is she dismissing my reasoned column by saying it propagates lodge beliefs?  She’s frequently in front of cameras making smiley faces.  Occasionally, I expect to hear her use the opportunity to say something sensible instead of just flashing teeth. Surely this gutter sniping can’t have been meant to substitute for response to my column?

This is the same DPP who sued a sitting Magistrate; who removed a junior member of her Chambers from prosecuting a high profile case after he said the case needed a statement from the Police Commissioner; who has struggled to secure even one high profile conviction.  Is she suggesting this is all a lodge conspiracy?  She must be high.

Well, I assure the DPP I’m not a member of any lodge, brotherhood, association or group.  It’s just me again Jah.  So please respond to the real public concern I raised and stop pretending it’s a personal attack.

Her silence since my October 8 column suggests she’s can’t dispute the legal argument therein.  So why won’t she prosecute?  Is it that she fears another Kern Spencer-like fiasco?  Or now that the young prosecutor she removed from the Vaz/Bicknell case has become the new Contractor General, does she have a problem taking advice from him?

Peace and Love


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: