Analysis of Commissioner Guevarro's Language and Its Implications

Commissioner of Police Guevarro’s statement to the press, delivered shortly after assuming office, is littered with deflective phrasing, institutional buck-passing, and strategic vagueness. This style of public communication—commonly referred to as using weasel words—is not only damaging to public confidence but fundamentally at odds with the standards of public accountability, command responsibility, and constitutional leadership.

1. Abdication of Command Responsibility through Deflection

His repeated assertion that “disciplinary or administrative action... lies solely with the PolSC” is legally correct under section 123 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. However, the overemphasis on this legal limitation comes across as an attempt to distance himself from the moral and operational responsibility that comes with office.

➤ He is not merely an administrator of reports. He is the Commissioner of Police.
Leadership requires more than notifying the Police Service Commission—it requires taking a firm ethical stance, demonstrating public confidence, and leading by example.

2. Evasive Language Obscuring the Gravity of the Allegations

Guevarro’s phrasing—“certain acts were carried out against him” and “he felt it was bordering on criminal conduct”—is dangerously non-committal. The implication is that this is merely a matter of perception by the complainant (Brent Thomas), rather than a serious allegation of criminal abuse of power by a Deputy Commissioner.

This is institutional gaslighting by omission. When the public is told there is a criminal allegation involving high-ranking officers, clarity is not optional—it is obligatory.

3. The Illusion of Transparency

By repeatedly saying “we are transparent” or “we have nothing to hide,” without actually providing substantive details, the Commissioner engages in rhetorical self-justification rather than accountability.

This is contradicted by:

• The absence of a timeline for the investigation.

• The refusal to identify the nature of the allegation.

• The fact that DCP Martin remains in post despite a potential criminal matter against her.

Transparency is demonstrated by actions, not by repeated verbal affirmations. Saying “we are transparent” is not the same as being transparent.

4. Leadership by Euphemism

The refusal to even name the allegation (widely understood to involve misconduct, unlawful detention, or other abuse of power linked to international legal controversy) is telling. It reinforces the impression that the TTPS lacks the moral courage to confront internal wrongdoing publicly and forthrightly.

---

Advice to Commissioner Guevarro

As the Commissioner of Police, your office is not merely administrative; it is symbolic. Every word you speak either restores or erodes trust. It is your responsibility to:

• Speak plainly and truthfully. Avoid legalistic hedging and sanitised language.

• Affirm command responsibility even where your powers are limited. You may not suspend the DCP, but you can recommend, publicly and forcefully, that she be removed pending investigation.

• Acknowledge institutional failings instead of hiding behind procedural correctness.

• Set timelines and report progress regularly to build public trust in the investigation.

The public does not want a bureaucrat. It wants a Commissioner who acts like a leader—not a spokesperson for the system’s evasions.

English grammar not at its best

Posted on Facebook:

"Is there some kind of virus going around with symptoms of massive headache and teeth pain?”

My response was:

I didn't know viruses had heads and teeth. Take a photo, they will name it after you and your name will live on in perpetuity.

My comment was deleted.

Ramblings of an incoherent mind

In a previous post, I linked to a video in which Vernella Alleyne-Toppin (aka ‘Shoppin Toppin’) gave a rambling, incoherent speech akin to Therese Baptiste-Cornelis. After reading two articles in the newspaper today, here and here, I can only conclude that she is suffering from a mental illness

The evidence points to it... What I see are more ramblings which, on the face of it, can lead to further legal action by those mentioned in her statements. It seems this particular politician does not learn.

“It’s interesting because the PM, Minister of Local Government, Leader of Government business, AG, many, many of my colleagues said to me...you have not done anything wrong, you cannot apologise”.

Alleyne-Toppin however noted: “The first time I saw my credit card statement was on the Express. Now my lawyer is Om Lalla and he has outlined all of what could happen, and when we were just about to go to court with it, he became the candidate for somebody else. So I put that on hold because Trinidad and Tobago is such a small place...But he said you are going to make millions of dollars here...,” she said.

She said Fuad Khan kept telling her “they say you have to apologise; the country is calling for you to apologise...One weekend I was so overwhelmed, the pressure was great. I was on papers 42 days straight in the Express, my husband was sick...I don’t know about stress...I say OK, say you’re not an arrogant person, you’re a humble person, don’t let people feel you don’t want to apologise...Then my daughter came and she said, ‘Mummy for your peace of mind, she say let us write an apology. So we crafted it, so that it said basically, I apologise for the circumstances surrounding the issue of the credit card. Because I felt that my constituency...was hurt. The Alleyne family was hurt, the whole Toppin family was hurt,” she said.

Alleyne-Toppin expressed her pain over the TOP’s position on the issue. “I have been to a meeting where there was supposed to be an election, I see it mash up...and nobody has been brought before the Disciplinary Committee. Yet Stanley put out a statement to the press that he, that the TOP condemns my alleged abuse. I had never abused the card.”

I’m sure many of these people will, in the course of the  next few days, be scrambling to disassociate themselves from her and her statements. The more she speaks in public, the more she embarrasses herself and the government she is part of. I look forward to the next saga in the series.

Language woes

"If ya don't understand I ain't wasting me toyme telling ya...."

The spelling of a 60+ years old British male.

As I've observed out loud before,  no one mangles the English language like the English. Non English people,  foreigners,  speak and write and spell so much better. 
Crazy,  right?

British spelling mistakes

When reading British newspapers, reporters and commentators alike make some nifty (and inventive) spelling mistakes. Some I came across just this morning:

1. Dought     -   doubt
2. kray fish   -   crayfish
3. brother-in-law’s   - brother’s-in-law

English for modern users

Carmona told the audience that talent without character breads monsters and that it is talent with character that produces outstanding citizens.

Ralph Banwarie, Newsday

Those pesky prepositions

Having, just a few minutes ago, seen this sentence on one forum:

Never end a sentence with the word "is".

I find that I need to correct those who err in this ‘rule’… Let us follow what Oxford Online Dictionary has to say:

Were you taught that a preposition should never be placed at the end of a sentence? There are times when it would be pretty much impossible to organize a sentence in a way that would avoid doing this, for example:

in some passive expressions:

√ The dress had not even been paid for.

X Paid for the dress had not even been.

√ The match was rained off.

X Rained off was the match.

in relative clauses and questions that include verbs with linked adverbs or prepositions:

√ What did you put that there for?

X For what [reason] did you put that there?

√ They must be convinced of the commitment they are taking on.

X Of the commitment they are taking on they must be convinced.

There’s no necessity to ban prepositions from the end of sentences. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a perfectly natural part of the structure of modern English.

Similarly, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary says:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0025-preposition.htm

Sorry, there is no embed code for the video.

But even after sending these links to the transgressor, lo and behold, I was battered with:

In speaking it’s allowed but not in proper writing.

My response:

Good lord! I just pointed you to one of the world's most accepted dictionary that says it is.  Did you see my last sentence? It's also 'proper'… and it ended with is… again!!

As did your original:

Never end a sentence with the word "is".

It ended with is, even if you put it in quotes. (^_^)

At this point, I give up. I eh able.

Crime no massive problem.. but spoken English may be.

There is good news for all citizens of the Rock. Crime is down. There is no massive crime problem according to your trusted DCP. Everybody can now walk the streets of the Rock with remarkably greater comfort. You can now consider dispensing with the steel cages welded to your houses - and you may consider throwing out all forms of weaponry that you may have hidden for your protection. If you don't believe me listen to your DCP himself.

Transcript:

DCP: There is no massive crime problem in Trinidad yuh know…yes we have had some murders and we have had some crime that make the headlines. But crime is at an all time low in Trinidad & Tobago… Right now we have a 36% decrease in serious crimes in Trinidad & Tobago (waving arms around evangelically). So anyt’ing..any initiative any piece of equipment dat we could use tuh further dampen crime is appreciated.

Interviewer: You realise that might be a bit controversial given the homicide rate though.

DCP: Well..even home-e-cide is dong on dee las’ year figure! Year on year home-e-cide is dong… so dat crime.. er uh.. dere is no massive..as people makin it.

Now yuh see – ppl does vex wid me fuh writin’ on blogs in local patois – and doing my rapid code-switching as it is properly called. Your Rock-crawler DCP apart from talking utter bunkum appears to be oblivious that he is speaking to the ‘world’ – and that people in foreign lands may be wondering whether they speak English on that god-forsaken rock.

Look, don’t even start. Most Trinidadians are capable of speaking proper English with correct pronunciation when they come to realise they are speaking to the ‘world of English speakers’. And I am not suggesting that any alteration of accent is required. Lots of people on and off the Rock would be cringing at the presentation and language of ‘their’ DCP.

Do Rock-crawlers in public life have any degree of self-awareness? I am totally ashamed to be associated with that Rock at times like these. To cringe some more, on the issue of self-awareness, see: Missing and out of action. I eh able!

I’m sure to get somebody vex dong on dee Rock – yuh know ‘How come I could criticise people and den do dee same ting?’. Well jess hol’ on – I’m not a public official representing some arm of Government (as your DCP is). The audience of  this blog is far smaller than TV6 media. And furthermore, I have already declared that I speak – more correctly ‘write’ - in the patois for a certain effect. So jess calm dong!

Embarrassment and Shame!!!!

Oh Gawd

Ah tink we need Gawd more to geh rid ah dis embarrassment more than we need Gawd to free we from corruption and crime. Really, anything at all ever was this shameful? Meh teeth ‘edge’ watching this.

Homicide–misunderstood?

There is much to be said for the Guardian editorial of Thursday in that it was well written and did not descend into the acerbic in which I know Express editorial ink is blended. I truly think that the article of Winford James in the Express of the same day reflects my position.

The Guardian editorial writer, like most commentators, has not understood that “homicide” is a very neutral legal word that covers any number of unnatural killings provided an identifiable human has caused it directly or indirectly. A homicide may not result in criminal culpability. There is no charge of homicide known to the law.

And where there is at least one account which if true is capable of negating justification (self-defence), then the homicidal killing will result in the charge of murder being laid. Provocation that is unnegated will reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter. Also a person who drives a car recklessly, causing that car to kill a person, has caused a homicidal killing.

“Homicide” is a very neutral legal term that is used by law enforcement agencies to make a decision as to whether to investigate an act of killing to ascertain criminal culpability. A car that rolls down a hill may result in a homicidal killing if left without brakes engaged. It is the investigation that decides on whether there is criminal culpability, but once it is determined that that may be the case justification would be had for categorising the death as a possible homicide.

I am very disappointed in that part of the editorial that has given the expression as used by me a television meaning and not the legal meaning that one would expect of the Minister of Justice, a law minister. I believe that the Guardian editorial writer, like Martin Daly (a civil lawyer), did not take the time that Winford James did to research the legal meaning of homicide before writing so adversely of me.

Herbert Volney MP
Minister of Justice

A lecturer blogs

Recently, I took issue with the blogger calling herself "The Pantomime", on one point. The following is the exchange between us, again solely on that one point:

In a blog dated 16 April 2012, the author wrote (I extracted the relevant section):

I am beginning to think that the UNC have a very small circle of friends….because every new political appointment barely has 2 degrees, much less 6 degrees of separation. You would think they would spread out the food eating a little wider and try and save face, so their rabid supporters would at least be able to say, “Look non-UNC people benefitting too.”, the way PNM supporters are quick to point out that everybody eat ah food under Williams, Chambers and Manning….but no…no such luck, Omar Khan step down when he realise ppl will get wind of his doctored resume (the one that states he has a BSc in  Engineering and an MBA from the IOB….neither of which are true) and now Mrs Wade Mark is T&TEC Chairperson. I going to suspend my disbelief and assume that all proper requirements were met and that Mrs Mark (wife of the Speaker of the House) is eminently qualified and suited for the post. But it looking bad and smelling like nepotism.

My response was as follows:

I’d have to disagree on the comment about nepotism in the case of Mrs Wade Mark. Mrs Mark was at T&TEC long before she married the Speaker, and earned her position through her qualifications and service. As the Deputy Chair, it is natural to succeed the Chairman.

Should she give up her position because she married the Speaker?

The author replied:

This might come as a surprise to you….but in another country, where democracy and transparency is taken seriously….Mrs Mark would have been required to step down, qualifications or not, merely because her husband being part of state apparatus and her sitting on a state board represented a conflict of interest.

Her statement did indeed come as a surprise; so much so in fact, that I was forced to ask:

Interesting… can you name such country?

After making an assertion, the author then deflects:

you not serious nah….tell me which serious country will have the wife of a State Official chair a State Board and not ask someone to step down because of a conflict of interest? Is this your backhanded way of implying there is no conflict of interest at all?

Leaving me with no choice but to further ask:

You made the assertion, you are the one to provide evidence.

You assert there is conflict of interest and asserted in other countries there will be definite action taken. I ask for evidence. Or are you like other typical Trinis, mouthing off because you ‘know’ it wrong, but cyah say how?

And yes, I am serious as a terminal illness.

So then comes more deflection:

There’s a whole website dedicated to looking at Conflict of Interest issues with other goverments globally.
And I think the terminal illness you suffer from is a lack of will to do individual research.
And, while there is nothing constiutionally illegal about Mrs Wade Mark holding onto her position, morally, their both being in positions of power either in parliament or on a state board opens up avenues for mischief.

http://www.integrity-experts.net/ien-news/138-romanian-minister-resigns-because-of-conflict-of-interest-probe-involving-his-wife

http://www.integrity-experts.net/ien-news?start=20

(I excuse the typographical errors, because the author might have been in quite a rush). However I responded as follows:

"I'm glad you at least realised there is nothing illegal about Mrs Mark being appointed.

As for your other links, I point out to you that the Speaker is not presiding over any investigation on his wife, nor likely to.

Personally, I fail to see what 'avenues for mischief' you allege Mrs Mark and Mr Mark can cook up, but like Rev Pena, you may have foresight us mere mortals do not possess.

By the way, you should investigate Cherie and Tony Blair. You might realise the utter drivel you currently spout. Like I said, Trinis like to mouth off without the benefit of evidence, analysis, or sense.

As for your "you suffer from is a lack of will to do individual research" comment, I reiterate, it is for you to provide evidence of your assertions. Not for me to prove them for you. As a UWI lecturer, you ought to have better knowledge. or at least, put it to better use. Do you write a paper without references and then tell readers to go look up themselves? You'd be drummed out of academia."

Readers may well be asking, "how do I know the author is a UWI lecturer?". The website of the author is http://rhodabharath.wordpress.com/ … Thereafter, it was a simple Google search. I shall return to this, but I continue with the exchange:

Go back to my post and see where I assert that her becoming chairperson is illegal…i don’t even say it is nepotism….I said it smells of it…and for very good reason. Under the Manning regime there was never anything illegal about him making his wife a Senator and appointing her as a Minister of the Cabinet…unorthodox to hire one’s wife maybe, but many other people became Ministers that way….what transpired during her tenure as both Min of Ed and Min of Local Govt was at times troubling. Education had access to a larger share of the budget than was usual, and certainly saw increased access to international loans than other projects. With her shift to Local Govt we also saw discrepancies, years passed by with no local elections being called and pending legislation on matters and it seemed, from a distance as if Central Govt (through the PM) was exerting far greater control over Local Govt (Mrs Manning) than it should have. There are other instances of spouses in govt raising cause for concern. Hilary Clinton’s Health Care Proposal, under her husband’s tenure is one. While it never got off the ground, Americans were uneasy with it and felt that as the President’s wife she was wielding more clout.
It may well be much the same in the instant of Mrs Mark. Apart from being Chairman of a board, she is also the wife of the Speaker of the House…extra clout that may well insulate her and make her impregnable should she make unpopular decisions. It is potential conflicts of interest like this that the country no longer needs and this Govt already has more than its fair share of nepotism to answer for.
I didn’t approve your last post for one simple reason. This is a blog, a place for me to express my opinions on issues (go back to the post and see I say it “smells” like it, not “is” it), it is also a space that is for me the individual…your insistence at naming my employers and job position was unnecessary. Since I am not interested in editing the contents of the comment. I am deleting all of it. If you insist on listing my private information in your comments, I am going to have to block all of your comments in future.

…and there are huge differences between blog posts and journal articles…..google it.

There is much I can say about this particular response. What is most apparent is that the author cannot accept criticism, and resorts to several fallacies in order to divert from the main issue. Note carefully, the use of semantics to escape responsibility for words (and the obvious meanings). Note also, the author resorts to censorship in order to silence me. It is allegedly to keep her identity secret/separate as a blogger from her career, yet she continues the blog under her real identity.. How droll! But I continue…

You may block my comment, but it matters not. The facts are the same. You spout drivel. You write under your own identity. it is not separate from your profession in that you can be taken to task for any crap you write. Censoring me only makes people suspect you have something to hide.

Whatever differences there are in writing blogs or “journal articles” you can still be accountable, in law or otherwise, for both. Ask Henry Charles.

I divert to make a point here… Henry Charles plagiarised other articles to print an article in the Daily Express. He admitted to the President that he plagiarised. While he admitted plagiarism as a columnist, it had consequences in both public and private life. One cannot hold them, in law, separate. This is an important point. This is so important that I point out that if Miss Bharath writes something untoward in her blog, it will have repercussions in her lecturer position at the University.

there’s a difference between block and delete. What I do on my blog posts is as a private citizen. Feel free to unfollow it whenever you like.

See point above. Ms Bharath cannot be more wrong. And again, note the use of semantics. The end result is the same, whether she “blocked” or "deleted" my comment.

If I stated something that was inaccurate I’d be the first to correct it upon it being pointed out. I stated an opinion…which I am entitled to. And yes…I write under my own identity…unlike people who hide behind pseudonyms….

Yes Miss Bharath you are entitled to an opinion. But is it really an opinion? You cast aspersions on both the Speaker of the house and his wife. Sure, you may semantically argue that you did not, but the reality is that you did. I continue:

But then how do you know it is inaccurate? I think at this point your ego is overriding all else, and you lack the mental discipline to learn. Just because you are a university lecturer does not mean you know all. Sometimes it is better to curb your pride, and accept that you do not know.

I have often been wrong on my blog. If you follow my blog you would see where I am often corrected by other people. I might be angry at first, but the difference is I swallow my pride, and I try to learn. In this respect you and I differ. I grow from my experiences. You appear to put down roots in defending your position.

As for my use of a pseudonym, it really hides nothing. Some of us actually do it, in order to separate our blogging life from Private life. it allows us to comment on issues which we may normally be prevented from commenting upon.

At this point, the exchange stops because Miss Bharath has resorted to censorship of the majority of my comments. Since they do not show up at all, I surmise that I am blocked from her website. She even refers to our exchange as “dick measuring”. But maybe that’s just more semantics and my speculation is incorrect.

I would like at this point to return to the issue of the author's identity. I see no problem in revealing that the author is Rhoda Bharath, nor that she is a UWI lecturer. It took me less than 10 seconds on Google to find this information. It is nothing that any minimally competent user of the Internet cannot find. In fact, it is readily available that:

Rhoda Bharath is a lecturer in the Department of Liberal Arts at the University of the West Indies (UWI), St Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago. A former secondary school English teacher, she holds a double BA in English and History, and completed her MFA in Creative Writing at UWI. She is now reading for a UWI PhD in Cultural Studies.

She as much as admits: “If you insist on listing my private information in your comments, I am going to have to block all of your comments in future.” A logical conjecture to conclude Ms Bharath is indeed the author based upon this comment and her Google Plus page.

Can she reasonably then expect insulation from her job/position at the University from comments made on her blog? Defamation is a whole area of law, but suffice to say that there is precedent that there is no insulation. In fact, it appears that Miss Bharath actually counts on her reputation as a university lecturer to make her points written in her blog. Isn't that quaint?

As I see it, there is only one core issue:

Is Mrs Mark in a position because of nepotism? Or ‘smelling’ of nepotism? The answer is no. She is qualified, and worked for the company for years, and rightfully earned her place on the hierarchy of the company and the Board. As for Ms Bharath’s assertion that:

Apart from being Chairman of a board, she is also the wife of the Speaker of the House…extra clout that may well insulate her and make her impregnable should she make unpopular decisions. It is potential conflicts of interest like this that the country no longer needs and this Govt already has more than its fair share of nepotism to answer for.

This is mere nonsense. ALL Board members are appointed under this Government. If any disagree with Mrs Mark, they are still responsible to the same Government as Mrs Mark, so she holds no advantage. Any or all will equally have to explain reasons for holding a position (meaning opinion on issues).

The bye-issue Ms Bharath brought up:

1. That her blog reflects her personal opinion

is just so much nonsense. I don’t see the AG maintaining his column or blog after being appointed AG. That is because one cannot separate one from the other. Martin Daly and Dana Seetahal are careful in what they write in their columns, as they should.

Sigh. I am gobsmacked, really I am.

(Note: I did attempt to contact Ms Bharath regarding her blog, but she has blocked all communications from me).

Misplaced loyalty–Our penchant for poor language skills

Again, a reposting of a worthy article.

I should like to respond to Winford James' column in the Express of March 15 headlined "Licensed to speak Trinbagonian''.

The sentiments expressed in it, and especially in the headline can have a serious negative effect on the efforts of English teachers  throughout this country who are trying against serious odds to help their students master the skills of reading, writing and speaking Standard English as it is used in Trinidad and Tobago. This article is likely to add another disincentive to those students who are reluctant to make the effort to acquire Standard English on the ground that they are now, like Dr James, "licensed to speak Trinbagonian". 

One of the regrettable features of this article is that Dr James does not state where and when he is "licensed to speak Trinbagonian''.  He certainly is free to speak it in Tobago, almost anywhere, even in the Tobago House of Assembly, if he wants. But his license to speak Tobagonian with impunity is limited to the Tobagonian speech community in which he so proudly boasts, with some justification, I suppose, to have been socialised. 

Once a speaker moves out of his native speech community, however, he must adapt his speech to the standards of the new speech community if he wants to make maximum communication and to avoid being identified as an outsider by his speech patterns and pronunciation, not to mention his accent.

Given that there are several different speech communities co-existing in our nation, it is necessary for speakers to acquire at least an operating knowledge of more than one of these so as to be able to socialise with a wider range of the population. 

It is also necessary for all speakers to develop a proficiency in the use of the main language of official discourse in the country, the language in which an understanding of the outside world is communicated to our people and in which our children are educated. It is puerile to cast aspersions on those who seek to attain a mastery of standard English and put down those who would help us on the way to a greater appreciation and awareness of where our efforts fall short of acceptable international standards.

I come now to Dr James' postulation that Mr Dookeran's use of the commonly used pronunciation  for the word "licence",(lie sn) (Dr James' phonetic spelling) is the result of his "apocopating a noun" which he explains for us lesser mortals, as "trimming its plural looking end and pluralising it by adding the English plural suffix "s".  He goes on to explain that "licence" has an "s" sound at the end, which has a pluralising function in English. This is just so much quasi-academic fiddle-addle.

"Licence'' does not have a plural looking ending. It has a plural sounding ending, as Dr James points out himself.  Words with a plural looking ending include: "innings'', "series'' and "species'', all of which are rendered by several writers, and many students without their final "s'' when they attempt to use them as singular nouns. But words like defence, offence, incense, pretense all have plural sounding endings but not plural looking endings, (they do not end in an "s'') and are never subjected by our speakers to any "apocopation" to use the new word so generously given to me by the learned columnist.

No.  Mr Dookeran did not engage in any clipping of the plural sounding end of the word licence.  He pronounced the word (lie sn) because that was the word for that document or permission in common use by his speech community. It is a pronunciation that was common to probably the majority of speech communities all over Trinidad.   

When I was growing up, we all knew that those of us fortunate enough to have bicycles had to (lie sn) their bikes before the police charged them for riding an (unlie sn) bicycle on the public road. We knew that the owner of the rum shop had to have a liquor (lie sn)  and that later on in life, we had to apply for a (lie sn) to sell alcohol at a public fete. (Lie snz) were part and parcel of our growing up. We heard and used the word long before we ever saw it in print. 

Some of the more fortunate  members of our group who went to schools which engaged in regular spelling quizzes would have learnt that this word, so regularly pronounced (lie sn), was really spelt "licence" and we lauded the new knowledge over our less fortunate playmates. The point I am making is that the language of a speech community is essentially an oral one and that words like  toolum, chataign, kaimet, grugru, grigri, pomesetay, potigal, paymee, provisions, making message, drivay, making/breaking biche, macomere, compere, poitik, lagniappe, kalpet, tri-aye (the fore-runner of jacks) and rounders were all words that were part of the social life of the times that hardly ever saw life on a printed page. Some of them have not survived, others have stayed the course with rather different spellings.

Some of the younger members of that speech community have, by dint of education at various levels, have acquired some, or many, or most, of the language skills of Standard English.  They can still operate in the dialect of the speech community of their youth.  But they have learned that every community has a legitimate area of functioning and operates best with the language in which they are most competent to perform. 

They have learned to discriminate. They have learned when the dialect of their youth is no longer appropriate in certain places and on certain occasions, and thankfully they have the linguistic skills required for them to perform competently in the more formal arena.

To hold on to the dialect pronunciation of certain words when the standard English version is preferable, simply because it is the  part of the language that one was socialised  is to pay a misplaced and exaggerated sense of loyalty to a mere accident of our upbringing. To have such a sentiment transferred to our youth today is a decidedly backward step.

Clive B Borely is an educator

Bad English… not the music group

Bad English peeves me to no end… like fingernails down a chalkboard (blackboard for us ‘old schoolers’), so to see this on the Express website is like the ultimate torture. Each post was written by someone calling herself NIXXZLOU.

WHEPA~~~~WHEPA.!!. At least they were fine guilty for not serving and protecting the Nation citizens. especially a young Raped victim whom needed Emergency Care. who knows if these officers did responded in the proper manner, probably they could have Apprehended that nasty vicious rapist and his accomplish. All I can say is, these Officers also need a great make over / training. and learning how too show compassion for victims. including Traumatize nude. RAPE VICTIM.!!. hopefully when they fall short off their rent or car note. they would remember their duties. Peace.

V~~~~. I am greatful that these 2 Officer pleaded guilty. it is a step in the right direction. hopefully. it could have been the other way around. and those officers may not have been recommended. for not doing their job to protect and served. not to discriminate. as you stated they were very DELINQUENT

My friends. while making my corrections. The pop up box informed me that I cannot make changes to a reply comment. JB follow me from page to page. he she usually remove my comments, as soon as I write them even a few bloggers notice this. If he she is so smart. why the hell he she act like a child in head start. it is clear as Day that this person have a serious problem if they take the time out to follow me from page to page. and remove my posts. I am truly sadden by the fact that I find myself dealing with a sicko and a very jealous man. who want to be more woman that I.
I put JB. in Jah hands. it is a shame that JB IS THE BIGGEST BANDIT ON THIS BLOG SITE. WHAT MAN CURSES A WOMEN OUT USING THE TERMS MC. Look JB go and sink your darn head in your out house. and see if you could remove some of this sickness from you. and let somebody like you.!! you want someone on this site too say that you are smart. You is the biggest self bragger on this site. everything is about you. you usually try your best to convince us that you are so darn smart. it aint funny. look rest your self boy.!!.
You Are Loking for points. you are very crazy. the same crazy fool who stated that he almost attended the same University as I. LOL. all the way to the bank.

I shall stop the torture here, but really, this is something I am ashamed of. Here is someone claiming to attend university, in America (nuff said?) and writing like a Standard 3 or 8 years old child. Worse, to put it for the world to see and not expect to be taken to task over it?

Now, I am not saying mistakes can’t be made. I’ve made many… but this is a whole new low.

Nix, I'm sorry to say it this way, but JB is correct in the sense that you should check your grammar and spelling before posting. JB is wrong to 'attack' you.

However, you and your 'supporters' are missing a real learning curve here. Your grammar and spelling IS bad, equivalent to a primary school child. I have hardly seen worse on this forum. Learn from the criticism and try to use your spell check. In fact, if you use Firefox Browser, you can add the British English add-on to spell check WITHIN the browser. Other than that, do your posts in Word and then copy and paste.

Sons and lisps

My nephew has a little lisp, which comes and goes. He is unable to pronounce the ‘sh’ sound, so ‘shoot’ becomes ‘soot’, ‘shore’ (or ‘sure’) becomes ‘sore’.

He was just playing a game on my Galaxy phone when he asked his mother, “Mum, what’s a mission?”

Of course, that came out as ‘mis-on’.

His mother responded, “ Well, you’re meh son!”

Unconstitutional Appointment?

While researching the dismissal of Nizam Mohammed from the Police Service Commission, I came across a rather startling discovery:

The appointments of Nizam Mohammed and Ramesh Deosaran as ‘Chairman’ of the Police Service Commission, appear to be unconstitutional!

The Government portal website says:

“The Office of the President advises that after due consultation the House of Representatives, having approved a Notification from the President with respect to the service of Professor Ramesh Deosaran as a Member of the Police Service Commission, His Excellency Timothy Hamel-Smith, Acting President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, has appointed Professor Ramesh Deosaran to be a Member of the Police Service Commission and, acting in his own discretion in accordance with the Constitution, has appointed Professor Deosaran as Chairman of the Police Service Commission, for a period of three years, with effect from the 13th April, 2011.”

Now, the President acting on his own discretion is one thing, but I question the part about “in accordance with the Constitution”, for the following reason:

The Constitution actually says, in Section 122.3:

“3. The Chairman of the Police Service Commission shall be either the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman of the Public Service Commission.”

Given that the position of Chairman is specified as to who can actually be appointed, in no less a place as the supreme law of the country, how then can the President (or acting President) appoint someone who is not the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Public Service Commission to the position of Chairman of the Police Service Commission? Or have these (previous) Chairmen also been appointed as either the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Public Service Commission also?

As far as I am aware, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission is Christopher Thomas. I wonder who is the Deputy Chairman? I have been trying to find out the composition of the Public Services Commission without success, so if anyone can enlighten me, I will be grateful.

It appears that the President has made not one, but at least two ultra vires appointment, in that none of these men have been appointed to the Public Service Commission as either Chairman or Deputy Chairman.

(PS: I have tagged this under ‘culture’ as it reflects what I think Trinidad culture (in part) to be… ignorance and disregard for the rule of law.)

Addendum:

HM Castillo wrote in:

Jumbie only one of the names you mentioned there (Nizam Mohammed) relates to the Police Services Commission. Both Eric St Cyr and Ken Gordon relate to the Integrity Commission, or did I miss something?

But I did see, what you have written as stated in section 122:3 of the constitution. There does not seem to be any constitutional amendments either.

I wonder what's the real story here?

Interesting work Jumbies _watch. The seasons best to you!

Thanks, HM Castillo. I have amended.

PS

HM Castillo has written in yet again:

“JumbiesWatch, found the answer to your query. The Constitution was amended by Act 6 of 2006 - Section 4, which amends section 122 as follows: -

4. The Constitution is amended in section 122 by repealing subsections (2), (3) and (4) and substituting the following subsections:

(2) The members of the Police Service Commission shall be appointed by the President in accordance with this section.

(3) The President shall, after consultation with the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition nominate persons, who are qualified and experienced in the disciplines of law, finance, sociology or management, to be appointed as members of the Police Service Commission".

The Act was proclaimed oh January 1, 2007. "

Blackberry problem?

British humour, the best.

Contribution by reader

Bad English irks me, especially if not written in dialect or slang but in a ‘formal’ environment. This morning, I received an email from a reader which highlights bad English posted in the comments section at the Express. Kudos to the diligence of this reader. Here are some examples pointed out.

 

THE EDITOR: As a nation we are beseeched besieged with controversy (Dexter Rigsby – Newsday – June 1^st 2011

 

June 3^rd 2011

 

Kevin no lie: June 3: yuh tieing tying yourself up, nome nom de plume; What rules were bended bent

 

imbertneedstilt: what you all of have said

 

The AG layed laid it out on the table

 

KNIGHT AT NIGHT

 

Give Jack their his Jacket; worst sinario scenario ;

 

IONGOD:

You do your dammed you’re damned

 

D_Interested:

he should have disqualify disqualified Gopaul

 

LOGICc:

The contract is scraped scrapped

 

rescolaclement

what a looser loser looks like; I hold heartedly agree; definaitely no bail

 

massiah1: Peter we know each other by face and by name and by waive and right o

 

whiterose1:

a chauveinistic pig; to take over the reigns

 

 

illario: to indite indict the feelings of others who understand clearly that there is no virtue in the practise only error, there their hope will come to nought.

 

 

asrealasit get:

You win some, you loose some

 

Saturday June 4^th 2011

 

MrMindset 57

hush your tie-tounge tongue mopsy mouth.

 

Wensdae 44

parliamentary previliges privileges; COP must get ready to seize the reigns reins;

 

Karlspinner

he continues to sew sow the seeds of mischief; He will keep throwing them out untill something sticks;

 

ac_360

Maybe if you won't weren’t so arrogant you'd learn some ethics and values from Mr Ramadhar.

 

Maturedteacher

The alleged act was committed

 

IONGOD

Who are these people trying to kidd?

 

Shortman

If you read yesterday you will of would have seen

 

charlo56

ITS IS SO HARD for you to except accept the facts

 

watch_woman55

we need someone who is willing and have has the strength

 

diegotodebone

a good way to perverse preserve press freedom

 

arimadon

As a geologist, Rowley, is surely making leaving 'no stone uncovered

 

bajanandy

they take what ever whatever you have of value ,weather it be chain

 

June 5^th 2011

 

Maturedteacher

 

we see people waddling through these waters and cars serpentining snaking their way through the flooded pathways

 

 

frostynob

sounds like Jack bought an add in the Express

 

poorperformers

Before I am inundated with replies

 

June 6^th 2011

 

ttposter

jack the camelion chameleon

 

LOGICc

your wish not coming through true.

 

aleiah3030

she either wanted to waist waste police time

 

June 7^th 2011

 

ROCKSTARTT

" celebrations " tends to get out of hand where the excessive consumption of strong liquor

 

patriot_tt

And they obviously have people who know about he ware abouts her whereabouts

 

phillnoir

i never strayed from the basic tenants tenets.

 

reverlator

Anyone who knows of the alledged act

 

Countryboy1

Patos tolerated no descent dissent from his troops and on the other

 

poorperformers

so please retrack retract this.

 

There was an attempt to retrack retract the headline

 

June 8^th 2011

 

Dr_ Rat

That is welcoming welcome news.

who invested everything they had at the bekon beck and call

 

I'm just hoping at this stage now that the cat is out of the bag, that they have ceased seized all of his money and assets so he can't "grab and run."

 

strokerdragon

 

These guys should be jailed and there their assets siezed seized just like

 

think twice about committing these types of crimes. Only hope they also sue Harry Harrinarine for all the HCU money he thief.

 

Moruga man

was Permiell calling for the Goverenor to go when the Governor was saying  … what he should be saying now is thank you Governor and Central bank because

 

June 9^th 2011

 

Kevin_no_lie

 

The media should now boycott Kamliar since she appears to use them conveniently for her PR gimmicktry.

 

June 13^th 2011

 

Saffron_Rice

 

Finally Tobagonians would be able to get rid of the yolk yoke that is called London

 

Ayeshanina

Don't hold your breadth!

 

DR_Rat

Tobago was different from Trinidad and it was a sepearate body … it is high time, we start Treating Tobago as if there was no water sepearating them..

 

Ivor_St_Hill

Annoying Tobago sufficiently to increase the number of Tobagonians wanting independaence from Trinidad

tizzeny

What is interesting to note is that the Office of PM is not beholdern to anyone

 

Whiterose01

It appears that the aggressive behaviours of some of your Cabinet Ministers are roubbing off on you

 

Patriot_tt

Politics aside, what she did hear here is very disrespectful both …the precedent she is setting will have reprocussions repercussions for Tobago …

 

Poorperformers

Con't - Last but not least PM your true colours are now showing this is another faux paus

 

June 14^th 2011

Reverlator

 

She moves … to underminde; he Prime Minister is being dictatorial, abusive and out of order in her most recent move to underminde the THA!; What you worship is what you become! (Soca, Chutney, money, religious triaditions and more).

 

IzaTrinigyul

Fire again! Apparaently we have a bunch of pyromaniacs

 

NIXZLOU

Well DNA, should play a big roll role here, these scums shouldn't be 

 

TriniNEWYORKER

 

tie them up in there their village naked on a pole and then cut off there their thing with an 

 

Dr_Rat

However, the lazaffere laissez-faire attitude toward bringing charges on those indivuiduals will have severe reamifications for almost every 

Shaking my head in disbelief

In 2011, adults still spell "taught" when they refer to their thinking... it's 'thought'!!!

From the Express forums

"Could of", "would of"... when will Trinis learn it's 'could've' and 'would've'??

Isn’t that a hoot?

I am a traditionalist [one who adheres to traditional views], more commonly known a being a Grumpy Old Man. It means things like not being politically correct for the sake of being politically correct, calling a spade a spade, and thinking a female is still an actress and not an actor because she has boobs (hopefully) and lacks a penis. Another peeve is the ‘new’ trend by British media to report on what people WILL say in a future media report. Take this one for example:

David Cameron will try to rally support for planned changes to the NHS in England, in a speech to health staff.

The prime minister is expected to focus on a need for "deep change", warning of a "crisis" if proposals are blocked.

But he will also hint at some of the amendments that will be made as the result of a government consultation.

Plans to give GPs more control over budgets and boost the private sector role have angered some professionals and been criticised by Labour.

There is also political pressure in the coalition following significant unease within the Liberal Democrats. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has warned his party will block the Health and Social Care Bill unless it is altered.

'Only option'

In his address, Mr Cameron is expected to say: "We save the NHS by changing it. We risk its long-term future by resisting change now...

"It's because I love the NHS so much that I want to change it. It needs to change to make it work better today and it needs to change to avoid a crisis tomorrow."

Ministers promised "substantial" changes to the proposals outlined in health bill after calling a "pause" to its progress pending the results of a "listening exercise" involving patients, doctors and nurses.

Mr Cameron is expected to say that the "resounding message" from people he had met during the listening exercise was: "Yes, we love the NHS but yes, there are some real problems."

He is also expected to say the NHS is providing the best service it ever has but there is waste and inefficiency and wide disparities of quality of service and of health outcomes across the country.

The prime minister will say that without changes, the NHS could face a potential funding gap of £20bn by 2015.

Labour has been seeking to exploit tensions in the coalition over the bill but Mr Cameron will stress that the plans will not be abandoned. He will also seek to quash opposition claims that they could lead to full privatisation of the NHS.

"Sticking with the status quo and hoping we can get by with a bit more money is simply not an option," Mr Cameron will add.

"There's only one option we've got and that is to change and modernise the NHS, to make it more efficient and more effective and above all, more focused on prevention, on health, not just sickness."

The first thing that comes to my mind is that if the population already knows what the person is‘expected to say’, why release the speech/report/media event at all after? It’s just a waste of resources. The words in my mind right now are “for fuck’s sake…!”