30 March, 2010



I have now discovered the quarrel that Stanley has with my last post.  It seems that I have several factual errors in it.  I also drew some unfair inferences in relation to him and the public service.

It appears that the Immigration Officer who, I wrote, had had his case quietly dropped has in fact been committed to trial in the next sitting of the Assizes.  The case has not been “swept under the carpet”.

The old lady whose case, I wrote, had been nolle prossed, had in fact been tried by the Magistrate who had dismissed the charges when the old lady was unable to identify her assailant.

And, the suggestion that Stanley had been quietly made PS Administration in order to get him out of the Magistracy was quite misconceived.  Stanley had in fact continued to serve as acting Magistrate from time to time for some nine years while serving in the Attorney-General’s Chambers until he was appointed PS Administration. 

For these and any other factual errors in my post I apologise unreservedly to Stanley.  I had received and relied on incorrect information about these incidents.  I therefore had no valid reason to have drawn the inferences I did, that Stanley owed a favour to Keithly. 

Stanley has also pointed out, and I accept, that in the circumstances, it was quite unjustified for me to have said that the one sure way to get a promotion in the Anguilla Public Service is to be caught engaged in serious criminal activity.


  1. That was one real apology.
    I am proud of you Don.
    Your blog does give us a lot of information we would otherwise not get.
    My father used to say mistakes are only made by people who do or say something publicly. People who do nothing do not make mistakes in public.
    Sorry you got this one wrong.

  2. It takes a brave person to speak out, and an even braver one to admit 'mia culpa'. Good on you, Don. Keep up the valuable public service!

  3. Agree with the above comments; however, your inaccuracies do not change your primary point, which is that the elevation of any police commissioner (irrespective of his jurisprudential qualifications) immediately to Magistrate Judge raises the appearance, at least, of impropriety. How can yesterday's police commissioner be tomorrow's neutral and detached magistrate? Even if the man were pre-eminently qualified (about which I have insufficient information), there is the appearance of impropriety, that the fox has been put in charge of the hen-house.

  4. I have had a brother in law who was an inspector of police in the UK, also a cousin who was a constable and i know they would say there is no way this most recent appointment of a magistrate can be unbiased. Police protect police and their supposed reputation to the end in my opinion.
    In my opinion this appointment was a wrong one because of previous position held. As if we don't have enough problems. Only in Anguilla.

  5. When something is written it seams to become what people use as a fact. Shame on you and I do look up to you for admitting errors.
    Please put you new tv show on the web for us off island.

  6. Did you have to commit to leaving down all of the removed posts in the series or could you put them back up with the mistakes removed?

  7. No, there was no request that I leave any of the posts taken down. But, as the major incidents on which they were based have been proven to my satisfaction to have been misreported, the underlying theory of a conspiracy, spoken or unspoken, that binds all the posts together appears to be misfounded, and I consider that it would be dishonourable to put any of them back up.



Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.