I am writing this letter to respond to the letter you published on Antigua News Room on Friday 22nd May, 2020. Your letter was a response to an article by me captioned “Speaker Sir Gerald Watt was wrong” published in the Observer on 18th May, 2020.
Let me start by categorically stating that the Standing Orders of the Antigua and Barbuda Parliament are the Rules that regulate parliamentary behavior and nothing else. Not Erskine May, not the Rules of the House of Commons in Ottawa, Canada and not the Rules of the Parliament in England. The Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda is given the power to make Rules to regulate its own procedure by section 57 (1) of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda. I hope with this postulate that you Sir Gerald Watt QC and I are on the same page as our starting premise. By the way, the name is Erskine May and not Erstine May as you have in your letter.
Sir Gerald you said that in my quote of Erskine May that I only quoted the first three lines of the text on personal explanations and left out most of the learning. Yes, I did. But quoting the entire text would not change the thrust of my argument. I will prove my point and like Sir Gerald will quote the entire text which is as follows:
“The House is usually indulgent with regard to personal statements, and will permit personal explanations to be made without any question being before the House, provided that the speaker has been informed of what the member proposes to say and has given leave. Because the practice of the House is not to permit such statements to be subject to debate, the precise contents of the propose statement are submitted in advance to the speaker to ensure that they are appropriate. The indulgence of a personal statement is granted with caution, since it may lead to irregular debates”.
Sir Gerald please keep in your mind the point that I established at the outset that the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda are what govern the behaviour of the Members of Parliament and nothng else. Yes, the learning of Erskine May can be referred to for guidance, but this is only done where our Standing Orders are unclear or silent on a particular issue. Now, here is where Sir Gerald has fallen into error in his regulation of the conduct of the House, by invoking at the same time in addressing an issue our Standing Orders and Erskine May. You can only apply one not both, and as I have said before the Standing Orders are our law as it were.
Now with respect to No. 20 of our Standing Orders which deals with Personal Explanations it states as follows:
“With the leave of the Speaker, a Member may make a personal explanation at the time appointed under Standing Order No. 13 (Order of Business) although there is no question before the House but no controversial matter may be brought forward nor any debate upon the explanation”.
First, for your information Sir Gerald, if you were fully conversant with Erskine May you would realize that while according to Erskine May a Member who a personal explanation is directed against (in the instant case the Prime Minister) would be allowed to respond to the Member who gave the personal explanation (in the instant case the Opposition Leader) and that would be the end of the debate. No other Member of the House would be able to respond.
Second, for your information Sir Gerald, unlike Erskine May our Standing Orders do not speak to the submission in advance to the Speaker of the contents of the personal explanation. This is required in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Dominica but that in ours. Once the Speaker in our Parliament is given an idea of what the personal explanation is about, he will then decide whether to grant leave for the personal explanation.
Third, for your information Sir Gerald, you said that our Standing Orders clearly forbids personal explanations “of a controversial nature, which may lead to debate”. Again, there cold not be any debate since our Standing Orders do not allow for such a debate. Now, to your obsession with the issue that the b y matter is of a controversial nature, and the justification being used by you to refuse to grant the personal explanation of the Leader of the Opposition. What was controversial about the matter ofcould the Prime Minister announcing to the nation that he invited the Leader of the Opposition to serve on his Econimic Recovery Committte by virtue of that office? The Leader of the Opposition declined the Prime Minister’s invitation and wished to explain to the nation why he declined and also to debunk the Prime Minster’s claim that he was constitutionally obligated to be invited, and that he was unpatriotic for not serving on the Committee. No law student could possibly conclude that this was a controversial matter. One Member of Parliament made a statement about another Mamber of Parliament, and that other Member wished to clear the air about the statement. What is controversial about that, and especially given the fact that there would be no debate.
Yes, Sir Gerald, you as the Speaker has the sole discretion as to whether to grant a personal explanation. However, I still maintain that the reasons you gave in Parliament to refuse the personal explanation were flawed.
Finally, I will give an example to show where you Speaker Sir Gerald has fallen and forever will fall into error once yuo continue to apply the Standing Orders and Erskine May at the same time. That will only lead to a legal potpourri or pepperpot and thus confusion. Here is the simple example which involves the way in which Members of Parliament should be referred. No 36 (4) of our Standing Orders syas that:
“Members shall be referred to by names of the constituencies for which they have been elected”.
Erskine May says that:
“In order to guard against all appearance of personality in debate, no Member should refer to another by name. Each Member must be distinguished by the Office he Holds, by the place he represents …….”
Now, Sir Gerald you have chided the former Speaker D. Giselle Issac for saying that Members of our Parliament should be referred to by their constituencies. You said that she is stuck in the past. Sir Gerald you are not stuck in the past but rather is stuck between 1844 (Erskine May) and 1967 (Our Standing Orders). The point is our Standing Orders are the law and it is pellucid. Members of Parliament should be referred by their constituencies.
Until our Standing Orders are changed, they remain the guide for parliamentary procedure. Erskine May is used as a touchstone or yardstick when our Standing Orders are unclear or silent on an issue. That is when we apply Erskine May Sir Gerald and not to apply both at the same time. I realize that you have been a Queens Council for upwards of 22 years, but I am sure you would agree with me that no human being is infallible or omniscient. We can all make mistakes. Please be guided Sir Gerald.
Charlesworth C. M. Tabor, B.A., M.Sc., LL.B (Hons) (Lon), L.E.C. (UWI)
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Melchisedec May 18, 2020 at 10:23 am
My take on this issue is as follows where the opposition is so limited the speaker should give that such minority as much latitude as is permissible. Such minority should not be limited by time to speak because he can speak until the cows comes home the Is will always have it.
1 Sir Gerald himself spoke about D Gisel Isaac on matters that was not before the house.
2 Minister of Education spoke at length about the Ebooks saga and that issue was not before the house.
3 Mr G Browne spoke at length about Observer Media Group that issue was not before the house.
4 Asot Michael spoke poetically about his near death experience that to was not before the house.
5 Sir Gerald himself spoke about the standing orders at length that issue was not before the house either.
Let the lone minority talk until he get white squall it will not affect nothing.
And the point missing in all your arguments is the issues were not confrontational/contentious. And Asot Michael cleared beforehand what he would discuss with the Speaker. You don’t just get up and speak about whatever it is you want. Had Jamal followed the House Rule and cleared beforehand what he wanted to speak about with the Speaker, he would have safe himself the embarrassment showing his ignorant of house rules.
ANR can we please have a photo of Mr. Tabor accompanying the letter since he is the author? Thank you.
Sir Gerald You explained the situation in a manner which most Persons can understand . Tabor and Pompey will use 5000 words to explain a SIMPLE situation and still leave you hanging. Thank you very much Sir Gerald.
(Re Tabor) Yeah its so convoluted an explanation that at the end of it its clear even the writer (Tabor) is lost
NO DISCUSSION WITHOUT POMPEY
Can there be ‘…No Discussion Without Pompey?
Rawlston Pompey takes no responsibility for any of man’s gravest enemies;
(ii) …Lack of comprehension;
(iii) …Idiocy; and
Leave ‘Pompey’ out of the ‘legal battle.’
Read, ‘SIR GERALD- WRONG LIKE HELL.’
You may learn something about the ‘Standing Orders’ that governs our Parliament.
Both attorneys are my friends.
Like your ADJECTIVES .Wondering Who the cap fits !!!!!
Yes Mr. Pompey. Friends tell each other when they are right or wrong truthfully without malice. But but of your friend can also be further distinguished in
One is learned the other is a dunce.
One is a QC the other is a wanabe
One has over 40 years of experience the other just come.
One can quote the law out of his head the other needs to look it up and try to understand it.
Experience in everything we do makes a hell of a difference.
In this instant, won’t be so darn graphic when writing about my friends.
Both are ‘…well learned legal scholars.’
One is concerned with existing ‘House Standing Orders,’ the other more concerned with ‘Thomas Erskine May’s ‘Practice and Procedure.’
In their arguments, both seemed ‘…Right Like Hell.’
Not going on any darn side, though.
Would look ‘one-sided.’ That would be like ‘Day and Night.
One darn side is ‘bright and the other ‘dark.’
Could never see the two at the same darn time.
Got to wait until one goes out.
Sir Gerald or Charlie T?
Tabor lets start off with an accepted definition of the word controversial:
means causing disagreement or discussion see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/controversial
Will you argue as done in your article against this definition? Webster and Colin’s agree with this meaning. Do you enjoy creating your own definition for words? Do you not get in so doing you make yourself, and others who fall for your ignorance, look foolish?
An area that surprised me was your now accepting that May requires advance acceptance by the speaker. In this letter you said:
“unlike Erskine May our Standing Orders do not speak to the submission in advance to the Speaker of the contents of the personal explanation. ”
Yet in the other long winded one, you used the same book to argue that Watt was wrong. You made clear, in your article dated the 18th, that based on May’s 1844 writing Watt was wrong. Today you now argue forget the book since Pringle would have to provide advanced notice. Its the 1967 standing order that should apply. Your new argument is that since Pringle would say nothing controversial, the standing order should apply. Do you not know you can’t have it both ways? We can conclude in the near future when you realize controversial’s real meaning, you will find some other reason to justify your wrong conclusion. Brethren the bible does not speak well of persons with forked tongues
In ending let me point out a minor thing: I see you correct Sir Gerald on a spelling error, then proceed to make your own errors eg “Again, there cold” that latter word should be “could”. yuo should be “you” Think you will agree we are all not perfect. Brethren your forked tongue issue will be added to my prayer list
I see that, you’ve being ordained, as a preacher! I hope no ‘sins’ will be floating about during your baptisms.
Question: When is the Parliament going to add, REDONDA to the official State documents?
Or, as being alleged, it(Redonda) has being sold to a private developer. Is this a fact? You’re in the know, so no ‘forked tongue’ gibberish as an explanation.
Ras Smood, any darn ‘…Sins floating about during baptism,’ Ten going straight under.
Might also pull the darn ‘baptizer’ under as well.
Ten is my friend. Wish him a good baptism.’
Not with fire, though.
That is for cremation.
Seems that ‘scattering’ is better than ‘burying.’
@Pompey, enjoying the “dueling” with words, of the legal minds.
As for our good friend Tenman, recently, he has being quoting many scriptures from the bible, so, I asking him, if he has being ordained as a Political Minister…( I, often wonder why the members of parliament, who controls the People, and members of the church who control people, as well called, ‘Ministers!’ As, the saying goes, birds of a feather, stick together.
As, for those ‘sins’ floating around, and weighing him down, and taking him under; if, I’m close by, I throw him a lifeline. Heck he might have to save me, when my sins are pulling me under too!
Yes Sah, I did four holes when accusing anyone, of ‘sinning!’
1…first one for me!
2…second for enemy or frenemy.
3…third for my Jumbee!
4…fourth for my Obeah Wukkah!
DIGGING 4 HOLES?
Na-a-ah, Ras Smood.
Too darn tiring.
Dig one darn big hole that could hold ‘ebry darn soul;
(i) …Sir Gerald;
(ii) …Charlie Tabor;
(iv) …Ras Smood; and
(v) …Me too.
Your ‘Jumbee’ is okay, but no darn ‘Obeah Wukkah.’
Might not make our ‘spirits’ rise.
One big hole, Nah! Nah! Nah!
I’m practicing Social Distancing even in the grave, it’s that New Norm Thing. Cross contamination, of ‘sins’ might confuse The Gate Keeper, who by the way is a Obeah Wukkah or Preacher.
They’re both the same, darn thing, as in being Ritualistic!
One, the Obeah Wukkah is demonized, whereby the other, the preacher is legalized!
Agree and they are taking too long to get cremation in place. Its my preferred method over burial. Find he latter wasteful, especially considering the place now have no space. Anyway heard recently the AG is working on making the necessary changes
There are two spies investigating a syndicate group. They wanted to enter into the syndicate’s hideout but there is a code before you can enter and if you failed to give the code then the guard will kill you. The both spies waited for someone to enter the hideout so that they will know the code. Afterwards a member of the syndicate enters the hideout, the guard said 6 then the member responded 3 and the member was allowed by the guard to pass. So the 1st spy said that I know the code and decided to enter. The guard said 12 and the 1st spy responded 6 then the guard permitted the 1st spy to pass through. The 2nd spy the follow the lead of the 1st spy, the guard said 10 and the 2nd spy responded 5 but the guard killed him.
Why did the guard killed him? What was wrong with the answer of the 2nd spy?
You see that is the story of Jamal Pringle in Parliament. He sees others getting up and make speeches. He even sees when the Hon. Asot Michael gets up and hold a long speech about his health. But he doesn’t understand how those guys get to do it. He lacks comprehension of house rules. Want to do what others are doing but has no clue how to go about doing it. Even Trevor Walker could gave taught him if he had gone to him for advise. You just cannot look what others are doing and think you can do it also. I learned that lesson a long time ago in class. I use to think it was discrimination. Until a classmate told me how to get about certain things. Be super nice to the teacher. Go tell him/her you are very sorry after class and if you must shed some tears do so. Crocodile tears as we use to say. Clean the blackboard for them take out the garbage bin. Sweep the class. First I was too proud to do these things. But when you saw that it works, I tell you, I use to kiss ass as they say in order for them not to give me a bad mark even when I deserved it. I will get a re-test for it. Lets see if Jamal feels he is Too Big to Apologize. Cause as far as I see it, you cannot get back in unless Queen Elizabeth come and make a plea for you
I have seen the speaker try to work with Pringle. He has often suggested ways for him to grow. I have seen him defend certain positions Pringle has taken eg issue with his office. Recall Watt pulling Benjamin over the coals. Seen Watt done similar to other ministers when he finds they are not following the rules. Not sure how persons think they can be successful by fighting the umpire. Its difficult to get one of Watt’s caliber and its clear he is doing it for love of country. Anyway this too shall pass. Suspect Pringle after all the noise will apologize.
For the sake of our country and our democracy I truly hope so.
It will take a strong will not to listen to his party goers, and follow his conscience.
And I’m 100% sure the PM has already intervene on his behalf with the speaker and spoken to him. It doesn’t profit the ABLP anything if they are sitting alone in Parliament passing laws. Better stop Parliament and just run the executive arm only. And I know we always speak of a clean sweep. But even then one has to become a back bencher and the GG has to appoint an independent Opposition I believe.
TENMAN I will not waste time to comment on your post since it does not and could not invalidate my arguments. Yes there are typos in my article since I responded in about 20 minutes to Sir Gerald’s letter. Yes we all make mistakes and please I do not have time for your trivia and minutia. Perhaps I will find out from my leader (as you put it) who you are so you can stop hiding behind a pseudonym and I will be able to put a face to your often illogical comments.
It’s not about wasting time. You just do not have proper and reasonable arguments. It is clear that Tabor didn’t follow any rules. Whether Erskine May or Standing order. You have to first give the Speaker advance notice of the issue you would like to speak on. He alone can than determine whether or not the issue is controversial and should be allowed to speak. Tabor failed in that simple house rules. You cannot ambush the House like that. I believe that was his plan he wanted to ambush the other side knowing it was not up for debate after he had spoken.
I mean you can remain in your ignorant but don’t try to draw other with you.
I mean Pringle didn’t follow the rules
TRIVIA ND MINUTIAE
See what you have brought upon yourself Ten?’
Know of one.
But what the hell of the other Charlie T?
Ten is a bright fellow.
What the hell is this word ‘Ten?’
@Pompey – Its really out of love for my wife since its short for my wife’s name Tennesia. Most persons call her ten and I am her man hence tenman
TEN AND NESIA
Best wishes to you both.
Why is this Tabor guy chatting so much. Is he somebody important, or just another wannabee. At first I wondered if he is running for office or something. I never heard of the guy. All I see is he seems to think he knows a lot about a lot of things. Maybe he does??? Maybe not!!!! He sure hits back when something that is written he doesn’t agree with. I can easily overlook his typos. Maybe he should slow down a little.
Not on the highway, ‘Kris.’
Dangerous; Could be a ‘pile-up.’
Very clearly articulated Tabor! The speaker was wrong!
@Pearl..Don’t expect any difference. My question to you having heard that interview you did recently is where were you when people were crying for the fees banks charge the very minute you set foot into their doors. Where was Pearl when the bank she worked for charged a man for cashing a cheque if he did not have an account there? Where was Pearl when the banks said if you don’t have a minimum of $500 on your account you have to pay $25. How is it all of ah sudden Pearl is now concerned about the plight of people and how they are being treated by the banks? Is it that Pearl was blinded because Pearl was earning an income from one of the very same institutions she is now seeing as villains? Is that Pearl could not have dare bite the hand that fed but now she is on the said there is that pretentious notion of caring for the average man or that oyster was closely shut and coincidentally we are now seeing the emergence of that Pearl.
@Just saying…….Love your comments. I read Pearl’s comments and then scrolled down to see if she came with anything else other than “The speaker was wrong!”
I was always there, my friend. I was always there….fighting.You just didn’t know it. Please, do not misconstrue my call for “shared sacrifice” , the ECCB Governor’s words, as me seeing the financial institutions as villains. I do not see them as villains. I am just saying they should share the sacrifice. We are all in this together!
Doesn’t seem that the UPP is in this with the rest of the country. They are On The Sideline literally wishing and hoping that something goes wrong so they can say, “see I told you so”.
You do realize she did not even read Tabor’s 20 minute ramblings. If she has there would have been more than a one liner reply. Anyway, UPP officials are well known for defending wrong. You want them to oppose something just tell them ALP is for it. Sadly most times they can’t provide a logical reason for opposing eg(Pringle sitting on ERC, Daniel’s poster including the PM’s minor son, Their support of the Privy counsel yet when in government supporting the CCJ…)
From one dunce to the other dunce.
I mean you guys had so much ill to say about our lower courts, yet when Giselle won her case the other day, not a word was said. It was complete silence. So the lower courts are OK when you win your case, when judgement is on your side but when yo lose a case they are the worst thing since slice bread. That is how hypocritical you guys are. Don’t stand on principals.
@ PEARL QUINN WILLIAMS
I wish you would have mentioned where the Speaker was wrong. Why make such broad statement without references? All UPP just make statements without backup. I read the articles and in my conclusion the Speaker was correct .
When will the UPP present Their Candidates for the next election. I hope You will be running at this time. I believe you should consider leading the UPP in the next election. UPP CANNOT enter the next election with Harold Lovell as Leader. Looking forward to seeing the list of Candidates for the UPP.
Politics is for people who care about people not for those who want to use them to get somewhere in life. Like her sister did. That is she was voted out very quickly. Remember 2009 her constituency was vey contentiously won.
It’s clear that some of us is very comfortable with us living in the past and does not see it important for us to evolve with the times and this is exactly why our justice system is so bad and our police officers are so corrupt and abusive.
Its amazing how a lot of our youths and even senior members of our society carrying degrees from some of finest universities in the world and while so much things is happening around the world even now with this world pandemic disease coronavirus we still comfortable in living in the past.
Mr. Tabor as an attorney who is apart of the justice system in antigua and Barbuda you have a greater responsibility to justice than to your politics, please remember that a society is regulated by an inherent sense of justice and justice goes even further than laws that is on our books. If the DNA of a court is to be fair then judges, adjudicators must go beyond they call of duty to make sure that justice is serve a fair decision is made in spite of challenges with amendments to evolve our laws with the times all judges have to do is to explain how and why they arrive at decisions by doing so they would have become advocates for amendments to bring our laws up to the times.
One must appreciate that a lot of laws on our books are old and need amendments to bring them up to the times.
The question is why must a hole society suffer because our administrators or politicians fail to structure a proper legislative agenda to address the issue of amending old laws? But while that is so mr. Tabor attorneys like yourself should be advocate for amendments instead of going so low just to prove a point.
That is way today we are seeing so much persons in antigua beating they cases in court and some getting bail on murder because our justice system is bad and our judges understand that they have a greater responsibility to justice. How can we have persons innocent under law until proven guilty but sometimes sit in jail for 5 years and in some countries like Trinidad 10 years without a trial it is like serving a sentence without a trial. I encourage you mr. Tabor to pay more attention our justice system than your politics you will certainly serve your country a greater purpose.
JUST Saying…….Pearl is a WANNABE. She want to run for UPP . When She was working for tbe bank She turned a blind eye to all the OVERCHARGES now She is behaving to be the Saviour for POOR People. Typical UPP member Pearl is !!!!!
Tabor clearly said where the speaker was wrong. Perhaps you should read over his article and response with an open mind and I’m sure you’ll get it.
Since you are the one that is making the comment, why don’t you point out as a good Toastmaster where in Tabor’s argument you see reasons to agree with him which are based on the law/Standing Order as you know them to be.
Tenman i see your still at it. Supporting yo dam party. Regardless.
I heard you on Big issues one Sunday and thought wa temnam move from blogging to prime time. You were not quite impartial in you deliberation then but I see no matter what, you will continue to defend your dam party.
It’s because he sets out sound and well supported arguments, with facts that cannot be refuted. And people he don’t have a counter argument to make always get offensive and start calling names. No wonder they always run out of Parliament. You hardly see Labour Party storm out of parliament. Even during the 10 year UPP reign
@From the sidelines: they will either not show up when parliament is in session or disrespect the speaker as was seen when Gaston had his outburst and was suspended
Please refresh my memory. When was that again. Was it when he told the speaker that she came through the backdoor. Or was it when the speaker said” you dance with who take you to the dance. Or was it when he said ” sharpen you cutlass and if the tax man come at your house chap them up, nothing wrong with that”. I seem to have a memory laps. Please help me out here.
You guys like to throw with mud and see what sticks. never ever can make a good argument.
Just remember the Speaker did not throw out Jamal Pringle. Jamal chose to leave.
@ ..Ruler-Not surprised that you don’t see when I publicly state my few disagreements. What I see of you, your raison d’etre is to defend any party which opposes the ALP. Not once will you ever point out to them when they are wrong. Keep telling you, let the bitterness go, its not healthy. Bitterness cannot build or maintain anything.
…compliments of King Obstinate; “two oman cussing on Green Bay Hill, a go to work, cum back dey cussing still….wet U hand and wait fu me…!”
The more things change, the more they remain the same, in the Diabolical Game of Politicks!
@ ..Ruler-Not surprised that you don’t see when I publicly state my few disagreements. What I see of you, your raison d’etre is to defend any party which opposes the ALP. Not once will you ever point out to them when they are wrong. Keep telling you, let the bitterness go, its not healthy. Bitterness cannot build or maintain anything.
Is Mr. Tabor running for some kind of office? Just askin’. He has a lot of words and can talk, talk, and talk. Sometimes he makes sense, and other times he doesn’t seem too bright. Again, is he running for some kind of office or something??? Sounds like a politician to me, and we have too many of them already.
From the Sideline it seems to me that you might have a comprehension problem (as CH – Tenman says I have). Under our Standing Orders, unlike in Dominica, you do not have to give the Speaker advance notice to give a personal explanation. Please understand that and do not repeat the misinformation. I believe that my article and letter in response to Sir Gerald’s letter are quite clear, however, it appears that people like you and CH Tenman have a difficulty in comprehending my simple language. My language can be more complex but I try to make it simple for people like you, Rupert Mann, HC Tenman and ………….. to understand.
Really CH Tenman are you accusing some one of defending any party that opposes the ALP? Yes it is a person’s democratic right to support any party he/she chooses. However, one should not be blinded by party support and loyalty. It based on facts and evidence that your party is wrong on an issue, you should be objective enough to say so. That is how I operate and expect the same from you CH Tenman and your other ALP colleagues on this medium who defend, even the indefensible, once it is done by the ALP.
@Tabor, I see the usual comprehension problem probably on purpose to create an argument. Lets admit that the only time you Tabor show criticism of the UPP is when you are pressed , your first instinct is to only see ALP error and try to stay silent on UPP ones. Have called you out on this many a times.
I have copied my comment to Ruler (same one you blindly responded to) and it really makes your comment (May 24, 2020 at 11:44 am) not only redundant but silly:
“@ ..Ruler-Not surprised that you don’t see when I publicly state my few disagreements. What I see of you, your raison d’etre is to defend any party which opposes the ALP. Not once will you ever point out to them when they are wrong. Keep telling you, let the bitterness go, its not healthy. Bitterness cannot build or maintain anything.”
CH TENMAN I am heartened to see that you have now given me a modicum of comprehension. Thank you. Please cite the times when you have called me out for supporting the UPP when clearly they might have been in the wrong. It is you guys (and you know who you are) who blindly, deliberately or in ignorance in this medium support the many wrongs of the ALP. You will recall that I commended you recently for saying that the Prime Minister was wrong for making public the confidential financial information of private citizens. That wrong was so blatant and egregious that not even you could deny that it was wrong. The Prime Minister will only stop that practice when he will be so directed by the Court.
Actually in the comment before the latter, you wrote (May 24, 2020 at 11:44 am):
“That is how I operate and expect the same from you CH Tenman and your other ALP colleagues on this medium who defend, even the indefensible, once it is done by the ALP.”
Now in the latter you contradict this
“You will recall that I commended you recently for saying that the Prime Minister was wrong for making public the confidential financial information of private citizens. That wrong was so blatant and egregious that not even you could deny that it was wrong.”
You will excuse me for noting you tend to contradict yourself (I defend the indefensible you claim one minute then ). One day you write Sir Gerald wrong based on May, the other day you assert essentially he was right with May (Pringle had to give advance warning), but he (the speaker) should have used the 1967 standing order and that what Pringle had to say was not controversial. Interestingly your argument is not inline with the known definition of controversial. No doubt tomorrow again you will come with some different argument. Forked tongue people, brethren I fear them, you guys tend to be backbiters. Unfortunately I find too many upp supporters to be like you. So glad I came out of that mess. Recall the days during UPP youth meeting (Chester was in charge and Andy Carthy his deputy) when we were praying that the US would come for Lester Bird because we lost faith in voters. That kind of bitterness and essentially unpatriotic thinking, I have run far from. Tabor put down the unhealthy blue kool-aide, red wine is better for your health. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHs4SxY0kKo
CH TENMAN your mind is so simple it is mind boggling. What is the contradiction that you spend so much time highlighting. You like a drowning man grabs at a straw. I said that you ALP sychophants and apologists in this medium always defend the indefensible once the ALP is being criticized. I then, because of my honesty and objectivity, commended you for saying that the Prime Minister was wrong to be publicizing a private citizen’s confidential financial information. You can appreciate the sanctity of ones financial information since the government has given you job at a financial institution so you must have learned that there. You would therefore have to be devoid of all conscience if you were to condone the despicable and perhaps criminal act of the Prime Minister. By commending you for that is not a major contradiction as you are making it out to be. Stop dealing with trivia and minutia. With respect to the issue with the Speaker and Pringle, please try to understand the issue before chatting nonsense. Parliament is governed by the Standing Orders but the Speaker keeps applying Erskine May. That matter is well publicized so you should be apprised of the facts. The Speaker gave two reasons in Parliament why Pringle could not give a personal explanation which were wrong. He now realizes that and is now saying that the matter is controversial. What BS. Even if the matter was controversial, there would not be any harm resulting from the personal explanation since there would be no debate. The Speaker of course must find a reason to justify his nonsensical and irrational decision. He was wrong and I suspect deep down in the recesses of his conscience he knows it.
Comments are closed.