Why rumour instead of reason?

Gordon Robinson

If only we could find a way to package our rumour industry for export, we could kiss the IMF goodbye.

Who better to tell us about the experience of being the butt of popular rumour than the Cool Ruler himself, Gregory Isaacs?

Rumours dem spreadin'

Claim sey a sensi me plantin'

But I man a de Don inna de jugglin'

A pure rumours a gwaan.

I'll tell you who better. Nobody is the butt of more rumours than Lindsay Lohan:

But I can tell that you're watching me

and you're probably gonna write what you didn't see.

Well, I just need a little space to breathe.

Can you please respect my privacy?

Some recent classics: The talk shows were abuzz with the news that beloved crooner Beres Hammond was prevented from entering King's House compound to collect his National Award because of the way he was dressed. One popular news talk show asked protocol expert Merrick Needham to explain what had happened. Merrick knew nothing of the alleged incident and opined that, after a dress rehearsal 48 hours before, he considered such an incident highly improbable.

Well, it didn't happen. My usually reliable sources tell me Beres fell before the ceremony began and injured himself (not badly). Rather than limp up to collect his award, he asked his son to collect it for him.

It's been more than two weeks since I explained in exquisite detail (well, at least as much exquisite detail as an oppressive word-count limit allows) why the DPP was wrong to refuse to accept the contractor general's recommendation that Richard Azan's case be put to a jury (instead of acting as one herself) to find out if anything was amiss (see 'Some guys have all the luck', October 8, 2013). I highlighted that, in rejecting that recommendation, she'd relied on a case subsequently criticised by Jamaica's highest court, the Privy Council (PC).

I suggested she should reconsider her opinion and, at least, accept that a prima facie case exists. I wrote:

"... The DPP relied heavily on Scott's case (1974) and only cited Wai Yu-Tsang in passing as if it simply affirmed Scott when, in fact Wai Yu-Tsang cast doubt on Scott. As a PC decision (Scott is a House of Lords case), we're bound by Wai Yu-Tsang. She also misquoted R v Allsop by leaving out a key word, thus converting a general rule to one appearing all-encompassing. The correct quote is: "generally, the primary objective of fraudsmen is ... incidental". In her release, she omitted "generally". In any event, Allsop was a (barely acceptable) UK Court of Appeal decision. The DPP ought to be concentrating on the PC's Wai Yu-Tsang."

I've read subsequent newspapers carefully and listened to many talk shows, but there's no sign of response from the learned DPP. Recently, I heard a rumour on radio that the DPP, in a speech, said that persons didn't want her as DPP because she was a woman and unable to be a member of a lodge.

brainless argument

Say it ain't so! I absolutely refuse to believe that our DPP would utter such logical garbage; allow such a brainless argument to be published in her name; or seriously allege that there's a lodge conspiracy to remove her. Is she dismissing my reasoned column by saying it propagates lodge beliefs?

She's frequently in front of cameras making smiley faces. Occasionally, I expect to hear her use the opportunity to say something sensible instead of just flashing teeth. Surely, this guttersniping can't have been meant to substitute for response to my column?

This is the same DPP who sued a sitting magistrate; who removed a junior member of her chambers from prosecuting a high-profile case after he said the case needed a statement from the police commissioner; who has struggled to secure even one high-profile conviction. Is she suggesting this is all a lodge conspiracy? She must be high.

Well, I assure the DPP, I'm not a member of any lodge, brotherhood, association or group. It's just me again, Jah. So please respond to the real public concern I raised and stop pretending it's a personal attack.

Her silence since my October 8 column suggests she can't dispute the legal argument therein. So why won't she prosecute? Is it that she fears another Kern Spencer-like fiasco? Or, now that the young prosecutor she removed from the Vaz/Bicknell case has become the new contractor general, does she have a problem taking advice from him?

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.