Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
shogun wrote:Numb3r4 wrote:I guess he is entitled to it. From what I gather from what was put out to the media the changing of the car is a routine function, and given the tax breaks that the office gets it makes it a viable financial choice. If the acquisition is within specification and above board amd does not brech existing policy that no problem from that stand point.
The issue has more to do with the office and the government stating time and time again that we are in financial crisis that we are in dire straits, or giving the impression that we are in such a state and at the same time asking for austerity when it is clearly not prepared to be austere themselves.
Well, unless it can be argued that it was more prudent to have a new vehicle than continuously service a 5+ year old vehicle that was already reportedly breaking down?
RBphoto wrote:A Camry is a rather nice spacious vehicle.. just saying.
Numb3r4 wrote:Rowley hasn't bought the car yet???
De Dragon wrote:shogun wrote:Numb3r4 wrote:I guess he is entitled to it. From what I gather from what was put out to the media the changing of the car is a routine function, and given the tax breaks that the office gets it makes it a viable financial choice. If the acquisition is within specification and above board amd does not brech existing policy that no problem from that stand point.
The issue has more to do with the office and the government stating time and time again that we are in financial crisis that we are in dire straits, or giving the impression that we are in such a state and at the same time asking for austerity when it is clearly not prepared to be austere themselves.
Well, unless it can be argued that it was more prudent to have a new vehicle than continuously service a 5+ year old vehicle that was already reportedly breaking down?
Yes because close to a million dollars is just a couple of services.If we were financially doing well, nobody begrudge the PM his vehicle, but when everywhere you turn, some Gov't official telling you to "eat cassava" "grow up", tighten yuh belt" then that's a different matter. Time and time again, instead of logically stating why an option may be financially prudent, we get vomit and stains and back pain
![]()
drchaos wrote:De Dragon wrote:shogun wrote:Numb3r4 wrote:I guess he is entitled to it. From what I gather from what was put out to the media the changing of the car is a routine function, and given the tax breaks that the office gets it makes it a viable financial choice. If the acquisition is within specification and above board amd does not brech existing policy that no problem from that stand point.
The issue has more to do with the office and the government stating time and time again that we are in financial crisis that we are in dire straits, or giving the impression that we are in such a state and at the same time asking for austerity when it is clearly not prepared to be austere themselves.
Well, unless it can be argued that it was more prudent to have a new vehicle than continuously service a 5+ year old vehicle that was already reportedly breaking down?
Yes because close to a million dollars is just a couple of services.If we were financially doing well, nobody begrudge the PM his vehicle, but when everywhere you turn, some Gov't official telling you to "eat cassava" "grow up", tighten yuh belt" then that's a different matter. Time and time again, instead of logically stating why an option may be financially prudent, we get vomit and stains and back pain
![]()
I still would begrudge the PM even if this country was doing well ... We are a tiny Island nation and the PM should not be driving around in the same vehicle that the German Chancellor gets moved around in. S classes are for Kings and King makers not for the egotistical leaders of some tiny Banana Republic nation. Governments role is for representing and working for the people and not for living a life of luxury of the backs of the people of this country.
Numb3r4 wrote:^^^ A leak you say....
VII wrote:drchaos wrote:De Dragon wrote:shogun wrote:Numb3r4 wrote:I guess he is entitled to it. From what I gather from what was put out to the media the changing of the car is a routine function, and given the tax breaks that the office gets it makes it a viable financial choice. If the acquisition is within specification and above board amd does not brech existing policy that no problem from that stand point.
The issue has more to do with the office and the government stating time and time again that we are in financial crisis that we are in dire straits, or giving the impression that we are in such a state and at the same time asking for austerity when it is clearly not prepared to be austere themselves.
Well, unless it can be argued that it was more prudent to have a new vehicle than continuously service a 5+ year old vehicle that was already reportedly breaking down?
Yes because close to a million dollars is just a couple of services.If we were financially doing well, nobody begrudge the PM his vehicle, but when everywhere you turn, some Gov't official telling you to "eat cassava" "grow up", tighten yuh belt" then that's a different matter. Time and time again, instead of logically stating why an option may be financially prudent, we get vomit and stains and back pain
![]()
I still would begrudge the PM even if this country was doing well ... We are a tiny Island nation and the PM should not be driving around in the same vehicle that the German Chancellor gets moved around in. S classes are for Kings and King makers not for the egotistical leaders of some tiny Banana Republic nation. Governments role is for representing and working for the people and not for living a life of luxury of the backs of the people of this country.
Nonsense,it's not a Grosser or a Pullman or a Guard or even a stock 600 Maybach,it's a regular trim S-Class,it's not even armored and it should be in 2017! One machine gun could reek havoc in our country,and yuh know it have plenty!!! And it's not Rowley's car,it's office of the PM's car,contractors profiting so much from our same tax payer's money that they can buy fleets of even more expensive cars than an S-Class,why don't they reduce their margins a bit,that would surely help a lot more than the savings on an S-Class as opposed to another car,save us one Bentley money a year at least nah? Oh god man,let the office have a stately car nah,oh god man it would be the PM's primary car for the next 10 years,whoever the PM is!!...Geeez..
I bet you anything that our foreign embassies have had similar over the last few years,ya'll acting like they bought a Phantom or Bentley like some of those African and Asian leaders,it's just a very sensible choice when all things are considered and so would've a 7 series etc.,it's so sensible that you come here talking about it's the exclusive fare of monarchs,dictators and World leaders,great value for money when a readily available executive saloon can make people say that.
Great choice!
drchaos wrote:VII wrote:drchaos wrote:De Dragon wrote:shogun wrote:Numb3r4 wrote:I guess he is entitled to it. From what I gather from what was put out to the media the changing of the car is a routine function, and given the tax breaks that the office gets it makes it a viable financial choice. If the acquisition is within specification and above board amd does not brech existing policy that no problem from that stand point.
The issue has more to do with the office and the government stating time and time again that we are in financial crisis that we are in dire straits, or giving the impression that we are in such a state and at the same time asking for austerity when it is clearly not prepared to be austere themselves.
Well, unless it can be argued that it was more prudent to have a new vehicle than continuously service a 5+ year old vehicle that was already reportedly breaking down?
Yes because close to a million dollars is just a couple of services.If we were financially doing well, nobody begrudge the PM his vehicle, but when everywhere you turn, some Gov't official telling you to "eat cassava" "grow up", tighten yuh belt" then that's a different matter. Time and time again, instead of logically stating why an option may be financially prudent, we get vomit and stains and back pain
![]()
I still would begrudge the PM even if this country was doing well ... We are a tiny Island nation and the PM should not be driving around in the same vehicle that the German Chancellor gets moved around in. S classes are for Kings and King makers not for the egotistical leaders of some tiny Banana Republic nation. Governments role is for representing and working for the people and not for living a life of luxury of the backs of the people of this country.
Nonsense,it's not a Grosser or a Pullman or a Guard or even a stock 600 Maybach,it's a regular trim S-Class,it's not even armored and it should be in 2017! One machine gun could reek havoc in our country,and yuh know it have plenty!!! And it's not Rowley's car,it's office of the PM's car,contractors profiting so much from our same tax payer's money that they can buy fleets of even more expensive cars than an S-Class,why don't they reduce their margins a bit,that would surely help a lot more than the savings on an S-Class as opposed to another car,save us one Bentley money a year at least nah? Oh god man,let the office have a stately car nah,oh god man it would be the PM's primary car for the next 10 years,whoever the PM is!!...Geeez..
I bet you anything that our foreign embassies have had similar over the last few years,ya'll acting like they bought a Phantom or Bentley like some of those African and Asian leaders,it's just a very sensible choice when all things are considered and so would've a 7 series etc.,it's so sensible that you come here talking about it's the exclusive fare of monarchs,dictators and World leaders,great value for money when a readily available executive saloon can make people say that.
Great choice!
No wonder the country is the state it is in ... The successive governments have failed in their mandate ensure a safe society for its citizens to exist in, failed to diversify the economy and spread the wealth, failed to deliver a safe and cost effective healthcare system, failed to provide a world class education system that does no leave behind thousands every year.
Yet they have passed the test in providing themselves with life of luxury and people in T&T like you applaud that.
Statesman like doh mean rolling around in a benz ... True statesmen/women are people like Jose Mujica from Uruguay, Joyce Banda in Malawi (who actually sold the the fleet of Merc's allocated to the government when she got into power).
drchaos wrote:All you seem to be harping on about in how much the PP thief (and using that to justify your Massa Rowley rolling around in a car that is a cool mill after the tax exemption) ... Like you eh get the memo ... Who you think currently in government and thiefing now?
Is it too much to ask ..... to spit in any direction in T&T and not hit a red and ready to dead supporter who was most likely dropped on his head as a child?
Phone Surgeon wrote:love him or hate him, the prime minister has to have a good vehicle.
its not like its his personal vehicle, if/when he lose next election, someone else will enjoy it.
K74T wrote:Man needed a new ride, can't be moving in that puke down, broken down Crown.
Phone Surgeon wrote:when you become prime minister then you can tell them thats the vehicle you want
if it was up to me, i making them buy 3 of these
red,white and black
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 135 guests