Liar, liar, pants on fire

“Now, children, calm down and tell me what this is all about.”

“Please, miss,” sniffed Wayne. “Yesterday he invited me to his birthday party, then…”

“I did NOT,” interrupted Alex.

“Alex, quiet!” said the headmistress. “Let Wayne finish.”

Alex scowled and crossed his arms.

“…then today he said I was disinvited!” Wayne wailed.

“Well, Alex?” asked the headmistress calmly. “Is that true?”

“He’s a LIAR!” Alex sulked.

“Am not!” replied Wayne.

“Are so!” Alex shot back.

“Children!” the headmistress interjected. “Carry on, Alex.”

“He says I invited him to my party, but I didn’t. My mate was there an’ he says I didn’t say that either. Wayne’s STUPID, miss.”

Tears began to well up in Wayne’s eyes.

“He did invite me, miss, he did!”

“Oh yeah,” jeered Alex. “Next you’ll be saying I said you were on drugs too.”

“You did!” exclaimed Wayne.

The headmistress raised an eyebrow.

“I was JOKING, miss,” sneered Alex. “Ask Walter.”

“You’re LYING,” wailed Wayne. “Pat and John heard you too. You said if I wasn’t on drugs then I should be.”

Alex snickered.

“That’s enough!” cried the headmistress. “I’ve had enough of the pair of you! Report to me after school today! It’s detentions for you both!”

[With thanks to SmokingGun for the inspiration.]

Comments

[lost in flatts on 10.05.06 at 05:04]

Yep. We've reached an all time low. Time to remind the politicians the two-party system is actually in place to improve the level of service to the public, not to hinder it.

I do love the Premier's tone though. Clearly appalled that anyone would DARE to challenge him.
"Why should a Premier take the Opposition into that cauldron of politics?"
So nice of Alex to protect all the young, inexperienced, politcally naive UBP members from the hard work of politics. Since Alex is so wonderful and far and away our best representative of political saavy, it's just so nice to see him shouldering the responsibilty himself.

[TeryCloth on 10.05.06 at 05:32]

Brilliant - I laughed my ass off at this even more than I did with the original debacle!

[jake on 10.05.06 at 09:11]

I have said it many times in the past...Ewart Brown was my preference over Alex Scott.

Can anyone - even those who do not agree with EB, doubt his value above and beyond the empty Premier?

I wish we had a Spitting Image show here. We could have an empty chair representing the Premier...and an empty Barrel as the Opposition Leader.

[Bill Cook on 10.05.06 at 10:20]

The positives that Dr Brown brings to his portfolio are an energising dynamism with the apparent desire to get things done and see results.

That he brings a modern less fuddy duddy approach is a plus in this day and age even to the way he dresses etc.

He is energetic and enthusiastic and on a personal one on one is actually approachable as I found when my travelling companion a travel writer went up to him on the plane and excused himself for intruding and was reassured it was no intrusion and a conversation took place.

What often happens is that we are all guilty of becoming REACTIVE when we sense hostility and become defensive which causes the loss of the subject matter to unproductive personalisation etc in my opinion.

(The negatives have already been discussed.)

[silencedogood on 10.05.06 at 11:21]

Bermuda: At the Forefront of Western Civilization's Decay.

The premeire shouldn't have responded, but this foolishness rests on Furbert in my opinion.

Suck it up man. If you get your party elected you can go to the party.

[SmokingGun on 10.05.06 at 12:28]

Thanks Limey - glad I could be of assistence in preparing you for parenthood. I see what your Mum means by you prowess at role-playing. Do you have painted figurines of all our Cabinet Ministers as well? ;)

"Into the Cauldron of dastardly politics I shall lead you!" claimed King Alex.
"And I shall be your sword of truth!" blurted Walter the Noble.
"And after our conquest I shall take us via gleaming chariot to the Castle of Watergate!" announced Sir Ewart.

Hmmmm, maybe not......

[SmokingGun on 10.05.06 at 21:06]

It's a dead calm on this topic du jour.....

Anyone else get the feeling we're all sailing on a ship of fools?

[stuart J Hayward on 10.05.06 at 22:39]

When the UBP was invited to have a rep on the Bermuda Independence Commission, they declined and then UBP leader Dr. Gibbons proceeded to malign the Commissions's work even before it had begun:

. “It will be interesting to see if this is a balanced commission – or if the report is already written.” -RG 16 Dec. 2004

Now the UBP is complaining about not being invited to be part of a delegation to a high-level diplomatic meeting.

After such bad behaviour with the BIC invitation, it would be a wonder if the UBP was ever again invited to take part in something bi-partisan.

It seems like the UBP wants to have it both ways.

I'll be interested in the responses from LiB bloggers to a criticism of the UBP's behaviour.

[Guilden M.Gilbert, Jr. on 11.05.06 at 01:35]

Stuart,

Very well said, they don't want to be a part of a committee that was researching what status is best for Bermuda on a long-term basis. Then they question the balance of the report because all appointments were made by the PLP. Well duhh, if you want to ensure political balance, as the Opposition you must participate.

Yet, when it comes to possibly rubbing shoulder with some leading U.S. political figures they fight to be invited and kick and scream when they aren't.

When I was on Leaders of Tomorrow the only things that were discussed and planned were networking-type events (cocktail parties at the homes of various Ministers, bar-b-qs and kite flying), nothing was ever discussed or planned that could actually work towards a better Bermuda. Many of the people with whom I sat on LoT are Opposition MPs today.

The UBP says it has changed, seems to me that the only change is that the youth group has grown up and is looking for bigger and better networking opportunities, as without hesitation they declined to participate on something that would actually cause them to do some hard work.

[Slowhand on 11.05.06 at 06:59]

Perhaps the UBP thought that as the majority of the electorate had expressed that there were many other issues considered to be more important, why waste time on such a report at that time. As for the 'pre-maligning'... it turns out it was more of a prediction on Gibbon's part.

With this 'predicting' ability, and also knowing that we may not get the full story from our 'informative' Government Reps, I'm sure I would feel better that someone be there that will actually report what was said.

[lost in flatts on 11.05.06 at 07:25]

Wait, the UBP voiced concerns over the BIC being biased and not taking into account their views?

Well Alex and co sure showed them!

[Phil on 11.05.06 at 08:23]

Stuart

I see no reason why the UBP should expect to go on this trip to Washington too. As the Premier pointed out, Tony Blair doesn't take David Cameron along when he goes to visit George Bush.

So even if the Premier did originally extend an invitation to Mr. Furbert, he's entitled to change his mind. However if that was the case, the Premier should just come out and say so instead of using the old "I have no recollection of that" chestnut.

As for the UBP's decision not to participate in the BIC commission, that seems reasonable to me. Their opinion was that the commission was biased and that it would be a waste of time given that Bermudians are uninterested in discussing independence. I think they're right on both points.

[ken on 11.05.06 at 08:50]

So even if the Premier did originally extend an invitation to Mr. Furbert, he's entitled to change his mind. However if that was the case, the Premier should just come out and say so instead of using the old "I have no recollection of that" chestnut.

Posted by The Limey on 11.05.06 at 08:23

Limey,

Here you go again. Why are you insinuating that the Premier is lying about not inviting Mr. Furbert? Couldn't it be that Mr. Furbert may be lying about being invited? This is where your 'objectivity' is called into question.

[Uncle Elvis on 11.05.06 at 09:59]

What bugged me about this whole thing is that, with all the talk of bias in the media, the media did themselves no favours by reporting it in the way they did. The way the situation was presented made it seem that Mr. Furbert's side was the truth and that Mr. Scott was, in fact, lying. There was no "He said/She said" to it, it was "The UBP was disinvited [is that a word?] and Mr. Scott is saying they weren't invited, the lying bugger!"
Ken, here's your proof, mon ami. Next time people say, "What do you mean, bias in the media? Prove it!", here's your example.
It really was kind of disgusting and, no matter what you think of him or his politics or his party, the elected leader of our country deserves to be treated better than this. He deserves the benefit of the doubt in situations like this, ESPECIALLY when he's got someone there to back him up. I'm not saying his side should have been reported as the truth and Mr. Furbert's as the "needs to be proved" side, but there WAS an obvious bias towards Mr. Furbert's story and that's not fair.

[ken on 11.05.06 at 10:05]

Uncle Elvis

I totally agree. I cannot say it any better that you just said it!

[loki on 11.05.06 at 10:25]

I must say, I find it very unlikely that Alex Scott did actually extend an invitation to Wayne Furbert. Perhaps he made some fluffy, non-committal statement about being more inclusive in the future, but I have a very hard time accepting that an invitation was actually extended. Wayne Furbert's not doing himself any favours on this one.........

[ken on 11.05.06 at 10:31]

I agree Loki. Also, in political circles, Wayne Furbert is notorious for 'storytelling'. I have sat at House on a few occasions, where he begins his stories about "a young lady called me and was telling me etc", or "elderly gentlemen called me etc". He had all these stories, and even his own MPs were laughing along with the Govt MPs over all these people that had called him with these stories. And they all seemed far fetched, and the details were very sketchy. So this would not be a stretch for him.

[Sleepy on 11.05.06 at 10:32]

Both sides look dopey in this dispute but the Premier's at a disadvantage because he has developed an impressive dossier of lies.

His reputation is that of a liar. An unapologetic one at that. The onus therefore largely falls on him to disprove the allegation.

A no-win situation for sure. Self-inflicted however.

[ken on 11.05.06 at 10:40]

Sleepy, I don't agree. I don't think the Premier looks dopey at all in this case. I think Mr Furbert looks ignorant for begging to go on this trip, and for making up a story. Premier Scott had someone that corroborated his story that was in the meeting with the 3 of them. I agree that maybe Mr. Scott said something about working together in the future, but Mr. Furbert may have taken that and ran with it. But it seems to have backfired.
It's amazing that Mr. Scott may had done nothing, and said nothing wrong, yet you will still find a way to make it his fault.

[Sleepy on 11.05.06 at 10:48]

"It's amazing that Mr. Scott may had done nothing, and said nothing wrong, yet you will still find a way to make it his fault."

That's his cross to bear. Scott has little credibility when it comes to the facts and truth telling. Not that he seems bothered by his reputation.

Gavin Shorto wrote an excellent piece in Bermuda Business this month on the topic and consequences of political lies that I'd recommend for those who may not have seen it yet.

[stuart J Hayward on 11.05.06 at 10:49]

Slowhand, lost in flatts, Limey,

It does seem to me that if the UBP considered it was a waste of time to participate as part of the BIC, it would have been even more of a waste of time to send in a submission.

It also seems more like a self-fulfilling prophesy than a prediction. Any bias in the composition of, and output from, the BIC was exacerbated by the UBP’s refusal to participate.

Neither the PLP nor the UBP should be moved solely by polls. Independence could occur by our decision, or by the UK deciding to shed itself of its remaining ‘colonies’. For either of those pathways we should want to know as much about the process, consequences and options as we could. I would expect the leadership of both the government and the opposition to be interested in and take part in gathering a disseminating that information.

[loki on 11.05.06 at 10:52]

Sleepy,

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you - Alex Scott has little to no credibility. However, in this case, what he is alleged to have done is so improbable that Mr. Furbert has come out with egg on his face. Does anybody really believe that the Premier extended an invitation to Wayne Furbert to come with the government delegation to discuss policy matters in Washington? If anybody actually buys that story, I have a bridge I can sell you.

[Canuck in Bermuda on 11.05.06 at 10:58]

Ken/UE,

I was starting to notice the same thing, but because of the pictures.

They didn't have a better picture on file?
http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060508/NEWS/105080088&SearchID=73244237372552

Just the look of it - now the story isn't just about who said what, but the reader is being told / put in their place too

By contrast, Furbert's usually seem to have this "nice guy in need of a break" look to them.

[Canuck in Bermuda on 11.05.06 at 10:59]

hmm, that didn't work at all...

whatever, just a a link to the "one of us is lying" story

[Sleepy on 11.05.06 at 11:05]

Loki, Ken.

I agree that Furbert could be in fantasy mode and looks as I originally stated 'dopey' for harping on it.

My main point however is that the Premier's track record on the truth means he has to defend himself against something he should just be able to brush off.

A final point, if you believe this trip is to discuss 'policy matters in Washington' you're dreaming.

The trip is what is known as "A grip and grin". A nice photo-op. Nothing more.

[lost in flatts on 11.05.06 at 11:05]

Stuart - I totally agree with your comments about how we should prepare for independence, and think it's quite interesting that no one has mentioned that it might be the UK and not us who make that decision.

Unfortunately the BIC was never going to be that preparation. I think the only way to actually obtain that kind of information would be to hire an independent group to put it together, and by indepedent I clearly do not mean those chosen to do the previous report. I am, however, in agreement with you that the UBP should have felt an obligation to participate, and it's definitely a touch hypocritical to now critisize the report if they were given the opportunity to contribute and chose not to. Wonder if it was just politiking or if Grant just figured their voice wouldn't be heard in the report.

[Michael Taylor on 11.05.06 at 11:20]

As someone desperate to see the door hit the PLP on both cheeks on the way out, Mr. Furbert has really dissapointed me with this one. His whining over such a trivial matter is unbecoming a potential Premier. He needs to show more political maturity than this. We want a BETTER party to run the country not just a different flavored party.

[stuart J Hayward on 11.05.06 at 11:27]

lost in flatts,

Another point I think has been missed is that the BIC was charged with looking into the issues of independence, not those of colonialism. It is therefore understandable, in my view, that their work and Report would have a slant toward independence rather than toward the status quo. I have now read the Report twice and believe the Commission did a credible job and, except for the highly profiled errors, maintained a reasonably neutral language, style and stance.

I won’t speculate on Dr. Gibbon’s or the UBP’s motives. I believe it is truly unfortunate that the issue has become so polarised (UBP/PLP, local/foreign, black/white, Europe/Carib). In the interest of having an informed public, I’m hoping we can choose words that de-fuse rather than fuel that polarisation.

[Michael Taylor on 11.05.06 at 11:35]

I should add I don't care whether the BETTER party is a better PLP, UBP or Gombey Liberation Party. Just not the current politrickcians.

[sandgrownan on 11.05.06 at 11:55]

Michael - I couldn't agree more, PLP apologists should not confuse criticism of the PLP as being automatically pro UBP at the same time. As many who "blog" here know, I'm no fan of the incumbents but I don't feel the UBP are an effective opposition either.

[silencedogood on 11.05.06 at 12:29]

Stuart,

Furbert and the UBP look very silly over this washington trip and their histrionics of "someone is lying" make them look foolish as well. This situation is a bit ridiculous really.

If your goal is to offer legitimate criticism of the UBP, then I don't really understand why you would choose to go further and discuss the BIC. It doesn't seem connected at all and I think many people would agree with the UBP stance on the BIC.

[SmokingGun on 11.05.06 at 12:50]

"I'll be interested in the responses from LiB bloggers to a criticism of the UBP's behaviour." - Posted by stuart J Hayward.

Stuart - I think Furby & Co. have wasted a good opportunity to take the high road here. If there was a mis-understanding then he should have simply acknowledged it and aquiesced to the Premier's decision and not embarrased him.

On the one hand I see no reason why the Premier of Bermuda would feel it necessary to invite the leader of the opposition, although as it's not a state visit he probably could have. It's likely the Premier will reciprocate and invite the politicians he meets to visit Bermuda. If they accept, maybe he could invite Furby to join him at that time.

In the mean-time there's nothing stopping members of the UBP getting on a plane and paying a visit to Washington on their own.

[stuart J Hayward on 11.05.06 at 13:17]

silencedogood,

The UBP was unhappy with being invited, and unhappy with NOT being invited. I saw a connection.

Whether or not many people agree with the UBP stance on BIC, I believe they were negligent in their duty as oppostion.

[Phil on 11.05.06 at 13:23]

ken

Why are you insinuating that the Premier is lying about not inviting Mr. Furbert? Couldn't it be that Mr. Furbert may be lying about being invited?

Fair point. My impression of this situation was formed not by this RG article, but by this article in the Bermuda Sun. What struck me about that was that at no point did the Premier deny inviting Mr. Furbert. He simply said that he didn't remember, and that the notes of a civil servant who was in the room didn't contain any mention of an invite. That seemed like a rather tepid denial to me.

However, on re-reading the RG article (which was published after the one in the Sun) more carefully, I notice that the Premier did subsequently explicitly deny inviting Mr. Furbert. "The subject was not discussed... That did not happen... it is not what I said."

I'm reassured by that. I don't believe that either the Premier or Mr. Furbert are foolish enough to be brazenly lying about what happened. I think the most likely explanation is that Mr. Furbert misunderstood something that the Premier said to him. Unfortunately I think he's made himself look a bit silly by ranting on about a "lie detector" test.

[ken on 11.05.06 at 13:48]

Limey,

I do agree that Mr. Furbert is doing himself and his party a disservice by ranting and raving about a lie detector test. I think it is making him look rather crazy. He would look better by acknowledging that it may have been a misunderstanding, and that once the contingent returns from US he would like to meet with Premier Scott to discuss what had transpired. Or something to that effect.

[Phil on 12.05.06 at 08:03]

This isn't a thread about independence or the BIC. It's about the Washington trip. Thanks.