Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
eliteauto wrote:De Dragon wrote:eliteauto wrote:wtf wrote:Honestly though what are the requirements to be a parliamentary clerk?
It can't be high because it looks like a boring dead end job only a loser will take.
The Clerk of the House aka the powder neck red member has a BSc is Public Admin and Law from UWI Cave Hill, an LEC from Hugh Wooding and an LLB from the University of London. Hope that helps
Qualifications mean you're somehow above reproach?
Where did he ask anything about reproach? Is red powder neck from the baliser brothel "reproach"?
Eliteauto you know very well that those positions are filled form bailiser brotheleliteauto wrote:De Dragon wrote:eliteauto wrote:wtf wrote:Honestly though what are the requirements to be a parliamentary clerk?
It can't be high because it looks like a boring dead end job only a loser will take.
The Clerk of the House aka the powder neck red member has a BSc is Public Admin and Law from UWI Cave Hill, an LEC from Hugh Wooding and an LLB from the University of London. Hope that helps
Qualifications mean you're somehow above reproach?
Where did he ask anything about reproach? Is red powder neck from the baliser brothel "reproach"?
All that qualifications and she end up with a dead end job like that?eliteauto wrote:wtf wrote:Honestly though what are the requirements to be a parliamentary clerk?
It can't be high because it looks like a boring dead end job only a loser will take.
The Clerk of the House aka the powder neck red member has a BSc is Public Admin and Law from UWI Cave Hill, an LEC from Hugh Wooding and an LLB from the University of London. Hope that helps
wtf wrote:All that qualifications and she end up with a dead end job like that?eliteauto wrote:wtf wrote:Honestly though what are the requirements to be a parliamentary clerk?
It can't be high because it looks like a boring dead end job only a loser will take.
The Clerk of the House aka the powder neck red member has a BSc is Public Admin and Law from UWI Cave Hill, an LEC from Hugh Wooding and an LLB from the University of London. Hope that helps
What are your sources of information?
Are you making this up?
It's not really a dead end job, they just use is as a stepping stone to a bigger jobs. Main fact is that they are red government agents and have to follow orders.wtf wrote:All that qualifications and she end up with a dead end job like that?eliteauto wrote:wtf wrote:Honestly though what are the requirements to be a parliamentary clerk?
It can't be high because it looks like a boring dead end job only a loser will take.
The Clerk of the House aka the powder neck red member has a BSc is Public Admin and Law from UWI Cave Hill, an LEC from Hugh Wooding and an LLB from the University of London. Hope that helps
What are your sources of information?
Are you making this up?
De Dragon wrote:Imagine a big fat facking fairy President admitting that there was interference in the selection process for a CoP by a LFD RFD PNM "high official".
Imagine a big fat facking fairy President admitting that she didn't do her constitutional DUTY and forward the Merit List.
Imagine a big fat facking fairy PM defending this sheit because he was allegedly involved,
Imagine a big fat fairy facking AG calling this a victory when a judge basically said he failed to craft proper legislation.
Imagine big fat fairy kants like Colos, j.o.e. etc, defending this sheit.
Imagine a big fat facking leech of a Speaker deciding unilaterally that an unprecedented motion in our history is not worthy of a debate.
Then understand why we are where we are.
MaxPower wrote:De Dragon wrote:Imagine a big fat facking fairy President admitting that there was interference in the selection process for a CoP by a LFD RFD PNM "high official".
Imagine a big fat facking fairy President admitting that she didn't do her constitutional DUTY and forward the Merit List.
Imagine a big fat facking fairy PM defending this sheit because he was allegedly involved,
Imagine a big fat fairy facking AG calling this a victory when a judge basically said he failed to craft proper legislation.
Imagine big fat fairy kants like Colos, j.o.e. etc, defending this sheit.
Imagine a big fat facking leech of a Speaker deciding unilaterally that an unprecedented motion in our history is not worthy of a debate.
Then understand why we are where we are.
X3000
U need to understand maxGladiator wrote:MaxPower wrote:De Dragon wrote:Imagine a big fat facking fairy President admitting that there was interference in the selection process for a CoP by a LFD RFD PNM "high official".
Imagine a big fat facking fairy President admitting that she didn't do her constitutional DUTY and forward the Merit List.
Imagine a big fat facking fairy PM defending this sheit because he was allegedly involved,
Imagine a big fat fairy facking AG calling this a victory when a judge basically said he failed to craft proper legislation.
Imagine big fat fairy kants like Colos, j.o.e. etc, defending this sheit.
Imagine a big fat facking leech of a Speaker deciding unilaterally that an unprecedented motion in our history is not worthy of a debate.
Then understand why we are where we are.
X3000
Yet you are the biggest PNM supporter...steupes
Redman wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Sigh!!!IMG_20211021_201054.jpgRedman wrote:The motion is based on whether the Prez did chit or not.
Not the actions of the PSC.....
That said if I were her I would have abstained...to prove the point,not like it was even close.
We have to accept that the vast majority of the electoral college did not think a tribunal was necessary.
The debate would have just been the unc trying the matter under parliamentary cover.Dizzy28 wrote:The Independent bench also includes the sister of a key party in this whole issue. Charisse sister or Bliss.
Its not unfeasible for her to canvass the remaining Independents who all are PMW appointees anyhows. This is Trinidad nothing less than ethical is not realisticVexXx Dogg wrote:ALL the independent senators sided voted no.
If the case had merit, don't ya think that at least one or two independents woulda swing a yes?
Seems like it was just a timewasting exercise under the guise of legitimacy?Asha Javeed on FB wrote:The motion is defeated.
24 members voted for the Motion, 47 voted against, no abstentions.
All govt voted no, all opposition voted yes, all independents voted no.
Dizzy28 wrote:Redman wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Sigh!!!IMG_20211021_201054.jpgRedman wrote:The motion is based on whether the Prez did chit or not.
Not the actions of the PSC.....
That said if I were her I would have abstained...to prove the point,not like it was even close.
We have to accept that the vast majority of the electoral college did not think a tribunal was necessary.
The debate would have just been the unc trying the matter under parliamentary cover.Dizzy28 wrote:The Independent bench also includes the sister of a key party in this whole issue. Charisse sister or Bliss.
Its not unfeasible for her to canvass the remaining Independents who all are PMW appointees anyhows. This is Trinidad nothing less than ethical is not realisticVexXx Dogg wrote:ALL the independent senators sided voted no.
If the case had merit, don't ya think that at least one or two independents woulda swing a yes?
Seems like it was just a timewasting exercise under the guise of legitimacy?Asha Javeed on FB wrote:The motion is defeated.
24 members voted for the Motion, 47 voted against, no abstentions.
All govt voted no, all opposition voted yes, all independents voted no.
Yes because guilty people always say they did what they are accused of.
Well I see that it's decided that she is guilty.
I don't know if she is or isn't.
Your attachment said the Prez did not deal with the meetings etc.
I'm saying that I think she did.
If you don't believe her statement...then it's incumbent on you to prove it a lie.
Presumption of innocence and all that stuff.
Redman wrote:So....it's a presumption of guilt cuz it's the Prez .
What is this allowable mech?
How is it allowable ?
It's either we following the constitution to the letter or we not.
So follow it wrt the PSC not being allowed to withdraw the letter...and impeach the Prez.
But use descretion where there is none to allow a debate to take place at a premature stage.?
There are gaps in the constitution to be filled.
It's simple , no debates means that all future no motion of confidence will have no debates.j.o.e wrote:UNC trying to be relevant and still taking those L’s.
I am no constitutional expert but based on all the arguments put forward why do UNC supporters think a debate was necessary or even allowed under the circumstances?
If the UNC was successful in the vote the president would be judged by a tribunal …… then what would be the benefit of a debate where anything could be said under parliamentary privilege during the debate ?
j.o.e wrote:UNC trying to be relevant and still taking those L’s.
I am no constitutional expert but based on all the arguments put forward why do UNC supporters think a debate was necessary or even allowed under the circumstances?
If the UNC was successful in the vote the president would be judged by a tribunal …… then what would be the benefit of a debate where anything could be said under parliamentary privilege during the debate ?
Dizzy28 wrote:
Well I see that it's decided that she is guilty.
I don't know if she is or isn't.
Your attachment said the Prez did not deal with the meetings etc.
I'm saying that I think she did.
If you don't believe her statement...then it's incumbent on you to prove it a lie.
Presumption of innocence and all that stuff.
Presumption of innocence usually is a premise that holds until some sort of trial is completed. It can't be that its the be all and end all.
48 persons yesterday decided that there should be no ventilation on this issue. The vote was actually on setting up the Tribunal which would have run with it. How do you prove a lie when the allowable mechanism is denied?
Redress ,Redress10 wrote:j.o.e wrote:UNC trying to be relevant and still taking those L’s.
I am no constitutional expert but based on all the arguments put forward why do UNC supporters think a debate was necessary or even allowed under the circumstances?
If the UNC was successful in the vote the president would be judged by a tribunal …… then what would be the benefit of a debate where anything could be said under parliamentary privilege during the debate ?
So that under parliamentary privilege they could say the most vile and disgusting things about the President of Trinidad and Tobago. Kamla and the UNC is just playing to what they think their supporters want to hear. Is all about baccanal now. Imagine you have Kamla SC a senior attorney acting as though she don't understand the constitution. Wade Mark asking the speaker of the house if the sittings being recorded by Hansard etc. Wade Mark was literally the former speaker of the house and asking these dumb questions.
VexXx Dogg wrote:Assuming that this defeat was an erosion on democracy, what is the next step to investigate the allegation?
Dizzy28 wrote:Redman wrote:So....it's a presumption of guilt cuz it's the Prez .
What is this allowable mech?
How is it allowable ?
It's either we following the constitution to the letter or we not.
So follow it wrt the PSC not being allowed to withdraw the letter...and impeach the Prez.
But use descretion where there is none to allow a debate to take place at a premature stage.?
There are gaps in the constitution to be filled.
But there are attorneys out there saying discretion is allowed -
"“Although Section 36 of the Constitution is silent on whether Thursday’s motion should be debated or not, there is a rule of statutory interpretation that says that where something arises by ‘necessary implication’ from the express words of a law, then that law—including the Constitution itself—must be interpreted as to contain that language, even if it is absent,” he said."
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... bbae4.html
https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/edi ... d86f6.html
But yes our Constitution is not the zenith and it definitely needs improving.
Well don't complain with the red government goes for a debate on a no motion of confidence for future dealings and gets turned downRedman wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Redman wrote:So....it's a presumption of guilt cuz it's the Prez .
What is this allowable mech?
How is it allowable ?
It's either we following the constitution to the letter or we not.
So follow it wrt the PSC not being allowed to withdraw the letter...and impeach the Prez.
But use descretion where there is none to allow a debate to take place at a premature stage.?
There are gaps in the constitution to be filled.
But there are attorneys out there saying discretion is allowed -
"“Although Section 36 of the Constitution is silent on whether Thursday’s motion should be debated or not, there is a rule of statutory interpretation that says that where something arises by ‘necessary implication’ from the express words of a law, then that law—including the Constitution itself—must be interpreted as to contain that language, even if it is absent,” he said."
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... bbae4.html
https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/edi ... d86f6.html
But yes our Constitution is not the zenith and it definitely needs improving.
2 lawyers 27 opinions.
If discretion is allowed under the part of the constitution to impeach the Prez...Section 36.....as Emir said.
What is allowed under the part of the constitution that governs the Merit List?
Is the discretion that one side wants for the Speaker to allow a debate the same discretion that enables the Prez to send back the recalled list?
zoom rader wrote:Well don't complain with the red government goes for a debate on a no motion of confidence for future dealings and gets turned downRedman wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Redman wrote:So....it's a presumption of guilt cuz it's the Prez .
What is this allowable mech?
How is it allowable ?
It's either we following the constitution to the letter or we not.
So follow it wrt the PSC not being allowed to withdraw the letter...and impeach the Prez.
But use descretion where there is none to allow a debate to take place at a premature stage.?
There are gaps in the constitution to be filled.
But there are attorneys out there saying discretion is allowed -
"“Although Section 36 of the Constitution is silent on whether Thursday’s motion should be debated or not, there is a rule of statutory interpretation that says that where something arises by ‘necessary implication’ from the express words of a law, then that law—including the Constitution itself—must be interpreted as to contain that language, even if it is absent,” he said."
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... bbae4.html
https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/edi ... d86f6.html
But yes our Constitution is not the zenith and it definitely needs improving.
2 lawyers 27 opinions.
If discretion is allowed under the part of the constitution to impeach the Prez...Section 36.....as Emir said.
What is allowed under the part of the constitution that governs the Merit List?
Is the discretion that one side wants for the Speaker to allow a debate the same discretion that enables the Prez to send back the recalled list?
Redman wrote:zoom rader wrote:Well don't complain with the red government goes for a debate on a no motion of confidence for future dealings and gets turned downRedman wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Redman wrote:So....it's a presumption of guilt cuz it's the Prez .
What is this allowable mech?
How is it allowable ?
It's either we following the constitution to the letter or we not.
So follow it wrt the PSC not being allowed to withdraw the letter...and impeach the Prez.
But use descretion where there is none to allow a debate to take place at a premature stage.?
There are gaps in the constitution to be filled.
But there are attorneys out there saying discretion is allowed -
"“Although Section 36 of the Constitution is silent on whether Thursday’s motion should be debated or not, there is a rule of statutory interpretation that says that where something arises by ‘necessary implication’ from the express words of a law, then that law—including the Constitution itself—must be interpreted as to contain that language, even if it is absent,” he said."
https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... bbae4.html
https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/edi ... d86f6.html
But yes our Constitution is not the zenith and it definitely needs improving.
2 lawyers 27 opinions.
If discretion is allowed under the part of the constitution to impeach the Prez...Section 36.....as Emir said.
What is allowed under the part of the constitution that governs the Merit List?
Is the discretion that one side wants for the Speaker to allow a debate the same discretion that enables the Prez to send back the recalled list?
You keep repeating this...despite it being a lie.
zoom rader wrote:It's simple , no debates means that all future no motion of confidence will have no debates.j.o.e wrote:UNC trying to be relevant and still taking those L’s.
I am no constitutional expert but based on all the arguments put forward why do UNC supporters think a debate was necessary or even allowed under the circumstances?
If the UNC was successful in the vote the president would be judged by a tribunal …… then what would be the benefit of a debate where anything could be said under parliamentary privilege during the debate ?
So when the red government tries for such a debate they will be turned down. Then you all jump and say no democracy and the ruling government bad.
You a little slow so more points for you on the jackarse list
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Habit7, VexXx Dogg and 206 guests