Two Members Of Parliament David Estwick And Dale Marshall Go At It!

Minister of Economic Affairs, Empowerment, Innovation, Trade, Industry and Commerce

Deputy Opposition Leader and Former Attorney General Dale Marshall

The publicized incident which is alleged to have occurred on the parliament compound last Friday night has set tongues wagging near and far. It is not the norm for a fight or shall we refer to it as a disagreement to occur between our parliamentarians. What makes the report even more alarming is the realization that two of our most prominent members of parliament Minister David Estwick and Deputy Opposition Leader Dale Marshall are the actors involved.

BU understand that the rules of parliament forbids the Commissioner of Police to mount an investigation. Barbadians will have to await the action of the Speaker of the House Michael Carrington. Westminster conventions require the Speaker to investigate and act in a non-partisan manner. Any incident which involves the blandishing of a firearm in a threatening manner merits careful review.

There was a time when such an incident which we understand to have occurred between Marshall and Estwick would have been hushed-up and eventually forgotten. No such luck in a more enlightened age.

BU reserve comment for now to give the Speaker of the House a little time to consult and act.

Tags: , ,

478 Comments on “Two Members Of Parliament David Estwick And Dale Marshall Go At It!”

  1. True Bajan April 20, 2010 at 11:51 PM #

    Afraid of the Gun, you were not afraid of the GUN WHEN BILLIE MILLER SHOT LINDSAY BOLDEN ?

    Stop spreading lies you have no proof of that.

    Like

  2. Anonymous April 20, 2010 at 11:58 PM #

    You all have proof that Estwick brandish a gun!

    We have proof that Owen breed Julie doh and what about Mia btingout people’s clitorises LOL

    Proof shite!

    Like

  3. Wishing In Vain April 21, 2010 at 12:08 AM #

    For someone that was dead set on not allowing the freedom of speech and freedom of expression do you really think that anything coming from this thing can be taken as serious and real??

    Her ambiguous nature both politically and sexually would suggest that she would be quick to say whatever is required to serve her purpose but with no real serious conviction or substance. Here in lies one of her problems in convincing John Public that anything she says is sincere and genuine David,

    Mottley is a depraved disgusting beast that cannot be trusted with money, wealth or other female flesh.

    For someone that was dead set on not allowing the freedom of speech and freedom of expression, do you really think that anything coming from this thing can be taken as serious and real??

    Its ambiguous nature both politically and sexually would suggest that it would be quick to say whatever is required to serve its purpose but with no real serious conviction or substance.

    Herein lies one of its problems in convincing John Public that anything it says is sincere and genuine as we have seen time and time again its willingness to do what it takes reach its final position.

    Seeing its willingness to eavesdrop on telephone calls of ordinary Barbadians who knows where it would stop to gain power??

    May I remind it that Owing has fired a warning shot across its bow by reminding it that he is going nowhere and it will have him to contend with from here on down the line.

    Like

  4. Atman April 21, 2010 at 12:26 AM #

    I feel sorry fuh wunna hardcore party supporters on both sides…y’all just don’t understand that no one side is always right or always wrong. It’s just pitiful.

    Like

  5. Enuff April 21, 2010 at 5:12 AM #

    WIV (Warped Intellectual View)

    The MO employed for the elections is now obsolete. Your party is into its third calendar year of government ALL eyes are on you, and the people are, justifiably, staring.

    Like

  6. Wishing In Vain April 21, 2010 at 8:48 AM #

    Speaker’s say

    SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, Michael Carrington, has described the Opposition Barbados Labour Party’s boycott of yesterday’s sitting as a slap in the face of the parliamentary process and bordering on contempt.

    Carrington cited several comments made by Opposition Leader Mia Mottley, printed in both daily newspapers yesterday.

    “It may be necessary for this Chamber to take further action,” the Speaker warned.

    In addition, Carrington said a firearms policy would not be introduced at the House simply because other jurisdictions had done so; on the insistence of a few MPs; or as a knee-jerk reaction sensationalised by the media.

    He also defended his actions since the matter was officially brought to his attention.

    “I deprecate the suggestions made both directly and obliquely that the Speaker has not done his job properly, or quickly enough. I consider it an insult to this office,” he told the House during a 23-minute statement.

    Carrington said both Marshall and Mottley had requested the matter be heard by the Committee of Privileges, but yet neither were in their seats yesterday.

    He noted that in this regard, the incident was reported to have taken place when the House was in Committee of Supply, and that Barbados’ system of government considered matters of privilege to be of paramount importance, and that such matters be raised at the earliest possible time, which would have been when he took the chair for conclusion of the evening’s debate.

    “It was not so raised, yet leave has been granted to have it raised this morning,” the Speaker said, explaining why he had taken the opportunity to speak on the matter yesterday.

    Carrington also called for more Members of Parliament (MPs) to seek clarification from Parliamentary staff regarding the exact rules of the House, and what actions should be taken in an effort to have certain matters expedited.

    “I regret having to deal with this matter in this way, at this time. I am of the view that it is necessary to preserve the authority of this honourable chamber. I have received no indication from any member of Her Majesty’s Opposition about his or her absence this morning.”

    The Speaker said it was not for him to speculate as to why they were absent, but he considered their no-show unfortunate.

    He read to the House the dates, times and details of every piece of communication he received from Member of Parliament for St Joseph, Dale Marshall, and Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley, between March 19 (the date of an alleged incident between Marshall and Minister of Economic Affairs, Dr David Estwick) and yesterday.

    Carrington revealed that he also wrote Mottley on April 14, 2010, informing her that he advised that matters which involved the authority and dignity of the House would be investigated by the Committee of Privileges.

    Like

  7. Like it or lump it April 21, 2010 at 10:01 AM #

    De BLP soft? Man listen to me if I was in de House I would take my gun to Parliament to and when any of de Dems tell me something I didn’t like I would pull my gun and use it. Is this the kind of society that Thompson said that he was building?

    Like

  8. Like it or lump it April 21, 2010 at 10:17 AM #

    Man what Committee of Priviledge sh*te let every body bring down dey guns and settle any issues that has to be settled on the outside

    Like

  9. Anonymous April 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM #

    Just hear Mama Mia on radio. OK, so her story today is that the Opposition is going back to Parliament next week because the Speaker has acknowledged that he has the power to set a gun policy if he chooses. This is all they wanted. It was not that they weren’t going back unless there was a gun policy in place. It was that they weren’t going back until the Speaker acknowledged he has the power to set a gun policy.

    Nice try Mia. You gambled and lost big time on this one. No amount of spin can wash all that egg from off ya face. Anyway, keep spinning. Think Bajans stupid nuh? Ah done wid dat.

    Like

  10. Albert April 21, 2010 at 11:04 AM #

    Atman, you are not only losing us all with your harping on non-issues but you are exposing your own partisanship. Estwick apologised. What more most he do?

    The Speaker said he will deal with the gun policy in due course. Mia said she is going back to the House.

    And you are still griping. So what is your point?

    Like

  11. Atman April 21, 2010 at 11:20 AM #

    @Albert

    Seems like you are badly in need of someone to have a conversation with. Go fly a kite…or play with yourself.

    Like

  12. Afraid of the Gun April 21, 2010 at 12:50 PM #

    David Thompson is building a “Gun Society.”

    But he should do all in his power to ensure that hot-head David Estwick does not shoot and kill him accidentally.

    Like

  13. Afraid of the Gun April 21, 2010 at 12:52 PM #

    @ Albert,

    So if the man that shot and killed that little boy, apologise–should the Police drop all charges against him?

    Like

  14. Royalrumble April 21, 2010 at 1:02 PM #

    Estwick has denied brandishing a gun. My advice to Ms. Mottley is that she should move early to have the footage of the video camera in Parliament remove from Parliament and place in the precincts of the Law Court, although it may not be any safer there.

    I fear that this footage will go missing.

    Like

  15. Christopher Halsall April 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM #

    @Royalrumble: “Estwick has denied brandishing a gun.

    My personal interpretation of what Dr. Estwick said in parliament on Monday was that he claims he did not brandishing a gun *in a threatening manner*.

    This could be interpreted to mean that Dr. Estwick might have show his “piece”, but claims to not have intended to communicate threat. (Why else would one show a weapon?)

    Language is important…

    Particularity when you’re dealing with Lawyers and Doctors….

    Like

  16. Adrian Hinds April 21, 2010 at 1:51 PM #

    Albert // April 21, 2010 at 11:04 AM

    Atman, you are not only losing us all with your harping on non-issues but you are exposing your own partisanship. Estwick apologised. What more most he do?

    The Speaker said he will deal with the gun policy in due course. Mia said she is going back to the House.

    And you are still griping. So what is your point?
    —————————————————————————-
    ==========================================

    ha ha ha ha ha lord oh lord. Point? what might that be? ha ha ha

    Like

  17. Adrian Hinds April 21, 2010 at 1:55 PM #

    On March 19 during Dale Marshall contribution. Mia Mottley was constantly talking in the background. At one point she said “we gine get you or the auditor general will” who was she referring too? Estwick? Is this all designed to “get” Estwick? Mottley has been trying for sometime to develop a rift between Thompson and Estwick. Fellas don’t let her win. lol!

    Like

  18. Watchie April 21, 2010 at 2:51 PM #

    No truth to the gun rumour but yet an apology . Prior to yesterday talk about gun or firearm policy during tke Movada VIBZ press conference . Then without the facts it appears that the issue was one on concern. Now to more pertinent facts, does my member of parliament as an Hon member of the opposition have the same rights in parliament as government MPS and rights as a private citizen.? As an ordinary constituent without the backing of a council of 15 or 450 I’m just asking.

    Like

  19. Anonymous April 21, 2010 at 3:20 PM #

    Christopher Halsall
    This is the quote from Minister Estwick
    “I did not initiate the confrontation and neither did I brandished or threaten with a weapon any member of this house as has been implicitly speculated”
    Where in this quote is he saying that he brandished a weapon?

    Like

  20. Christopher Halsall April 21, 2010 at 3:39 PM #

    @Anonymous… Thank you for your above.

    From what official record is this from?

    Where are the transcripts?

    Maybe I’m running down a rat hole, looking for cheese…

    But *something* must have happened in Parliament involving a projectile weapon, no matter how much qualifying language is wrapped around the incident.

    Perspiring [sic] minds (read: the Public) want to know….

    Like

  21. DOLPHIN MOUT April 21, 2010 at 4:08 PM #

    bonny pepper—my baby
    i love yuh
    missed yuh bad

    Like

  22. Bonny Peppa ( in exile) April 21, 2010 at 5:49 PM #

    Dolphin Mout
    I luv you too baby. but wah really happen dat ya in hearing me now is becaus de ol computa outta commission. I got access to a frien whun fa now.doan kno fa how long caus i doan want ta abuse de privilege. next ting ya know, he gun be pinting he gun at me an de only gun i want pinting at me rite now is , ya know who? Yes boy, Estwick or Donville.
    An by de way, I luv suckin ‘dolphin mout’ hearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?

    Halsall
    You still peepin ova dem glasses n talkin shoiteeeeeeee? Stupseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

    Like

  23. Atman April 28, 2010 at 7:32 PM #

    So how come nobody has commented on Dale Marshall’s statement to the Speaker yesterday regarding Estwick’s behaviour?

    Like

  24. J April 28, 2010 at 8:41 PM #

    Dear Atman:

    Nicely written statement.

    Nice and smooth.

    Now I’d like to hear Estwick’s statements and those of the witnesses, Mottley, Forde, the Housing Minister, the policeman etc.. And I’d like to see/hear the unedited tape recording of that whole day’s sitting played on radion and on TV.

    ‘Cause Parliament’s business is my business.

    But the thing is Dale say he ain’t do Estwick nuthin’ and he ain’t say nuthing bad to he.

    I’d like to cross examine Dale (or examine he in some way or de other) and ask he where did he think that Estwick’s anger come from?

    Dale alledges that Estwick was hostile belligerent etc. Serious words for serious anger. Most of us unless we are mad men do not get angry for “nothing” And I don’t believe that any of the Honourable Members are mad. Serious anger is generally stoked by something.

    Another thing I noticed is that the Honourable Membwers all speak Bajan dialect.

    Is this a good thing?

    Or a bad thing?

    Like

  25. David April 30, 2010 at 11:54 AM #

    Notice today that Estwick is telling Marshall/BLP to bring the evidence or shut up. Did we read that in Marshall’s statement to the House he indicated that MP for St. Phillip North was involved in the melee?

    Is it he will deny that Estwick brandished his weapon? They really take the people for fools and as usual our politicians go to New York to sound off.

    http://www.nationnews.com/news/local/estwick-bring-evidence-FRONT-PAGE-OTHER

    Like

  26. Estwick: Bring the evidence April 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM #

    by TONY BEST

    PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

    That’s what Minister of Economic Affairs Dr David Estwick is demanding of Opposition parliamentarian and former Attorney-General Dale Marshall, if he is to prove his allegation that the Cabinet minister pulled a gun on him during a verbal altercation in the precincts of Parliament.

    In New York where he participated in an investment seminar on insurance sponsored by Invest Barbados, Estwick told WEEKEND NATION:

    “The fact of the matter is that it has gone too far. He [Marshall] is going to do two things and my good friend Owen Arthur [former Prime Minister]. You either bring the evidence, shut up or you are going to be deal with it in the large courts.

    “It is as simple as that. Because my good friend, the former Prime Minister was in St Lucia [when the incident allegedly occurred].

    “He doesn’t know what’s going on. But I heard him [Arthur] on the platform [saying] my behaviour was an abomination to the parliament and a lot of things. I am stopping all of that.

    “You either bring the evidence or shut up and as a result of that, the matter will be dealt with in the appropriate legal way and you can rest assured that process might already have been started while I am here in New York and that’s all I will have to say on that matter.”

    Estwick said he would ask Barbadians to remember one thing: “If your Parliament is the highest court in the land, then by extension the Speaker of the House acts as a High Court judge.

    “There is a procedure that is akin to what happens in a normal court; you have an allegation so you come and you lay a case. You lay the case before the judge. The judge, in this case, the Speaker, will determine after investigations carried out, whether what you are saying is true or not and therefore no further action is required.”

    Estwick said he was sick and tired of the untrue allegations being made against him and insisted that Marshall, the representative for St Joseph in the House of Assembly, present his case in the appropriate parliamentary forum.

    Failing that, he said, he might be forced to do it in the law courts.

    Like

  27. Brutus April 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM #

    Bring the evidence? What exactly does that mean? Marshall is a witness and there are other witnesses that saw at least part of the incident, and reportedly had to pull the two parliamentarians apart. I don’t understand the challenge to bring the evidence.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Altercation Between 2010 Calypso King Mighty Gabby And Tony ‘Admiral’ Nelson Backstage Cohobblopot Show « Barbados Underground - August 2, 2010

    […] a time when the country is struggling with indiscipline, the gun incident between Minister David Estwick and former Attorney General in the highest court of the land would […]

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: