“I’m no coward”

I understand that while I was away the Premier Dr. Brown responded to the RG’s use of my posting on this blog where I was reporting that many within the demonstration regarded Dr. Brown as cowardly and disrespectful for not coming out and meeting the demonstration until after the vast majority of the demonstrators had left.

Reading at least the RG article “I’m no coward” I see that Dr. Brown stated:

“What I read was that a blogger said I was a coward because I didn’t come down.”

I was a bit suprised at this. For one thing my report was actually an eye-witness report from within the demonstration. I was not saying that I felt Dr. Brown was a coward, I was reporting what was being said around me and the general sentiment of the crowd. Why the RG was unable to actually have people out there interviewing people themselves and why they felt it necessary to copy and paste from my own report is beyond me, but had they actually done their job of being there and reporting what was going on they would have reported the same thing. I know that, I think it was ZBM, had a female reporter there, and in her report, which was made before I even typed my own report, she said virtually the same thing.

So where he gets off saying I was accusing him of being a coward is quite odd. Do I personally think he was in the wrong in not coming down and meeting the demonstration? Yes. Government knew full well the time range that the demo was going to take well in advance (as evident by the government emails going around saying there would be a disruption of services at that time). And as he was driving into the House of Assembly it was obvious the demo was imminent. And within parliamentary protocol he had the ability to adjourn the session temporarily or postpone his own duties (Paula Cox or other MPs could easily have done this for him), so quite frankly he had absolutely no excuse for not makinghimself present.

Do I think he is a coward. Actually I didn’t at the time. I just thought he had seriously misjudged the situation, that he had made a blunder. His reactions since and the pathetic excuses he has made in his defence though certainly have got me and others wondering whether he is a coward though. For now though I’ll just say that I think he made a mistake, that he is wildly mis-informed and the he has only compounded the situation since with his responses.

I also understand that while I was away he appeared on the TV news and said something to the effect that I have a personal vendetta against him. Don’t know if he actually said this as I wasn’t here, but enough people that I trust have told me this independently that I have to assume this was his statement.

I am very suprised at that comment. I have no personal vendetta against him. During the Delegates Conference that elected him I was wary of him because he really hadn’t said what he would do as leader, his rhetoric was more style than substance and the ‘next level’ and the ‘acceleration’ that he promised never really indicated what the next level would be or where we were going except that we would get there faster. After his election I decided that he was actually pretty genuine and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

We disagreed over the Southlands thing, my concern being with the process and the deal with a racist apartheid like dictatorship and its appaling anti-labour record that the deal with Dubai signified. I had some concerns about the environmental aspect but these were not high in my opposition.

I really have no vendetta against him, although some Party apparatchiks have accused me of a ‘diabolical’ vendetta against him that I find amusing. My issue with Dr. Brown is simply ideological. I have said many times before that I think he is the PLP’s best potential leader and that I have a lot of respect for his skills. I am rapidly losing respect for him though, that is true, but I personally neither like or dislike him. My opposition is simply an ideological position. If anything he would appear to have a personal vendetta against me at the rate his comments are going.

Sad.

Advertisements

47 thoughts on ““I’m no coward”

  1. First of all welcome back JS. I hope you enjoyed your time off the island.

    his rhetoric was more style than substance and the ‘next level’ and the ‘acceleration’ that he promised never really indicated what the next level would be or where we were going except that we would get there faster.

    This is a very fair comment, especially as we are now about to enter our “platinum period” … pretty soon the Premier is going to run out of precious metals and (let’s be honest here … toothless, frivolous) unsupported verbiage to describe the (as yet absence of any) tourism “renaissance”.

    While we’re on the topic … the tourism numbers (which we apparently only get to see when the responsible department releases them “accidentally”) paint a very grey picture of the marketplace. How can we judge the performance and effectiveness of this important “pillar” of the economy (and their massive budget) if the public is only permitted to see chosen glimpses (see “CD’s remarks” for a better explanation of this snippet approach to data).

  2. JS

    “If anything he would appear to have a personal vendetta against me at the rate his comments are going.”

    I think you may have joined a growing list of people that our Premier seems to have a vendetta against – welcome to our world!

    Pitts Bay

  3. “I also understand that while I was away he appeared on the TV news and said something to the effect that I have a personal vendetta against him. Don’t know if he actually said this as I wasn’t here, but enough people that I trust have told me this independently that I have to assume this was his statement.”

    Hi Jonathan,

    Why don’t you call the televsion station and get a copy of the tape. I’m sure they still will have it.

  4. Funnily enough LaVerne I was planning to do that. But thankyou for the advice. You didn’t happen to see it did you? I’m trying to work out which day it was to save time.

  5. Hi Again,

    No, I didn’t see Dr. Brown on the television saying that you had a personal vendatta against him. I would be very surprised if he did, but give Gary Moreno a call. He was the one that did the interview.

  6. Not a very Enlightened response…

    Can we please refrain from making personal remarks/jokes? It makes you look lesss intelligent than I’m sure you actually are. Let’s stick to the issues at hand.

  7. Jonathan,

    Why don’t you give me a call at home this evening. It makes no sense to post anything on this site. You should have my number.

  8. “It makes no sense to post anything on this site.”

    One could certainly argue this, given your son’s recent efforts to add this site to the list of ones that he’s tried to wreck by posting under multiple aliases, using racial slurs, and by his harassment of those with whom he disagrees. Job well done, then.

  9. I don’t totally agree with those sentiments. I think Vanz has a tendency to be a tad defensive, and I do understand why to a degree. I don’t think that his actions are constructive sometimes, but he does have a valuable insight, as does LaVerne. LaVerne and Vanz are two separate people and while some may think they have some similar defensive actions I think it is very important to recognise that this is not 100% true. Both are very able to contribute to discussion and understanding and I welcome their continued contributions.

    I’m rather busy catching up on things this week though. I will try to meet with you next week if thats okay LaVerne.

  10. So, this is just defensiveness and lack of constructiveness, is it?

    “The “cracker brigade” huh? Sure it’s not more like thezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    zzzz…zzz.zz.z dead from boredom”

    i see tha cracker brigade has now invaded this site ………beyaotches all of you”

    “omg urchin – u r a bore – if u were stupid enuff to vote ubp ever – pls stay that stupid.”

    “stinging, whipping? that’s white boy talk”

    But, he’s just not constructive, right? Oh, and was post 201, which you’ve deleted – which I saw and read – ‘just not constructive’, too, or was it just racist, libelous filth of the type that we’ve come to expect of him?

  11. My objective is to encourage the positive and discourage the negative. I will be commenting more about the particulars of certain posts in greater depth in due time. Needless to say I hardly condone those actions that you speak of, as I feel they are counter-productive to discourse. I would prefer it if people would stick to the arguments at hand and not use such childish actions/diversions.

    I personally feel that even if there are valid ‘chips on shoulders’ of the person putting forward an argument it is not sufficient simply to disregard the argument put forward on that basis alone. If an argument cannot be defeated in rational discourse ignoring the personal, then one has to re-evaluate ones position. People may very well say that I, or Phil Perenchief or someone else, or someone else may have an axe to grind, but that doesn’t do much to address the issues that are raised.

    Not sure if that helps?

  12. Somewhat, Jonathan, but I find it difficult to believe that you would be so restrained in your comments if a white poster threw around racial slurs against blacks in the manner that Vance Chapman has done against whites. Likewise, if a white poster issued threats against a black poster in the manner in which Vance’s mother has continued to do, I daresay that you wouldn’t be so restrained.

  13. Not too sure what you mean there. I guess I have much more reading of the thread to do. I am trying be fair in my moderating, but welcome all and any constructive criticism of my moderating. I will reflect on your comments, and review the thread in question.

  14. Well, it’s not just a question of that particular thread, Jonathan: you are well aware of the various racial slurs that Vance Chapman is fond of throwing around on various message boards – including your own – just as you are are aware of the various nasty threats that Vance’s mother, LaVerne Furbert, has issued against people with whom she disagrees politically. To dismiss these actions as “a tad defensive” and merely ‘not constructive’ seems misguided in the extreme, and bordering on apologist.

  15. Loki,

    I have proven on my site that Vanz is perfectly capable of reasonable and considerate discussion of issues without embarking on unreasonable discourse. Are there occasions when he has gotten out of hand? Indeed there are so, however, I would welcome anyone to live up to the claim that they represent the saintly characteristics of perfection.

    Largely what I have found with Vanz is that not only do people enjoy fueling any discourse he happens to get caught up in, they revel in it. Especially the opportunity to later point out his discourse to continue the cycle. Often times Vanz becomes the brunt of personal attacks and is called out for his behavior when others who make similar attacks and portray similar behaviors are not. Is this the product of a squeeky wheel getting the grease? Perhaps. However, a man who steals less should not be judged as any less of a thief just as a man who has sinned even once should still have the opportunity for redemption.

    I have watched on numerous occasions as Vanz has attempted to positively contribute to discussions and instead instantly became the target of personal attacks which had nothing to do with the thread at hand (comment number 28 of the 1000hrs. Labour on the march thread is a pretty good example). The unjust unfairness of such actions only causes Vanz to feel unfairly targeted and fuels his discourse. On the utmost what I have personally noted is that when Vanz is treated with respect and forgiven of past transgretions rather than constantly having them rubbed in his face he can be not only civil but also quite a positive and constructive contributor to the discussion at hand.

    Will he step out of line in the future? Possibly so, however does that mean he should be forever judged or should he be provided the opportunity for redemption? Are his views not valid? Indeed, despite the fact that you may disagree with them should they be taken as any less valueable then your own? Do you not believe in freedom of speech to all or only a select few? Indeed, expecting others to fight a clean fight when you have already made it clear that you intend to fight dirty screams of the very same hypocracy to which you have suggested is unacceptable. If there are rules to be followed, even should they be unwritten, then you need to be first to follow them before you can expect others to follow your lead. Should you expect to be respected you shall never earn that respect until you have proven you can show that same respect for others.

    Give Vanz a chance. Perhaps he indeed has a chip on his shoulder as Jonathan has suggested. However, thus far, it does appear that he is not alone in that regard.

  16. “Indeed, expecting others to fight a clean fight when you have already made it clear that you intend to fight dirty screams of the very same hypocracy to which you have suggested is unacceptable.”

    I have done absolutely no such thing and, in fact, I rather resent the accusation. What I have done, and will continue to do, is to point out the utter hypocrisy and vile, disgusting methods employed by Vance Chapman and his mother. If I were to repeatedly refer to blacks as ‘niggers’ in a debate on a message board, I would not expect to be “given a chance”, and quite rightly so. Vance, it seems, is simply given a nice, clean, fresh slate after every scumbag move and racist rant that he makes, and your insulting reference to ‘fighting dirty’ is evidence of this. He is not some well-intentioned but wayward child, as you would like to portray him; he is a grown man who thinks it appropriate to issue racial slurs, spam threads with posts under aliases, harass political opponents and their families, send racist and abusive emails from fake hotmail accounts, and indulge in all manner of disgusting behaviour.

  17. Loki,

    Perhaps you do not share my views. So be it should that be the case as I freely welcome you to hold your own.

    I find it incredibly interesting that you suggest “If I were to repeatedly refer to blacks as ‘niggers’ in a debate on a message board, I would not expect to be “given a chance”, and quite rightly so”

    Why do I find this interesting? Well this is because there are many blacks within our community who spent their youth being referred to as ‘niggers’ in public. They were spat at, kicked off the sidewalks, refused entry into various establishments and told that they were less human than their white counterparts. Today they hold the same attitude as you. Only instead of a lifelong chip against a specific individual, it remains a lifelong chip against a specific race.

    You, by your words, condone such a chip. By their very nature, your words justify that should the source of Vanz’ supposed chip on his shoulder be due to the hardships imbued upon him, his seniors or his ancestors that he is perfectly within his own merit to hold such a stance and never forgive those responsible for their transgretions.

    Personally I do not condone such a view nor such a predisposition, however neither am I so presumptious to attempt to believe that my predispositions are more valid than those of others. I attempt in all ways possible to be the acception to the rule. Could I claim to saintly characteristics of perfection? Certainly not. However, I am bound to do my best to lead by example by not acting as the final judge in such matters as leaving judgement up to judges, juries and heavenly beings, all of which I am not.

    Do I forgive Vanz for his past transgretions? Yes I do. Will I do the same for you? Certainly. As much as I may not agree with your stance nor that of Vanz, I am not presumptious enough to deny you the freedom of your own view.

  18. “Do I forgive Vanz for his past transgretions? Yes I do. Will I do the same for you? Certainly. As much as I may not agree with your stance nor that of Vanz, I am not presumptious enough to deny you the freedom of your own view.”

    Well, aside from being epically patronizing and presumptuous in forgiving me for my “past transgressions” (gee, thanks), which I neither require nor welcome, I believe that forgiveness is earned. As far as I’m concerned, Vance has consistently proved himself to be a racist, morally-bankrupt political thug, and until he consistently demonstrates otherwise, or demonstrates that he’s had some kind of miracle epiphany, he will remain a racist, morally-bankrupt political thug in my eyes and, I should add, in the eyes of a hell of lot of people who trawl the Bermuda blogosphere.

  19. Dennis,

    “..Only instead of a lifelong chip against a specific individual, it remains a lifelong chip against a specific race….”

    And that’s the difference, you are talking about judging an individual based on the actions of others where Loki is talking about judging an individual based on his or her actions.

    That being said I would agree that the personal attacks do nothing to forward the debate. Those that come from Vanz or those that are directed at him.

  20. Loki,

    As I suggested, you’re welcome to your view of things.

    J Galt,

    “And that’s the difference, you are talking about judging an individual based on the actions of others where Loki is talking about judging an individual based on his or her actions.”

    I disagree. I was talking about judging a group of people based upon the actions of a group of others and comparing it to judging an individual based upon the actions of an individual.

    Perhaps these two examples are more so congruent than they are identical, however they do share similarities that I am using to draw a picture. How if Loki can deem his own chip on his shoulder as acceptable can he dismiss that of Vanz or others?

    Personally I view no chip on anyone’s shoulder as acceptable and discourage personal attacks and disingenous tantrums as doing nothing to forward the debate. However, I do rarely try to make it my mission in life to continue such a digretion away from the point of the post at hand and as such shall do no further by leaving things at this:

    Loki, feel welcome to disagree with me but I must ask, what is gained by engaging and attacking Vanz?

  21. “I disagree. I was talking about judging a group of people based upon the actions of a group of others and comparing it to judging an individual based upon the actions of an individual.”

    That literally makes no sense, either as a general concept, or logically.

    “Loki, feel welcome to disagree with me but I must ask, what is gained by engaging and attacking Vanz?”

    If you’re genuinely incapable of understanding why someone would want to deflate and disperse the actions of a demonstrably racist, political thug, who gets his kicks out of harassing others anonymously (not so anonymously, actually, as it seems that Vance isn’t terribly familiar with that wonderful thing known as the IP Address, I can’t assist you further. I guess the best I can do is to suggest that you get back in touch and let us know your views on the matter if he starts sending racist, abusive emails to you, harassing your family and writing to your employer in order to get you fired. I have a sneaking feeling that you won’t be quite so besotted with him thereafter, but maybe I’m being cynical.

  22. Denis,

    I appreciate and respect your point of view and absolutely commend you for continually expressing an informed and realistic opinion on your blog, however, Mr. Chapman has a track record of reverting to an “attacking the messenger” response/mentality if he finds displeasure or disagreement with an alternate perspective and/or subject matter.

    This approach is not limited to solely one PLP supporter (the owner of this blog being a refreshing alternative/exception) as we’ve witnessed, time and time again, the guerrilla/juvenile tactics employed by those who choose to question the current leadership in turn being met with hostility and/or threats.

    While I appreciate the reality that each political party will always have certain “fringe” elements, the fact that both Vanz and his mum (who is very high up in the party hierarchy) continue to believe/resort to such tactics certainly does not bode well for developing a mutually respectful platform for informed exchange.

    I believe the old saying goes .. a leopard can’t change his spots.

  23. Dennis,

    I feel we need to clear this up.

    “I disagree. I was talking about judging a group of people based upon the actions of a group of others and comparing it to judging an individual based upon the actions of an individual. ”

    You are talking about group A, judging group B, for the actions of Group C, where Loki, individual A is judging individual B, for the actions of individual B,

    They are not the same, your logic is flawed, in your group think example, B is not responsible of the actions of C, clearly A is wrong to carry a grudge against B.

    Where as in the individual example I think you will agree that individual A is judging, individual B on his/her actions.

    In my opinion you will find that most, if not all group think is wrong.

  24. Getting back to the origin of this thread: whilst I have not seen the interview in question, I would be most surprised if Ewart Brown made any assertion that you had a vendetta against him. I may stand to be corrected, but I’d imagine that he’s not unduly bothered by the musings of a single blogger. I’d be very surprised if he was concerned enough about your comments to make a specific reference to you in an interview, though he certainly should be concerned about the prevailing mood within his own party and, indeed, the country at large.

  25. Often times Vanz becomes the brunt of personal attacks and is called out for his behavior when others who make similar attacks and portray similar behaviors are not.

    Please provide evidence as to where any poster has used a racial slur or derogatory term towards the ever so inncoent Vance. Just because once in a while he can come across as being a constructive does not excuse his hateful rhetoric and threats. I would hate to think what would happen if some white blogger had done the same to him. Maybe he would write a letter to that individual’s employer.

    On the utmost what I have personally noted is that when Vanz is treated with respect and forgiven of past transgretions rather than constantly having them rubbed in his face he can be not only civil but also quite a positive and constructive contributor to the discussion at hand.

    Do unto others I guess. All he ever does is bring up the past transgressions of an entire race and then incinuates that the new generation is no different.

    Will he step out of line in the future? Possibly so, however does that mean he should be forever judged or should he be provided the opportunity for redemption? Are his views not valid?

    Maybe you should also direct all these comments to vance as well. He judges all white people on the acts of the past and sees no reason for forgiveness. You can apologize all yuo want for this hateful being’s actions and words. I have no time for a person who cannot tolerate the arguments of others and seeks to increase the division between the population of Bermuda. If you need evidence of such, look on this site as well as BDASUX. So defend to the end your fellow PLP member. Just remember those derogtaory terms, phrases and comments are also directed at you.

  26. Denis,

    No one on here as I can tell has ever denied the inexcusable events of the PAST. If so, then please show me. Does that give someone the right to continue on the hatred in this day of age?

    Don’t you see that it is the mindset of individuals such as Vance which will not allow for the progression of Bermuda as a whole? I mean for God’s sake it is the PROGRESSIVE Labor Party I thought. Vance and Ms. Furbert do not allow for any healthy democratic debate to occur with them (unless of course you agree with them, then it really isn’t a debate I guess) if you do not share the same views. Instead they go and threaten people with expulsion from OUR island and write letters to their employers stating that they are racist, because they simply disagree with a certain opinion that a black person might have.

    You can apologize to your heart is content for these two, but they have made it quite clear that they do not believe in democracy or the unification of this island.

    You talk about personal attacks??!!! What do you consider references used such as, “cracker brigade, cyber kkk and beyoatches all of u!!” And that’s all in one post!!!!! This all because we don’t agree with his views on certain subjects. This is supposed to be a grown man, a role model perhaps??? If so, no wonder the youth of this island are the way they are these days.

    Individuals, such as the aformentioned, are not interested in a Bermuda which will come together and move forwards as one. They seek to divide this island on racial and political lines due to their inner hatred that they refuse to let go. This hatred does not let them see past their own ideas and thoughts. How can they assume that their points of views are correct if they don’t even attempt to understand the opposing argument?

    Defend him/them all you want mate. In the end they will turn on you if you ever disagree with them in teh future. Just ask Jonathan about the last thread of 1000 hours!! See how quickly LF switched her mindset about him.

    Good luck defending hatred my friend, because that is one thing that I won’t tolerate.

  27. My goal was to avoid taking Jonathan’s post too far off-topic. My apologies to Jonathan as I feel my response has been requested by numerous people.

    What I am suggesting is that personal attacks should not be acceptable regardless of whether they are made under the guise of a historically based chip on ones shoulder or a present tense chip on ones shoulder.

    Loki has suggested it himself, his intention is to deflate and disperse Vanz’ commentary and has shown to do so even when Vanz hasn’t made an out of line comment on a thread. Just because Vanz may have a history of stepping out of line why is he preemptively the target of personal attacks prior to his doing so?

    Having personally run a blog that has amassed many comments at times, I can say I’m at least mildly versed in dealing with threads going off into oblivion. Such occurances happen when people diverge from the topic at hand and make it personal, which end up being to the detriment of the original intentions of the blogger who composed the piece.

    Frequent readers of the comments of my blog will note that I have done my best to put a stop to all personal attacks regardless of their source. I have called Vanz out many times just as I have called out those who attempt to attack Vanz. Thankfully, doing so has quieted both sources of discourse and has kept my blog from becomming a trash bin, however it has not been achieved without a fairly significant investment of effort.

    People seem to be thinking that because I call out those who attack Vanz that I condone actions in which he steps out of line. This could not be further from the truth. I call out Vanz for stepping out of line just as readily as I shall call out anyone else for stepping out of line. However, I do not sit idly by creating a double standard where I police Vanz but let others attack him relentlessly.

    Ultimately, this is not my blog so I have no authority over what is and is not acceptable here. However, I would like to recommend to all to consider that if they do not want this blog to turn into a BermudaSucks facimilie or ultimately have comments shut down (an action I have contemplated numerous times on my own blog) then we should all take a step back and consider how we each personally can avoid making things personal in the hopes of encouraging constructive discussion.

    Allow me to conclude with 9Ps last remark:

    “Good luck defending hatred my friend, because that is one thing that I won’t tolerate.”

    To the contrary, I do not defend hatred for it is hatred specifically that I am calling out upon. I do not condone haters, nor do I condone haters of haters for I feel to do otherwise would make my a hypocrite.

  28. Fair enough.

    But until I see posters on any blog refer to Vanz in a derogatory manner in regards to his race, as he does on a frequent and persistent basis, then I see the so called “attacks” on Vanz as legitimate.

    He calls all opposition “racists, crackers, red necks honkys etc” on an ASSUMPTIONS that his hate filled mind has conjured up. The assumption being that all whites are inherently racists, this is seen in the majority of his rants.

    Therefore the reaction to his nonsense is justified, I believe, by posters because it is not based on assumptions, but hard cold facts (i.e. his racist posts/rants). So these cannot be considered “attacks” in the sense that it is truth.

    I will continue to “attack” anyone who’s views and statements adversely affect the betterment and progressiveness of OUR island as a whole. This island is too small for small bigoted individuals such as himself (not an attack but an observation).

  29. “Loki has suggested it himself, his intention is to deflate and disperse Vanz’ commentary and has shown to do so even when Vanz hasn’t made an out of line comment on a thread.”

    No, Denis, please don’t spread untruths. Nowhere have I said that I wish to deflate and disperse his commentary. I will speak out against, and point out his disgusting attacks, harassment and racist slurs, though, as well as the shameful tactics employed by his mother. Minimize and excuse his disgusting behaviour all you want; it won’t change either him, or his behaviour.

  30. On my blog I have regularly deleted comments from a number of sources and have been personally attacked. The easiest way to deal with it is to simply ignore it and get on with the discussion. When trolls realise they can’t get a rise from trolling they tend to stop.

  31. Again, to revert to the origin of this thread:

    “If anything he would appear to have a personal vendetta against me at the rate his comments are going.”

    Do you really believe this Jonathan, and are you basing this solely on his alleged comments to ZBM (of which, as I’ve said, I am sceptical), or have there been other incidents?

  32. “I call out Vanz for stepping out of line just as readily as I shall call out anyone else for stepping out of line.”

    I’m not in a position to speak to whether you ‘call out’ Vanz just as readily as you call out others (I’m not being tricky, I genuinely can’t), but I will certainly concede that you took an extremely dim view of one particularly unpleasant act of harassment committed by Vance Chapman, the details of which I won’t regurgitate here.

  33. “loki Says:

    Again, to revert to the origin of this thread:

    “If anything he would appear to have a personal vendetta against me at the rate his comments are going.”

    Do you really believe this Jonathan, and are you basing this solely on his alleged comments to ZBM (of which, as I’ve said, I am sceptical), or have there been other incidents?”

    I would be suprised if he had actually signalled me out.

    I have not really had the time to go ahead and check out the actual clip, but from what I’ve heard through personal communications since I made the post was that it really depends on context.

    I really don’t think that my blog and the opinions that I post on it are really more than a very small blip on his radar screen. I know Party members, from the grassroots up to Cabinet do read this blog, something I base on both personal email communication and interaction with members. I think the RG has certainly exposed this blog to a greater audience, even to PLP members who may not have been aware of the blogs existence.

    I don’t know what other blogs stats are like, and I don’t presume to be a popular blog, but up till the RG started advertising the site my monthly readership was an average of 5000 a month. June saw a tripling of viewing to 15,000, and so far in July viewing is up to 10,000. So I think its exposure and potential for developing healthy discussion, both amongst PLPers and those outside of the Party (left and right)is increasing. I say that only to say that the blog may only pose a ‘blip’ on the radar for now, but might become more important later if viewing at these rates is sustained. Not necessarily for anything I write, but for the potential for discourse that it allows.

    I don’t know Dr. Brown personally enough to like him or dislike him, let alone have a personal vendetta against. I do know say LaVerne well enough, heck, I consider her a friend to be honest, and someone that I have alot of respect for, even though we have wide disagreements on style, tactics and end goals. She’s given me alot of good advice over the years and was one of the main people in the Party that really welcomed me on joining, something that may come as a suprise to many who I think really misjudge her quite frequently. But I don’t know Dr. Brown anywhere near enough to have a personal vendatta against, and I reckon he feels the same way towards me.

    Besides, as I’ve said before, I do have alot of respect for Dr. Brown. I have always said that my disagreements with him are purely ideological, although I do think he has made some politrickal blunders of late.

    But he is only symptomatic of the problem; the much larger issue is defining what progressive labour stands for, and how do we achieve a greater popular economic and political democracy for the country. While the need to bring the Party to a more bottom-up grassroots democratic form may be part of the foundation for this, it is only one part of the solution.

    My feeling about the tv comments is that he was saying something along the lines that certain elements in civil society may have a personal vendetta against him, and are misconstruing some arguments to manufacture or amplify discontent. That is rather a separate issue than him saying I have a personal vendetta against him. Worth discussing also though.

  34. Sadly, ideological differences or otherwise, if you speak out publicly against the party stance or the actions of its leader you can expect some form of counter attack … be it a spin on your words or stance or an outright distancing of your past affiliation and allegiance to the party.

  35. sad – but i’m sure that eh vultures will love this:

    July 09, 2008
    Doctor Arrested for Sexual Assault of Patient

    Los Angeles: A general practitioner medical doctor was arrested this morning after a year-long investigation involving the sexual assault of a patient.

    Rhd_brownkevin On July 8, 2008, at around 9:30 a.m., Kevin Antario Brown, 37-years of age, was arrested on a $50,000 arrest warrant that was obtained by detectives from Robbery Homicide Division, Rape Special Section, upon conclusion of the year-long investigation.

    In June 2007 an 18-year-old female reported to police that during a medical examination by Dr. Brown she was inappropriately touched. As a result of this report, detectives assigned to Detective Support and Vice Division, and Robbery Homicide Division, conducted an undercover operation. During the operation a female undercover operator posing as a patient was also inappropriately touched during a medical exam.

    Detectives presented the case to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Sex Crime Unit, resulting in the $50,000 warrant being issued and multiple felony and misdemeanor charges being filed. The charges against Dr.Brown relate to sexual battery by fraud and sexual exploitation by a physician. Dr. Brown was taken into custody without incident by Fugitive Warrant Section.

    Dr. Brown had been practicing medicine at the Crenshaw Expo Medical Center, 3631 Crenshaw Boulevard, Los Angeles.

  36. Vanz – is it sad he was arrested? Sad he committed these alleged acts? Sad he was caught? To avoid misinterpreting your vulture remark, what is sad exactly?

  37. This must come as a surprise to you Vanz, but – “no” – the vultures don’t love this. You really must stop making assumptions that we are all the same.

  38. I see that you’ve posted the same thing over at Bermuda Sucks, as well. Why in God’s name would you even want to draw anyone’s attention to this? Beyond the fact that he’s Ewart Brown’s son, it has nothing to do with Bermuda, and neither says anything about, nor reflects upon Ewart Brown.

  39. I think this is some sort of knuckle brained pre emptive strike, release the story everywhere, turn into some race baiting p1ssing contest and errr thats it.

  40. Loki,

    That was simply my interpretation but my intention was to give an example, not make it personally about you.

    Regarding ‘calling out’ individuals, there are a great many examples on my blog http://www.21square.com. I have prided myself on only ever deleting unrelated comments (eg. where they’re advertising prescription drugs and trying to up their google ranking) and have rarely modified anyones comment, usually noting that it has been moderated.

    Vanz,

    What does that have to do even in the slightest with the thread at hand? Posting personal business of Premier’s relatives which has absolutely nothing to do with his public life nor Bermuda lies exactly along those lines of what I would interpret as a personal attack.

    The topic itself is far enough out there that one could wonder if despite your much advertised devote love of the PLP perhaps it is you who actually has a personal vendetta against our Premier for promoting such knowledge at the likely and unfair detrement to his reputation and character.

  41. I see no point in posting about the incident concerning Dr. Brown’s son. I hope that he recieves due process, and if found innocent that he can continue his practice; if found guilty I hope he recieves rehabilitation and punishment. But I frankly don’t care. It has no relation to Bermuda, and there is no controversy connected to Dr. Brown or Bermuda from it. It is irrelevant. Only the likes of a ‘Sal’ would possibly find anything in it of political use.

    Vanz, I remain perpelexed vy many of your actions. Posting duplicate posts like the one above are one of them. I understand you have posted this on the Bermuda Sucks site also. Why? It makes no sense even to have posted it at all. But if you wanted to post something original like, well, don’t forget you have your own blog to do so. Feel free to post comments on other sites referring to your new post or otherwise encourage people to visit your blog, but why the duplications? I really don’t get what your objective is. It literally makes absolutely no sense. And this is only compounded by what you chose to post. I just don’t get it man. I well and truly don’t.

  42. Agreed, Jonathan. When you have someone like me, of all people, posting on Bermuda Sucks, suggesting that people stop the speculation and rumour-mongering, and leave Ewart Brown and his family alone to deal with this in peace, one really has to wonder what Vanz hopes to achieve by spreading dirt like this.

  43. Jon,
    I find it disgusting that the media publishes your opinion on this blog without consulting you first. I think that is very irresponsible and can cause defamation of your character. I wish there was legislation present that you can sue them.

  44. I find it disgusting that the media publishes your opinion on this blog without consulting you first. I think that is very irresponsible and can cause defamation of your character. I wish there was legislation present that you can sue them.

    How does JS’ publishing his opinion online differ from broadcasting over the public airwaves? No one owns the Internet. JS has chosen to express himself publicly and the media outlets are simply rebroadcasting and/or printing his remarks to a wider audience.

    I don’t see how there is anything disgusting about that. If you were going to get upset about anything it would be if the took his remarks out of context or attributed things to him which he never said (sort of like what the plp blog did in the lead up to the election last year).

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 )

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