SCARED OF CHANEIL? Rawdon Turner, Tevaughn Harriet ditch Big Issues debate

8

Statement from Observer Radio: Regretfully, the special pre-election debate among candidates and prospective candidates for St. Peter which was scheduled for 1 PM on The #BigIssues this Sunday is cancelled.

This is due to the sudden withdrawal on Friday afternoon of two participants, both for separate and unrelated reasons, the first being the ABLP participant Mr. Rawdon Turner, and second being the UPP participant Mr. Tevaughn “Peter Redz” Harriet.

While both withdrawing participants explained their decision to The Big Issues team directly, we did not wish to speak on either of their behalves in explaining their decision to the public.

As such, we requested a brief official statement from both of the withdrawing participants which we would have used in announcing this cancellation. No such statements have been forthcoming since Friday afternoon. It should be noted that all three participants had, by January 25, agreed to participate.

The #BigIssues will air nonetheless at 1 PM on #NewsCo #ObserverRadio this Sunday, January 30th, 2022 in its regular format. A full slate of topics has since been prepared. Do not miss it!

UPDATE: See subsequent statement from UPP St. Peter candidate, Tevaughn Harriette:

“Thank you for your invitation to take part in a panel discussion on the St. Peter constituency on this Sunday’s Big Issues. While I would normally welcome the opportunity to discuss my hometown, its history and its potential, I must decline on this occasion.

As you are aware, my party, the United Progressive Party, has just launched its campaign for the upcoming elections, and we intend to lay out our policies and development programs over the span of the campaign. Therefore, I am not in the position to engage in a meaningful debate ahead of the Party’s disclosure. Thank you for your understanding.”

Statement from Chaneil Imhoff: I’d like to take some time to express my disappointment in the cancellation/postponement of tomorrow’s scheduled debate with the candidates for St. Peter due to the withdrawal of the other two candidates.

My team and I have been preparing for quite some time so rest assured that I will be on Big Issues tomorrow from 1:30 – 2:00 pm.

I look forward to sharing my vision for St. Peter and making an announcement for the business community in St. Peter.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP

8 COMMENTS

  1. Frighten dem frighten! None of them can hold a candle to her! Redz especially is shaking in his boots because his claim to fame is beating her ina rigged Primary.

    Aryou need fu wheel and come again!

  2. She would not get her deposit back. The DNA would be run out of Parham Town/ St Peter and all the other Constituencies.

  3. It is the right decision. The two candidates should not have agreed to this debate in the first place. They both should be in their constituencies campaigning. They are members of a TRIED AND PROVEN POLITICAL PARTY.
    This is not some high school debate to prove who can talk better than who. The majority of good politicians have been those who could not write a good essay nor compete in a debate with wordsmiths.
    Would she have eaten them alive? Maybe. She is a talker. Is she a politician? We are not sure. We saw how she handled being bested in the UPP primary. She instantly switched party and no one seems to know much about the party she is supposed to now be representing. They do not seem to be serious. No one knows if they have a slate of candidates.

    What could emerge from the debate could be very unsavory exposures. Meaning that the two men are not as literate as most would like, and the young lady, according to her own admission, has mental issues.
    This is not a play, play thing. All three are supposed to be working in their constituency, not engaging in a debate to ensure that one could talk better than the other two. It would appear the idea is to laugh at the two men if they do not pronounce a word the right way or if they do not know what verb goes with what word.
    We need to get past that nonsense and get serious. The lady needs to get behind her party so that the public will know more about it and whether it can field a full team for the upcoming elections.

    • I agree one hundred percent with the sentiments expressed in this response. I believe the host of Big Issues have some hidden agenda in wanting to have this “so called” debate. I say “so called” because how can he have a debate about the constituency of St. Peter without the legally elected representative of St. Peter? That boy Murdoch just believe “he brain big”. From my vantage point, I believe there are some hidden mercenaries in Observer. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are not on somebody’s payroll. Like the one who reported that 300 cars attended the UPP meeting when even the Police report states that over 600 vehicles were on the ground and so many parked at the side of the road and down the village streets. That Reporter need to take some maths classes. Murdoch, wheel and come again.

    • I don’t know whether Observer is the right forum, but the idea of political debates is not bad. You don’t have to be the most eloquent speaker to “win” a political debate – you just have to come with good solid ideas to address issues and solve problems that the people care about. Based on the speed with which DNA gets attacked by other party faithfuls, it does appear that some persons might indeed be afraid of their potential to shake things up.

      As an independent voter, my observations thus far are that the ABLP has done a great job historically at establishing tourism as a means to lift poor people out of poverty. As a result, we have a rich investor and political class and a surviving poorer class and also a neglected middle class.

      The UPP has done a great job in assisting the poor with things like implementing social security, school meals and uniform grants. However, it often feels as though they believe that all citizens should sit around poor vwaiting for handouts from the government to fulfill their most basic needs – a bit like communism.
      So, they also seem to focus on the rich and the poor but seem to do very little for the middle class.

      The middle class would include those individuals with diverse God-given gifts and talents whose interests and abilities don’t always line up with a career in hospitality. It would include those individuals with an entrepreneurial bent who would enjoy trying to make it on their own, wanting a hand up not a handout. It would include those people who are not content with having to waste their precious time carrying water and filling buckets because they are eager to get on with more creative pursuits. It would include persons who although born into poverty would like to climb the social ladder through their own hard work and dedication without hitting a glass ceiling that only allows the chosen few to be allowed into certain positions and lifestyles. It includes persons who believe that basic needs such as for enough healthy food, a regular supply of water, and comfortable affordable housing should not be considered luxuries.

      The DNA seems to be interested in solving some of those middle class problems . So, if they come with some decent candidates, it might better Antigua to give them a try.

  4. All these excuses. Debates are done in all developed societies. They are just afraid to face someone who knows what they are about.

  5. Any debate should be between Peter Reds and the man from ALP. DNA will not get 20 votes in that constituency and she will loose her deposit.
    If she is invited to join the debate, then Asot who is sure to run as an independent candidate should be invited to participate also, love him or hate him.

Comments are closed.