JIMMY HENRY RE­VIS­ITED!

IS THERE AN­OTHER STORY YET TO BE TOLD?

The Star (St. Lucia) - - FRONT PAGE - By Rick Wayne

‘It is by now com­mon knowl­edge that of­ten the ac­cu­sa­tions we level at oth­ers are ac­tu­ally un­wit­ting con­fes­sions.’

“Rick Wayne, try­ing to ob­fus­cate the sce­nario with bull­shit talk. Let’s talk about la­ment’s sit­u­a­tion. That’s the real is­sue here. I would be more con­cern about that in­ter­view given by his Cam­paign Man­ager. Looks like he in­crem­i­nate both him­self and the Min­is­ter. BTW it is no longer FAKEBOOK but FESSBOOK. Then get your FESS off it. You are do­ing your­self and the gov­ern­ment in which you have a “vested in­ter­est” no fa­vors at all. If Jimmy is pros­e­cuted in con­nec­tion with this mat­ter, it will be your soft­ball in­ter­view that nails his cof­fin shut. En­joy the fu­neral, I hear they can be quite en­ter­tain­ing.”

Alawyer’s adage ad­vises: “If you have the law on your side, ar­gue the law. If you have the facts, ar­gue the facts. If you have nei­ther, then pound the ta­ble.” There was a whole lotta ta­ble pound­ing go­ing on over the week­end (apolo­gies to peren­nial rocker Jerry Lee Lewis), much of it con­ceiv­ably by un­der-em­ployed Looshan Johnny Cock­rans ma­rooned on the Rock of Sages and other na­tive philoso­phers at large.

I formed the im­pres­sion from mon­i­tor­ing their ex­haust that given the op­por­tu­nity they’d al­ready have sen­tenced re­cently re­signed sen­a­tor Jimmy Henry to un­end­ing STEP la­bor at Borde­lais. But please per­mit me a small di­gres­sion, be­fore I prof­fer a sam­pling of last week’s not so diplo­matic in­ter­course via Fakebook, which I have again re­named; this time, Fessbook. Why Fessbook? Not for the rea­son you’re think­ing, dear lover of langue mama nous. (I am pre­sum­ing that since the last gen­eral elec­tions ev­ery­one has taken the time to learn and ap­pre­ci­ate the value of kwéyòl!)

In the case of Fessbook the pre­fix “fess” is English; short for con­fess; as in “fess up, man. Do we have to beat the truth out of you?” And what is Fessbook if not the safest place to de­posit what­ever bur­dens may be press­ing heav­ily on what’s left of our con­sciences.

It is by now com­mon knowl­edge that of­ten the ac­cu­sa­tions we level at oth­ers are ac­tu­ally un­wit­ting con­fes­sions. This sober­ing fact was un­for­get­tably un­der­scored by none other than Je­sus when he in­vited a bunch of whitened sep­ul­chers to cast their holier than thou stones at a cow­ered and de­fense­less ac­cused adul­ter­ess. Be­sides, how pos­i­tively we see oth­ers has sci­en­tif­i­cally been linked to how happy, kind-hearted and emo­tion­ally sta­ble we are.

“Your per­cep­tions of oth­ers re­veal so much about your own per­son­al­ity,” says as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor of psy­chol­ogy at Wake For­est Univer­sity, Dustin Wood. By ask­ing study par­tic­i­pants each to rate pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics of just three peo­ple, Wood and his fel­low re­searchers were able to un­cover im­por­tant in­for­ma­tion about the raters’ well-be­ing, men­tal health, so­cial at­ti­tudes and how they were judged by oth­ers.

“See­ing oth­ers pos­i­tively re­veals our own pos­i­tive traits,” Wood points out. Also, that how pos­i­tively you see other peo­ple is an in­di­ca­tor of how sat­is­fied we are with our own lives and how much we are liked by oth­ers. In con­trast, neg­a­tive per­cep­tions of oth­ers are linked to higher lev­els of nar­cis­sism and anti-so­cial be­hav­ior.

Wood adds: “A huge suite of neg­a­tive per­son­al­ity traits are as­so­ci­ated with view­ing oth­ers neg­a­tively. The sim­ple ten­dency to see peo­ple neg­a­tively in­di­cates a greater like­li­hood of de­pres­sion and var­i­ous per­son­al­ity dis­or­ders. The Wood study (which ap­pears in the July 2010 is­sue of the Journal of Per­son­al­ity and So­cial Psy­chol­ogy, co-au­thored by Peter Harms at the Univer­sity of Ne­braska and Simine Vazaire of Wash­ing­ton Univer­sity in St. Louis), also re­vealed that “the level of neg­a­tiv­ity the rater uses in de­scrib­ing the other per­son may in­deed in­di­cate that the other per­son has neg­a­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics but may also be a tip-off that the rater is un­happy, dis­agree­able, neu­rotic—or has other neg­a­tive per­son­al­ity traits.”

Never mind that our le­gal sys­tem op­er­ates on the pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence prin­ci­ple, with the bur­den of proof on the one who de­clares, not on the one who de­nies, still some con­tinue to spew their venom at Jimmy Henry—whom the au­thor­i­ties have not once charged with wrong-do­ing. In­deed, last week the po­lice went out of their way pub­licly to dis­miss al­le­ga­tions, sub­tle and oth­er­wise, against Jimmy Henry. No mat­ter, cer­tain axe grinders in­sist “the po­lice never said he was not un­der sur­veil­lance by agents out­side of Saint Lucia!” As if to sug­gest Henry may have drawn, un­known to any­one here, the at­ten­tion of such as In­ter­pol, the State Depart­ment, the FBI and so on. Some went so far as to sug­gest our po­lice are un­trust­wor­thy, that they may be cov­er­ing up for the for­mer sen­a­tor. But cov­er­ing up what? Mo­men­tar­ily, the ven­omous spec­u­la­tors ap­par­ently for­got the Henry story had started with a so-called “ran­dom search” at Ge­orge F.L. Charles in Vigie upon his re­turn from a two-day stay in Bar­ba­dos— whose of­fi­cials had sub­jected Henry to no un­usual treat­ment, com­ing or go­ing. If the lo­cal po­lice failed to ar­rest and charge Henry be­cause they are part of a cover-up, as so many on Face­book are self-con­vinced, with­out a shred of ev­i­dence, then are the air­port au­thor­i­ties in Bar­ba­dos also Henry’s part­ners in crime?

The fact that the STAR had pub­lished some of Henry’s “per­sonal rea­sons” for his ap­par­ently abrupt res­ig­na­tion was to some in­signif­i­cant; un­wor­thy of dis­cus­sion. Not in a pos­i­tive light, any­way. Ditto his as­ser­tion that he’d been con­sid­er­ing res­ig­na­tion since mid-Fe­bru­ary. Those who both­ered to go there dis­missed what he told this re­porter as more fake news, maybe be­cause it did not help their cause, what­ever it may be. They could not fathom why any­one would give up any job just be­cause it placed too much pres­sure on his fam­ily life. Oth­ers sug­gested the sit­ting MP for Den­nery North had been the snitch be­hind the Vigie search, again with­out the small­est cor­rob­o­ra­tion. That I had in­ter­viewed Jimmy Henry’s friend and cam­paign man­ager on TALK only fur­ther strength­ened the con­vic­tion of

a par­tic­u­lar set of full-time stone throw­ers that some­thing in the al­leged most rot­ten of states was, well, rot­ten!

Time to hear di­rectly from the Cock­rans, whose real names are more than likely known only to them­selves. Warn­ing: I have cho­sen not to edit the con­tri­bu­tions.

Ce­cilia Al­lain: Rick Wayne, try­ing to ob­fus­cate the sce­nario with bull­shit talk. Let’s talk about la­ment’s sit­u­a­tion. That’s the real is­sue here. I would be more con­cern about that in­ter­view given by his Cam­paign Man­ager. Looks like he in­crem­i­nate both him­self and the Min­is­ter. BTW it is no longer FAKEBOOK but FESSBOOK. Then get your FESS off it. You are do­ing your­self and the gov­ern­ment in which you have a “vested in­ter­est” no fa­vors at all. If Jimmy is pros­e­cuted in con­nec­tion with this mat­ter, it will be your soft­ball in­ter­view that nails his cof­fin shut. En­joy

the fu­neral, I hear they can be quite en­ter­tain­ing.

Leo Fields: Once a par­tic­u­lar TALK­show host re­al­izes that there are lu­cians with bet­ter in­ves­tiga­tive skills than him he start to act para­noid.

Sylvester De­sir: One of the most shock­ing as­pects of this drama is that the man ac­tu­ally in­formed the of­fi­cers the amount of money he had in his pos­ses­sion af­ter he was free to leave. And he was will­ing to be searched in the pub­lic area. It ap­pears the guy was quite con­fi­dent and com­fort­able. Was the fox out­foxed? I hope I have not un­in­ten­tion­ally at­tempted

to man­u­fac­ture any kind of ex­e­cuses for the man.

Louisy Dee: We knew that. RF said he de­clared it. I think in true fash­ion we are try­ing to make ex­cuses. The gen­tle­man was be­ing surveilled for a rea­son. They said he was not un­der sur­veil­lance by the lo­cal au­thor­i­ties.

John Alvin: Rick clear some­thing for me. Are you say­ing that we should only be con­cerned if Jimmy breaks lo­cal laws but if it is the laws of an­other coun­try that is their busi­ness, not ours?[ I was tempted to ask Alvin whether we should be con­cerned with for­ni­ca­tion in cer­tain Mid­dle East coun­tries, even though in our own coun­try it’s de kolcha!—Rick Wayne]

Ethel­bert James: Jimmy ain tell rick the whole story.

Leo Fields: Rick is just look­ing for a few dol­lars to say the story is from a re­li­able source.

Sylvester: Here are some more ques­tions: why was the man searched? What did they hope to find in the man’s pos­ses­sion? Who gave the or­ders to do so? Not a word, not a word, not a word. Facts are fact but such an in­ci­dent will in­evitably gen­er­ate spec­u­la­tion. Hu­mans some­times ex­hibit can­ni­bal­is­tic char­ac­ter­is­tics. By the way, was of­fi­cer De­sir speak­ing the truth? If it was not the truth, then why would he be ly­ing? [Talk about build­ing your own straw­man so you can burn it down!--RW]

To bor­row from The Ter­mi­na­tor: Ah’ll be back!”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Saint Lucia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.