TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Habit7 wrote:UML wrote:havent been following and contributing to this thread much because i know it is all about hype
but things a neutral person should consider are
-there are no indian trade union leaders...all trade unions doing the work of the PNM
So all Indians are UNC all black ppl are PNM? Is this not the same union leaders that were part of the gov't earlier this year and defended the PM during the Vote of No Confidence?
- dont forget former AG John Jeremie and his numerous scandals and his deal-making with former chief magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls
So? The PP tactic of regurgitating wrongs in the past to by contrast reduce their wrong is lame and becoming very tiring.
Ramlogan's behaviour is unprecedented, Jeremie making deals with CM is anecdotal at best.
- No lawyers or law association calling for the AGs removal/vote of no confidence as what happened with John Jeremie
Yes Al-Rawi, McDonald, Robinson-Regis etc.
- John Jeremie was never removed....the PNM did what they wanted
Removed for what exactly? and even if he wasn't, does that exclude the PM from doing the right thing?
rfari wrote:So what u saying is that issa racist thing and not because there is good reason?
UML wrote:there are no indian trade union leaders
aspsounds wrote:Whats the big deal....I still dont understand how bodi price is affected by Section 34..
UML wrote:Habit7 wrote:UML wrote:havent been following and contributing to this thread much because i know it is all about hype
but things a neutral person should consider are
-there are no indian trade union leaders...all trade unions doing the work of the PNM
So all Indians are UNC all black ppl are PNM? Is this not the same union leaders that were part of the gov't earlier this year and defended the PM during the Vote of No Confidence?
- dont forget former AG John Jeremie and his numerous scandals and his deal-making with former chief magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls
So? The PP tactic of regurgitating wrongs in the past to by contrast reduce their wrong is lame and becoming very tiring.
Ramlogan's behaviour is unprecedented, Jeremie making deals with CM is anecdotal at best.
- No lawyers or law association calling for the AGs removal/vote of no confidence as what happened with John Jeremie
Yes Al-Rawi, McDonald, Robinson-Regis etc.
- John Jeremie was never removed....the PNM did what they wanted
Removed for what exactly? and even if he wasn't, does that exclude the PM from doing the right thing?rfari wrote:So what u saying is that issa racist thing and not because there is good reason?
nevermind
Habit7 wrote:1.Why was Section 34 proclaimed early?
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar is a strong, caring, brilliant leader.
pyung99 wrote:lets face it, this govt hasn't gotten accustomed to being in power, nor do they seem to be taking it for granted. so when they are questioned, they must remind the voters just how poor d other alternative is/was. they cant do like pnm of d past and simply deflect criticism.
i was going to say pnm atm seems like a strong opposition that keepin d govt on dey toes.
but then i saw d clip at d rally today showing dem losers voting for section 34. making it "good law"
is one setta kantin kants on both sides though.
let rowley try to organize a march somewhere south of d litehouse and lewe how d support looks.
Habit7 wrote:UML wrote:there are no indian trade union leaders
Dr Shehenaz Mohammed - president of MPATT
MPATT not part of 'oust AG' move
By Anna Ramdass anna.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Sep 30, 2012 at 11:58 PM ECT
Story Updated: Sep 30, 2012 at 11:58 PM ECT
THE Medical Practitioners Association of Trinidad and Tobago (MPATT) has distanced itself from the PNM Opposition and labour movement's declaration of cooperation to oust Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and National Security Minister Jack Warner from office.
Last Friday, MPATT president Dr Shehenaz Mohammed attended a meeting at the Normandie Hotel, St Ann's, where the People's National Movement, the Movement for Social Justice (MSJ) and various labour and civil organisations were present to discuss the Section 34 fiasco.
In a statement to the press yesterday, Mohammed explained that MPATT was invited as a member of the Joint Trade Union Movement (JTUM) and attended "in good faith, in the interest of the wider national concern and, most importantly, to listen and understand, on behalf of its membership, the views of all concerned, so as to avoid an uneducated conclusion".
MPATT, stated Mohammed, joins JTUM and its member unions in their concern for the events leading to and following the early proclamation of Section 34.
"We note, though, that there was unanimous support in the Parliament for the bill so there must be validity and merit to it," she added.
The Parliament, stated Mohammed, failed in its course of duty.
"Indeed, after listening to all concerned, it is our respectful view that this event has been a serious indictment on our Parliament and can be likened to what we term in the medical profession as 'systemic failure'," stated Mohammed.
MPATT, she stated further, pointed out at the meeting that when a system fails, changing personalities does not fix it.
"It is the system that needs reviewing and our attention should be focused on improving the system," stated Mohammed.
Mohammed also noted the statement issued by acting President Timothy Hamel Smith last Friday which took note of the Parliament's failure in allowing Section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act to slip through.
"MPATT would further like to commend the acting President's exemplary admission of personal failure and acceptance of responsibility as the President of the Senate. We welcome his proposals for reform and hope that it will be given due consideration," stated Mohammed.
"Accordingly, MPATT disassociates itself from the declaration of cooperation," the release concluded.
Section 34 gave UNC financiers Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Ferguson and others a legal avenue to apply to a judge for their freedom once ten years have passed since the date of charge and once a trial has not yet started.
The Parliament moved swiftly to repeal the controversial section.
Also, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar fired Justice Minister Herbert Volney, whom she cast the blame on for Section 34's early proclamation and whom she said misled the Cabinet when he said the Director of Public Prosecutions and Chief Justice were consulted on the issue.
However, the Opposition and other groups remain unsatisfied with the Prime Minister's action and have called for Ramlogan to be removed from office.
At the People's Partnership pre-budget rally on Saturday, Ramlogan asserted that he was not stepping down and received full support from all his colleagues who spoke on the platform.
On October 26, the Parliament will debate Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley's motion of censure against the Attorney General.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/MPA ... 30511.html
pyung99 wrote:^^it was even possible to proclaim because everyone in the parliament supported it. a vigilant opposition (or one that didn't care to benefit from it) would have voted against it due to its incompleteness.
imagine if rowley et al voted against it, yet it was still proclaimed (early). imagine how great pnm would have looked all now.
for now it goes by as a mistake of d entire parliament
UML wrote:Habit7 wrote:UML wrote:there are no indian trade union leaders
Dr Shehenaz Mohammed - president of MPATThttp://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/MPATT_not_part_of__oust_AG__move-172030511.html
pyung99 wrote:^^it was even possible to proclaim because everyone in the parliament supported it. a vigilant opposition (or one that didn't care to benefit from it) would have voted against it due to its incompleteness.
imagine if rowley et al voted against it, yet it was still proclaimed (early). imagine how great pnm would have looked all now.
for now it goes by as a mistake of d entire parliament
pyung99 wrote:pnm is failure ting man. in a country where leadership on a whole is failure ting, they even hah d likes of manning troll slapping them.
kantness rite tru.
i find d propaganda engines eh even askin for a list of people that applied. dat reeks of kantness too.
rfari wrote:pyung99 wrote:^^it was even possible to proclaim because everyone in the parliament supported it. a vigilant opposition (or one that didn't care to benefit from it) would have voted against it due to its incompleteness.
imagine if rowley et al voted against it, yet it was still proclaimed (early). imagine how great pnm would have looked all now.
for now it goes by as a mistake of d entire parliament
You do know that section 34 is just a small part of the much bigger part, the administration of justice act. Taken as a whole, the act would have possibly served noble intentions but the pp government took out and sent section 1, section 2, section 3(1), section 4, section 5 and section 32 to the president for assent as well as section 34. These other sections are just fluff compared to section 34. And this cut and paste was done between the act getting the requisite majority in parliament and the president signing off on it. So that means all responsibility rests with the government for this one. We on the same page now?
rfari wrote:pyung99 wrote:pnm is failure ting man. in a country where leadership on a whole is failure ting, they even hah d likes of manning troll slapping them.
kantness rite tru.
i find d propaganda engines eh even askin for a list of people that applied. dat reeks of kantness too.
I agree with most of what you're saying. Manning is a sick man so I'll excuse his rambling.
IMO pmn has failed to bring pertinent issues wrt this fiasco to the public. And many esteemed minds are not vocal about it.
For instance, how is it possible for the justice minister to send the act to the president all by himself without the permission of the ag and the pm???? How is thus possible?
De Dragon wrote:rfari wrote:pyung99 wrote:^^it was even possible to proclaim because everyone in the parliament supported it. a vigilant opposition (or one that didn't care to benefit from it) would have voted against it due to its incompleteness.
imagine if rowley et al voted against it, yet it was still proclaimed (early). imagine how great pnm would have looked all now.
for now it goes by as a mistake of d entire parliament
You do know that section 34 is just a small part of the much bigger part, the administration of justice act. Taken as a whole, the act would have possibly served noble intentions but the pp government took out and sent section 1, section 2, section 3(1), section 4, section 5 and section 32 to the president for assent as well as section 34. These other sections are just fluff compared to section 34. And this cut and paste was done between the act getting the requisite majority in parliament and the president signing off on it. So that means all responsibility rests with the government for this one. We on the same page now?
Still a failure on PNM's part. Had it been proclaimed in January 2013, what would they have said then? That's like giving someone a gun, saying well don't bust a cap in anybody arse until you get some training. They agreed to its proclaimation in principle, but its proclaimed in September,albeit in cloudy circumstances, and now all of a sudden it is like the biggest thing ever? Rowley has yet to apologize for his part in the fiasco, and sadly he lacks the charisma to make it more of an issue.
pyung99 wrote:rfari wrote:pyung99 wrote:pnm is failure ting man. in a country where leadership on a whole is failure ting, they even hah d likes of manning troll slapping them.
kantness rite tru.
i find d propaganda engines eh even askin for a list of people that applied. dat reeks of kantness too.
I agree with most of what you're saying. Manning is a sick man so I'll excuse his rambling.
IMO pmn has failed to bring pertinent issues wrt this fiasco to the public. And many esteemed minds are not vocal about it.
For instance, how is it possible for the justice minister to send the act to the president all by himself without the permission of the ag and the pm???? How is thus possible?
failure ting rite tru to d president. d president is shown to be just an air head that signs any faqqin thing in front of him. imagine wah else he do willynilly.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: tool-band and 40 guests
