TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Dizzy28 wrote:Haven't read the bill yet to see what is the UNC s issue. Anybody know what is their precise problem?
hydroep wrote:Both Kamla and Faris Gump were on i95.5 this morning, both accusing each other of "lying'. However only she challenged the media to go back to Parliament's records to verify "who support and didn't support" what.
The media should follow up on that...it would certainly clear up the misinformation currently being bandied about...
sMASH wrote:Bill will create a police state, with corruption and inept police at them, and hire to dole out their law as paid
Redman wrote:Zoom..uh how does the Sedition clause in the act empower the govt any further than the Sedition Act that is in force since 1919.
Serious question...please provide data...
Thx
zoom rader wrote:Redman wrote:Zoom..uh how does the Sedition clause in the act empower the govt any further than the Sedition Act that is in force since 1919.
Serious question...please provide data...
Thx
From what I read is First Schedule of the Anti-Gang legislation lists sedition as an offence under which gangs can be detained. “Sedition” is defined in the Sedition Act Chapter 11:04,
Under the proposed Anti-Gang legislation, it is feasible that if more than two persons call for the removal of this Government or bad talk they can be arrested by a police officer and detained initially for up to 72 hours. Which gang going to bad talk the PNM. Gangs are about making money
If on a public platform or elsewhere, speakers identify the plethora of negative occurrences taking place in our country and call for this Government to step down, it is very possible that they can be detained for sedition. This is why it is dangerous .
This law is not for gangs it is for people that oppose or who expose the PNM for its misdeeds.
Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
Like how the Facebook chupidee who spoke out of timing against Scarfy was protected?
The problem is the avenue is open to abuse once you leave it up to political control.
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
Like how the Facebook chupidee who spoke out of timing against Scarfy was protected?
The problem is the avenue is open to abuse once you leave it up to political control.
Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
Like how the Facebook chupidee who spoke out of timing against Scarfy was protected?
The problem is the avenue is open to abuse once you leave it up to political control.
How does this supersede the DEFINITION in the said Act that has been in place untouched and under the same control since inception.
sMASH wrote:Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
without warrant. u give those powers to police, to wield without warrant. oh our police can most definitely construe any thing in their 3cxc minds. they use the laws conveniently and flagrantly... hence, speeding on the highways, using sirens to burst through traffic without an impending emergency, tint have no predetermined numerical value and no meter to determine such, so its according to their discretion as the sun is bright or u give them talks, or they padnah say to give them a hard time.
when they take u in and hold u, what going to happen to ur business, family, reputation for that detention time? they can hold u until u are released. then do it again. while they determine if ur 'sedition' is 'lawful' or 'unlawful' u still sit down in jail.
inshan fed up get taken into custody by what looked like kidnaping, and then released.
that shows that the police are wicked.
now imagine if u will, some high rollers want to get ur business place or u land, and u holding out. they could easily pass some change to a badge, and have them make ur life a living hell.... cause they dont need a warrant to act anymore, just to declare the words 'this guy acted unlawfully' and the can take u in.
zoom rader wrote:sMASH wrote:Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
without warrant. u give those powers to police, to wield without warrant. oh our police can most definitely construe any thing in their 3cxc minds. they use the laws conveniently and flagrantly... hence, speeding on the highways, using sirens to burst through traffic without an impending emergency, tint have no predetermined numerical value and no meter to determine such, so its according to their discretion as the sun is bright or u give them talks, or they padnah say to give them a hard time.
when they take u in and hold u, what going to happen to ur business, family, reputation for that detention time? they can hold u until u are released. then do it again. while they determine if ur 'sedition' is 'lawful' or 'unlawful' u still sit down in jail.
inshan fed up get taken into custody by what looked like kidnaping, and then released.
that shows that the police are wicked.
now imagine if u will, some high rollers want to get ur business place or u land, and u holding out. they could easily pass some change to a badge, and have them make ur life a living hell.... cause they dont need a warrant to act anymore, just to declare the words 'this guy acted unlawfully' and the can take u in.
You see PNM ppl don't understand these implications as they are fine print.
This PNM bill is very dangerous and it has nothing to do with gangs. It is intended for those that oppose the PNM.
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
Like how the Facebook chupidee who spoke out of timing against Scarfy was protected?
The problem is the avenue is open to abuse once you leave it up to political control.
How does this supersede the DEFINITION in the said Act that has been in place untouched and under the same control since inception.
Maybe a law on the statute books since 1919 has a lot less relevance now? Isn't buggery against the law? Yes we don't arrest people for it, but if some TTPS flunky chooses to use it to arrest someone after being directed by someone, then it is fair game. I'm not against the provisions per se, but when any Government specifies "without a warrant," that always raises suspicions.
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
Like how the Facebook chupidee who spoke out of timing against Scarfy was protected?
The problem is the avenue is open to abuse once you leave it up to political control.
How does this supersede the DEFINITION in the said Act that has been in place untouched and under the same control since inception.
Maybe a law on the statute books since 1919 has a lot less relevance now? Isn't buggery against the law? Yes we don't arrest people for it, but if some TTPS flunky chooses to use it to arrest someone after being directed by someone, then it is fair game. I'm not against the provisions per se, but when any Government specifies "without a warrant," that always raises suspicions.
So you saying that the law is less relevant cuz its old.
carry on.
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
Like how the Facebook chupidee who spoke out of timing against Scarfy was protected?
The problem is the avenue is open to abuse once you leave it up to political control.
How does this supersede the DEFINITION in the said Act that has been in place untouched and under the same control since inception.
Maybe a law on the statute books since 1919 has a lot less relevance now? Isn't buggery against the law? Yes we don't arrest people for it, but if some TTPS flunky chooses to use it to arrest someone after being directed by someone, then it is fair game. I'm not against the provisions per se, but when any Government specifies "without a warrant," that always raises suspicions.
So you saying that the law is less relevant cuz its old.
carry on.
From what I read is First Schedule of the Anti-Gang legislation lists sedition as an offence under which gangs can be detained. “Sedition” is defined in the Sedition Act Chapter 11:04,
Under the proposed Anti-Gang legislation, it is feasible that if more than two persons call for the removal of this Government or bad talk they can be arrested by a police officer and detained initially for up to 72 hours. Which gang going to bad talk the PNM. Gangs are about making money
But an act, speech, statement or publication is not seditious by reason only that it intends to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in its measures, or to point out errors
or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law
established, with a view to their reformation, or to excite persons
to attempt by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the
State by law established
Redman wrote:From what I read is First Schedule of the Anti-Gang legislation lists sedition as an offence under which gangs can be detained. “Sedition” is defined in the Sedition Act Chapter 11:04,
Under the proposed Anti-Gang legislation, it is feasible that if more than two persons call for the removal of this Government or bad talk they can be arrested by a police officer and detained initially for up to 72 hours. Which gang going to bad talk the PNM. Gangs are about making money
You said the above.
http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/laws2/al ... /11.04.pdf
The act (as amended up to 1976) in the definition of SEDITION expressly limits the definition as below...But an act, speech, statement or publication is not seditious by reason only that it intends to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in its measures, or to point out errors
or defects in the Government or Constitution as by law
established, with a view to their reformation, or to excite persons
to attempt by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the
State by law established
you sounding like an over paid blogger.
or a self appointed Senior Counsel
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:But the Sedition act defines Sedition as NON lawful means.
Therefore a political platform promoting removing a government in a lawful election....cannot be construed as unlawful.
Asking a govt to step down....also legal.
Quite pointedly the Sedition Act protects your right to say the govt doing sheit and that it should step down or leave or call election.
Like how the Facebook chupidee who spoke out of timing against Scarfy was protected?
The problem is the avenue is open to abuse once you leave it up to political control.
How does this supersede the DEFINITION in the said Act that has been in place untouched and under the same control since inception.
Maybe a law on the statute books since 1919 has a lot less relevance now? Isn't buggery against the law? Yes we don't arrest people for it, but if some TTPS flunky chooses to use it to arrest someone after being directed by someone, then it is fair game. I'm not against the provisions per se, but when any Government specifies "without a warrant," that always raises suspicions.
So you saying that the law is less relevant cuz its old.
carry on.
Maybe is not "saying," it is suggesting that that law might have been perfectly fine for almost 100 years ago
Also, if it is still ok, why suddenly insert a without warrant clause? Politicians of any hue, cannot be trusted with something like this, better for it to pass through a court, where it may be viewed with more objectivity.
Redman wrote:Again this is specifically wrt ZRs assertion that they will lock up people for bad talking.
That is a LIE.
The sedition clause ...Clause 18 is the same clause as in the 2011 act.
It wasnt a problem then-but now it is.
guardian wrote:PNM seeks legal action against radio station
Geisha Kowlessar
Published:
Saturday, February 8, 2014
The People’s National Movement (PNM) is seeking legal action for what it described as “defamatory statements” made by the state-owned Talk City 91.1 radio station during one of its morning programmes on Thursday. At a press conference yesterday, at Balisier House on Tranquillity Street, Port-of-Spain, the party’s general secretary Ashton Ford claimed PNM leader Dr Keith Rowley was “subjected to outrageous slander” by the station.
He said on the programme reference was made to the party’s 58 anniversary celebrations which took place on January 26 at the San Fernando City Hall auditorium at Harris Promenade, in San Fernando. Ford accused the presenters of saying an invitation was never sent to former PNM leader and prime minister Patrick Manning.
Charging that it was not the first time that misinformation had been peddled on the station, Ford said, “They are saying on radio to the nation that Dr Rowley was not speaking the truth when he said Mr Manning was invited to the function.” As evidence to the contrary, Ford distributed copies of a letter inviting Manning to the function. He said the letter was collected at Balisier House by the vice-chairman of the San Fernando East constituency, Kennedy Flemming.
“When they get on the radio station to say that Mr Manning did not receive the invitation, that is not true,” Ford added. He said the party had already contacted its attorneys and was moving full speed ahead to deal with the issue.
“This campaign of hate against Dr Rowley has started since last year September and we have had discussions with our attorneys on this matter and we propose to write the Telecommunications Authority to get the recordings of the programmes from since September last year and to deal with this and to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. “Some of the members of the party have been subjected to brutal and unwarranted attacks from the presenters of this morning programme,” Ford said.
He also questioned why the Government was wasting state resources, as there were more pressing issues to be urgently addressed. Government, Ford added, must say whether it was the policy of Cabinet to use taxpayers’ money to carry out “their political agenda against the PNM” and Rowley in particular. Ford said CNMG’s CEO Ken Ali had his own political agenda. Asked whether Manning did in fact receive the letter, Ford said he personally had a telephone conversation with Manning, who confirmed he did.
He said it was “interesting to note” that Wesley Gibbings, founding president of the Association of Caribbean Media Workers, was also employed by the state-owned Caribbean New Media Group (CNMG), which owns the radio station. In response Gibbings said he was a freelance journalist and therefore worked for numerous media entities, including private and state-owned media houses.
“In all my 37 years as a media practitioner I have never heard this,” he responded in an interview yesterday. “I also write for the T&T Guardian and I do training for several stations. “I am part of a panel on 91.1 and that is something I do occasionally. I have also done work spanning different political administrations.”
CNMG responds
CNMG CEO Ken Ali said Ford’s allegations were “wild and unfounded.” He said statements about Manning’s non-attendance at the PNM’s celebration were made by a guest on a morning talk show. “A timely explanation by the PNM would have been appropriate. Talk City 91.1 FM has been focusing heavily on the forthcoming PNM leadership polls and many listeners have been questioning Dr Rowley’s stewardship of the party.
“I don’t know whether that is what prompted Mr Ford, as a disciple of Dr Rowley, to utter unsubstantiated and reckless allegations against the national broadcaster,” Ali said. He said Ford’s personal attack on him was unfortunate and regrettable. “He may want to reflect on his own brief tenure as a junior journalist and on the role being played in national politics by his family-owned newspaper. “Senseless attacks would not deter CNMG from ventilating the views of as wide a cross-section of the national community as possible.”
guardian wrote:Political controversy
Rhonda Krystal Rambally
Published:
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Flashback: April 2009—Prime Minister Patrick Manning, right, speaks to Udecott chairman Calder Hart at the official opening of the Port-of-Spain International Waterfront Centre.
Former prime minister and political leader of the People’s National Movement (PNM) Patrick Manning served 44 years of uninterrupted political life.
Vision 2020—which was formed while the political party was in Opposition—was the brainchild of Manning. It was under his leadership that the University of T&T, Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses (Gate), Chronic Disease Assistance Programme (CDAP), the International Waterfront Complex and the Government Campus Plaza were created.
In 2014 he was honoured with this country’s highest award—The Order of the Republic of T&T, but declined saying he did not want to accept awards while an MP. While Manning made significant strides locally, regionally and internationally to develop T&T’s economy, landscape and foreign ties, he was also dogged by many controversies during his political career.
The Sunday Guardian revisits some controversies in which Manning had been embroiled. One that stood out is allegations of corruption involving former executive chairman of the Urban Development Corporation of T&T (Udecott) Calder Hart. Hart was considered Manning’s “blue-eyed boy.”
It was the allegation of $820 million in contracts awarded to a company linked to Hart’s relatives that many felt led to the defeat of the PNM in the May 2010 general election.
Hart resigned in March 2010 when documents surfaced linking him to Sunway Construction Caribbean Ltd—a Malaysian firm that once listed his in-laws as directors.
The firm worked on Udecott’s $820 million Ministry of Legal Affairs Towers, which was part of the Government Campus Plaza. Only last week, a portion of the building was opened by Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley to be used by the Ministry of Education.
Almost 20 years ago, Manning called a state of emergency after he placed then House Speaker Occah Seepaul under house arrest.
From August 5-8, 1995, Seepaul was under house arrest by the Manning adminstration for allegedly attempting to usurp his Government’s authority in the Parliament.
In 2004, the former PM, at a post-Cabinet news briefing spoke of the importance of an executive jet.
He said as T&T moved into developed country status, and began to exert greater influence in the region, the Caribbean and western hemisphere, there would be a need for more travel by the political directorate of the country. Two years later, he and his wife, Hazel enjoyed a joyride on a Bombardier jet. The purchase never happened.
Once more at the centre of attention, Manning referred to himself as the “father of the nation” during a political speech, and subsequently received harsh criticism.
In 2010, after leading the PNM to defeat, party supporters booed and taunted Manning out of Balisier House.
Days later, he resigned as political leader saying via letter: “May I also indicate that if it is the party’s wish I am prepared to stay on as political leader until a new political leader is elected at which time it would be my pleasure to gracefully demit office.
He also accepted responsibility for the party’s loss at the polls.
Suspended from Parliament
In May 2011, Manning was found guilty by the Privileges Committee on contempt charges.
The charges against him stemmed from allegations he made about Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s house in Phillipine and its cost. But she refuted the allegations immediately after supplying proof. Manning was referred to the committee shortly after. Moonilal said Parliament’s nine-member Privileges Committee held ten meetings. He indicated Manning was often uncooperative and refused to attend. He said the committee found Manning guilty of contempt of Parliament on all three charges against him.
In November 2010, Manning questioned the source of her funding for “Kamla’s palace.”
He presented a large photograph to the Parliament of the residence.
Manning said: “This picture, Mr Speaker, is a photograph of a house under construction on the San Fernando, Siparia Erin Road just past Bryan’s Gate, Phillipine, and on the road to Debe on the right-hand side. It is a house owned by the Member for Siparia and the Prime Minister, the honourable Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar, and in San Fernando we call it “Kamla’s palace.”
Manning storms radio station
In October 2008, while at a barbershop in San Fernando, Manning heard radio announcers bash his policies and make displeasing comments. He hurriedly left the barbershop and stormed into 94.1 FM’s offices on Pembroke Street in Port-of-Spain. The announcers were subsequently suspended.
Manning received heavy criticism for his actions which were described by former prime minister Basdeo Panday as “absolutely out of line and overboard.”
Days after the incident, Manning said he had had enough of the media.
He then said, “If the spirit moves me,” he will not hesitate to visit media houses to complain if he disapproved of the content they produced.
Manning said: “I have taken a personal decision and that decision is that if ever I am aggrieved by anything the media do in the future, I am going to the courts.”
Rowley “raging bull”
and “wajang”
The relationship between Manning and current Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley over the years has been contentious. But it became even more strained around 2009 over Rowley’s allegations of corruption made in the Parliament regarding the operations of Udecott. It was in the Parliament that Manning likened Rowley to “a raging bull” whenever opposed and “a wajang.”
Manning said he had suffered 12 years of bullying silence from Rowley and that his government believed in freedom of speech.
“But the minute you oppose my good friend, he gets very, very angry. And if you oppose him strongly, he becomes a raging bull. And that is what it was, Mr Speaker. You don’t know the trouble I have seen. I have had to live with that for 12 years. I took it in silence...I didn’t complain to anybody,” Manning said.
Rowley was fired from the Cabinet in April of 2008. Manning made it clear he was fired as trade and industry minister because of his behaviour and not because of
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests
