Charrandas was a habitual gambler

HEHEHE  A man cant gamble now. Talking Bout grabbing at straws by the drowning IDIOTS called the PNC!!1

Why this churlish exposure of the fellow's private habit and no evidence that he took money for his vote. I quarreled with my sister all the time because she likes to go to the Casino next to her home and gamble on week ends. But it is her money  and she has a budget ( albeit too high for my taste) so  what she does to enjoy this life is  her business.

It is an absolute absurdity that Charandass would not have been known to be one who would favor a yes vote in a NCV.  To be compromised here means the other side knew of his discontents while the ruling party did not. There is no crime for others to woo him to their side or even to offer him future cushy positions. That is what the PNC  and AFC agreed to as conditions for them being a part of  APNU. That was  persuasion and compromise!

Rumjaat is looking for the Bribe Money, and all they are finding is that the man LOST money gambling, Next thing they will say that the PPP paid off his gambling debt.

D2 posted:

. There is no crime for others to woo him to their side or even to offer him future cushy positions. That is what the PNC  and AFC agreed to as conditions for them being a part of  APNU. That was  persuasion and compromise!

I just do not see how selling a vote isn't illegal.  If Maduro pays 34 MPs to agree to him snapping up 2/3 of Guyana is that legal? 

Wooing is one thing. Bribery is another.

Having said that reports were that the AFC was informed at least a month ago about what Charrandass was planning to do.  Nagamootoo not only did nothing but he reassured APNU that this matter was under control.  In fact even other AFC members warned about this man indicating that he was angry because he wasn't getting attention.

MPs in Guyana do not serve at the pleasure of the people. All they vote for is for the president and a list of MPs.  The parties decide who will occupy these seats, so the MPs serve at the pleasure of the party.  This is one of the weaknesses of the existing constitution, but it is what is available now.

This whole fiasco shows exactly why the constitution needs to be overhauled, but apparently NONE of the existing parties are interested in doing this. 

caribny posted:

D2 posted:

. There is no crime for others to woo him to their side or even to offer him future cushy positions. That is what the PNC  and AFC agreed to as conditions for them being a part of  APNU. That was  persuasion and compromise!

I just do not see how selling a vote isn't illegal.  If Maduro pays 34 MPs to agree to him snapping up 2/3 of Guyana is that legal? 

Wooing is one thing. Bribery is another.

Having said that reports were that the AFC was informed at least a month ago about what Charrandass was planning to do.  Nagamootoo not only did nothing but he reassured APNU that this matter was under control.  In fact even other AFC members warned about this man indicating that he was angry because he wasn't getting attention.

MPs in Guyana do not serve at the pleasure of the people. All they vote for is for the president and a list of MPs.  The parties decide who will occupy these seats, so the MPs serve at the pleasure of the party.  This is one of the weaknesses of the existing constitution, but it is what is available now.

This whole fiasco shows exactly why the constitution needs to be overhauled, but apparently NONE of the existing parties are interested in doing this. 

Who said he sold?  That’s pure. conjecture.  

If Maduro pays off MPs to vote to annex Ebo, not illegal.  If he tries to invade, that’s illegal!

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

caribny posted:

D2 posted:

. There is no crime for others to woo him to their side or even to offer him future cushy positions. That is what the PNC  and AFC agreed to as conditions for them being a part of  APNU. That was  persuasion and compromise!

I just do not see how selling a vote isn't illegal.  If Maduro pays 34 MPs to agree to him snapping up 2/3 of Guyana is that legal? 

Wooing is one thing. Bribery is another.

Having said that reports were that the AFC was informed at least a month ago about what Charrandass was planning to do.  Nagamootoo not only did nothing but he reassured APNU that this matter was under control.  In fact even other AFC members warned about this man indicating that he was angry because he wasn't getting attention.

MPs in Guyana do not serve at the pleasure of the people. All they vote for is for the president and a list of MPs.  The parties decide who will occupy these seats, so the MPs serve at the pleasure of the party.  This is one of the weaknesses of the existing constitution, but it is what is available now.

This whole fiasco shows exactly why the constitution needs to be overhauled, but apparently NONE of the existing parties are interested in doing this. 

I never said bribery was not illegal. I said when it is demonstrated to be so then we can talk. Further, I am assured it will never be proven because I simply do not believe the APNU. 

The non Rube Goldberg path is to assume he was promised some cushy job. APNU deserve to be in the dog house if the knew someone was about to defect and did nothing. I say that is also a lie since they were hamming it up before the vote and it is clear that his yes vote knocked the breath out of them. The whole room recoiled at the same time. They did not know a damn thing.

Yes the constitution needs over hauling. It has been my mantra some 20 years now. You and I argued this when you first came on here as CaribJ

Baseman posted:

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Even if he traded it for a cushy job it is not illegal. It might be immoral bit not illegal.

Does not make sense. 

For argument sake, if Charandass owes Casino Royal, why would the man wants the “ bribe “ money transfer overseas. 

First the money was paid in Trinidad. - Mars posted  Rickford Burke has the hard evidence, Rickford then change to “ alleged “ evidence .

Second - it was given to him in gold bars in Trinidad.

Third - He attempts to buy 1 Million US in Gold in Guyana ( GNI princess Leonora has this evidence)

Fourth- He now attempt to transfer large amount of cash to Canada. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, the banks don’t have 1 Thousand US to sell you. Large amount of Cash transfer has to go through the Bank Of Guyana and show evidence how you acquired this money.

Khemraj can haul his arss .

Django, you have evidence also. 

What a fk Nancy story. 

Dave posted:

Django, you have evidence also.

I man don't know nothing.

Django posted:

Dave posted:

Django, you have evidence also.

I man don't know nothing.

Good man DJ 

if Charandass commits a crime let him pays the price. 

They should look at Trotty and the exposed  email. Remember he was dealing with EXXON and sign away the contract. 

Baseman posted:

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

Dave posted:

Does not make sense. 

For argument sake, if Charandass owes Casino Royal, why would the man wants the “ bribe “ money transfer overseas. 

First the money was paid in Trinidad. - Mars posted  Rickford Burke has the hard evidence, Rickford then change to “ alleged “ evidence .

Second - it was given to him in gold bars in Trinidad.

Third - He attempts to buy 1 Million US in Gold in Guyana ( GNI princess Leonora has this evidence)

Fourth- He now attempt to transfer large amount of cash to Canada. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, the banks don’t have 1 Thousand US to sell you. Large amount of Cash transfer has to go through the Bank Of Guyana and show evidence how you acquired this money.

Khemraj can haul his arss .

Django, you have evidence also. 

What a fk Nancy story. 

They are like a bunch of jackasses gone mad. They have been braying since Jagdeo bussed their balls. 

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

Nah. If it was for political outcome, it’s horse trading.  Happens all the time.

If it’s for personal benefit or enrichment, it’s bribery, illegal!

From what I read, he felt the coalition was on the wrong path and defected.  Unless it’s proven he benefited personally, I go with that.  

Casino, lifestyle etc means squat!

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

What it also shows are the lengths those greedy maggots would go to in order to get their hands on the oil money. 

Baseman posted:

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

Nah. If it was for political outcome, it’s horse trading.  Happens all the time.

If it’s for personal benefit or enrichment, it’s bribery, illegal!

From what I read, he felt the coalition was on the wrong path and defected.  Unless it’s proven he benefited personally, I go with that.  

Casino, lifestyle etc means squat!

I understand what you're saying. If that was the case, a bribe should not have been necessary for him to do what he thought was right. I would quite understand a reward AFTER the fact, for taking a stand. It still has to be proven that he took a bribe.

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

LEGAL

Sanjeev Datadin’s opinion is that such an act is not bribery and cannot be considered illegal. Datadin was firm in his opinion.
He said, “There is no criminal offence and there could be no criminal charge because under the statute (Criminal Law Offences Act), the meaning of public official does not apply to a parliamentarian.
He said that whether a parliamentarian can be bribed is distinct from whether a politician can be bribed.
Datadin said that bribing a parliamentarian was looked at in England repeatedly.
He said, “In the 1969 Salmond Report, it was concluded that it is not an offence to give money to a parliamentarian. There is no offence at common law or statute. Parliamentarians were not public officials within the meaning of the criminal statutes.”
Datadin said that it would be more of a lobby. He said that lobbying is not illegal.
Datadin noted that lobbyists in the United Kingdom and the United States are allowed to pay a parliamentarian to put a bill.
Datadin said that there have been cases where British Members of Parliament were paid £1000 to take a Bill to the floor of the House of Commons.
However, he said that in the United States, one has to register as a lobbyist and the money paid has to be declared.
The Lawyer said, “These (UK and US) are two very sophisticated legal systems. Those systems have proper offices and are able to track and trace. We have a primitive tax system. We basically earn by taxing the ports…we do not do anything about what is generated within.”
He continued, “Under our law, whether or not an MP was paid is not illegal”
Further, Datadin said that even if it were illegal, it may be almost impossible to establish that a bribe was passed.
Datadin also lent his opinion that government officials are blowing hot air. He said that he noted comments in the press attributed to Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo and PNCR Official Aubrey Norton to the effect that a bribe was passed.
“I read that they have all this proof, but they are not saying anything.”
Datadin said, “I have no doubt in my mind that if there was any irrefutable evidence, it would have been out in the public domain front and center; it would have been everywhere.”
Datadin said, “The assertions are made up of nebulous hearsay, working on people’s imaginations.

Baseman posted:

 

If Maduro pays off MPs to vote to annex Ebo, not illegal.  If he tries to invade, that’s illegal!

This is PPP logic.  A vote directly impacted by a bribe is illegal because bribery is illegal.  The fact that Charran, in his own words, claims that selling votes isn't illegal doesn't change the facts. 

The man admitted that he sees nothing wrong with selling his vote so why are people so surprised that they are those of us who are very open to the possibility that he might well have done so, even if the proof of this is still not there.

Dave posted:

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

LEGAL

Sanjeev Datadin’s opinion is that such an act is not bribery and cannot be considered illegal. Datadin was firm in his opinion.
He said, “There is no criminal offence and there could be no criminal charge because under the statute (Criminal Law Offences Act), the meaning of public official does not apply to a parliamentarian.
He said that whether a parliamentarian can be bribed is distinct from whether a politician can be bribed.
Datadin said that bribing a parliamentarian was looked at in England repeatedly.
He said, “In the 1969 Salmond Report, it was concluded that it is not an offence to give money to a parliamentarian. There is no offence at common law or statute. Parliamentarians were not public officials within the meaning of the criminal statutes.”
Datadin said that it would be more of a lobby. He said that lobbying is not illegal.
Datadin noted that lobbyists in the United Kingdom and the United States are allowed to pay a parliamentarian to put a bill.
Datadin said that there have been cases where British Members of Parliament were paid £1000 to take a Bill to the floor of the House of Commons.
However, he said that in the United States, one has to register as a lobbyist and the money paid has to be declared.
The Lawyer said, “These (UK and US) are two very sophisticated legal systems. Those systems have proper offices and are able to track and trace. We have a primitive tax system. We basically earn by taxing the ports…we do not do anything about what is generated within.”
He continued, “Under our law, whether or not an MP was paid is not illegal”
Further, Datadin said that even if it were illegal, it may be almost impossible to establish that a bribe was passed.
Datadin also lent his opinion that government officials are blowing hot air. He said that he noted comments in the press attributed to Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo and PNCR Official Aubrey Norton to the effect that a bribe was passed.
“I read that they have all this proof, but they are not saying anything.”
Datadin said, “I have no doubt in my mind that if there was any irrefutable evidence, it would have been out in the public domain front and center; it would have been everywhere.”
Datadin said, “The assertions are made up of nebulous hearsay, working on people’s imaginations.

These are opinions and all are entitled to theirs'. The fact that it isn't an offence does not make it morally right. Lets start with the fact that if you were sure you were going to win, there should be no reason to guarantee your bets (pun intended) with a bribe. Now, let say for argument sake that the APNU became aware of this bribe, offered something more tangible, like a ministerial position, how would the opposition have reacted? Once again, bribery has yet to be proven.

D2 posted:

 

Yes the constitution needs over hauling. It has been my mantra some 20 years now. You and I argued this when you first came on here as CaribJ

We didn't argue about the need for a constitutional change. We argued about how the constitutional should change.  In those days you were influenced by the Ravi Dev notion that building ethnic "nation states" and having this built into the constitution was the solution.

My argument was that people needed to develop a contemporary analysis of the root causes of our ethnic angst before rushing to develop a constitution. I think that both Africans and Indians are disillusioned with their respective elites.  They still however remain as ethnically anxious as ever.

So developing a constitution which enshrined the interests of these elites I didn't see as a solution.  This being almost as bad as any governing entity combining the PNC and the PPP.   And in fact rumors are that Jagdeo and Granger might be more open to this than people think as they both feel hurt by small parties.  The leadership of the PPP and the PNC are closer to each other on an individual level than folks think, and even in their current supposedly adversarial role, are alleged to cooperate in corruption.

I think that its up to the various stakeholders in civic society to develop a new constitution.  Hopefully a meeting of the minds of people with diverse interests will address the weaknesses of the current constitution.  I stood by that then and I stick by it now. 

I maintain that its not that Indians or Africans are wedded to the notion that their elites must rule and rule in an ethnically exclusive manner.  Their problem is their fear of economic exclusion, and I can assure you, at least as far as blacks are concerned, it goes way beyond who the leaders are.  Look at APNU in charge and the whole thrust of the PNC meeting, when Volda went on her rant, is because they didn't see the PNC elites protecting their economic interests.

I will not attempt to discuss the basis of the CONTEMPORARY Indian ethnic anxiety. Except to suggest that  bunch of ageing PPPites, who left Guyana under Burnham,  and who still hurt from the violence of the 60s, probably aren't qualified to discuss this either.

A big problem of GNI is that almost all of us are over 50 and in fact many of us are over 60 or very near to it.  Many of us also left over 30 years ago.

GTAngler posted:

Dave posted:

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

LEGAL

Sanjeev Datadin’s opinion is that such an act is not bribery and cannot be considered illegal. Datadin was firm in his opinion.
He said, “There is no criminal offence and there could be no criminal charge because under the statute (Criminal Law Offences Act), the meaning of public official does not apply to a parliamentarian.
He said that whether a parliamentarian can be bribed is distinct from whether a politician can be bribed.
Datadin said that bribing a parliamentarian was looked at in England repeatedly.
He said, “In the 1969 Salmond Report, it was concluded that it is not an offence to give money to a parliamentarian. There is no offence at common law or statute. Parliamentarians were not public officials within the meaning of the criminal statutes.”
Datadin said that it would be more of a lobby. He said that lobbying is not illegal.
Datadin noted that lobbyists in the United Kingdom and the United States are allowed to pay a parliamentarian to put a bill.
Datadin said that there have been cases where British Members of Parliament were paid £1000 to take a Bill to the floor of the House of Commons.
However, he said that in the United States, one has to register as a lobbyist and the money paid has to be declared.
The Lawyer said, “These (UK and US) are two very sophisticated legal systems. Those systems have proper offices and are able to track and trace. We have a primitive tax system. We basically earn by taxing the ports…we do not do anything about what is generated within.”
He continued, “Under our law, whether or not an MP was paid is not illegal”
Further, Datadin said that even if it were illegal, it may be almost impossible to establish that a bribe was passed.
Datadin also lent his opinion that government officials are blowing hot air. He said that he noted comments in the press attributed to Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo and PNCR Official Aubrey Norton to the effect that a bribe was passed.
“I read that they have all this proof, but they are not saying anything.”
Datadin said, “I have no doubt in my mind that if there was any irrefutable evidence, it would have been out in the public domain front and center; it would have been everywhere.”
Datadin said, “The assertions are made up of nebulous hearsay, working on people’s imaginations.

These are opinions and all are entitled to theirs'. The fact that it isn't an offence does not make it morally right. Lets start with the fact that if you were sure you were going to win, there should be no reason to hedge your bets (pun intended) with a bribe. Now, let say for argument sake that the APNU became aware of this bribe, offered something more tangible, like a ministerial position, how would the opposition have reacted? Once again, bribery has yet to be proven.

I totally agree with you, no offer of inducement should be given to any MP to be on your side, however, the evidence has to be proven. 

Election is constitutionally due in 18 months since this drama unfold, the risk of bribery is huge knowing Charrandas did not had a good relationship with Jagdeo.

According to Rickford Burke,( Mars posted this )  he Rickford send evidence to PNC since November 16 or 18 2018 of a transaction and PNC failed to act. But PNC as of today, did not reply to this statement- strange rite .

Dave posted:

GTAngler posted:

Dave posted:

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

Mars posted:

Dem PPP bhais get so used to Jagdeo’s bribery and corruption that they no longer see bribery as an offense. 

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

LEGAL

Sanjeev Datadin’s opinion is that such an act is not bribery and cannot be considered illegal. Datadin was firm in his opinion.
He said, “There is no criminal offence and there could be no criminal charge because under the statute (Criminal Law Offences Act), the meaning of public official does not apply to a parliamentarian.
He said that whether a parliamentarian can be bribed is distinct from whether a politician can be bribed.
Datadin said that bribing a parliamentarian was looked at in England repeatedly.
He said, “In the 1969 Salmond Report, it was concluded that it is not an offence to give money to a parliamentarian. There is no offence at common law or statute. Parliamentarians were not public officials within the meaning of the criminal statutes.”
Datadin said that it would be more of a lobby. He said that lobbying is not illegal.
Datadin noted that lobbyists in the United Kingdom and the United States are allowed to pay a parliamentarian to put a bill.
Datadin said that there have been cases where British Members of Parliament were paid £1000 to take a Bill to the floor of the House of Commons.
However, he said that in the United States, one has to register as a lobbyist and the money paid has to be declared.
The Lawyer said, “These (UK and US) are two very sophisticated legal systems. Those systems have proper offices and are able to track and trace. We have a primitive tax system. We basically earn by taxing the ports…we do not do anything about what is generated within.”
He continued, “Under our law, whether or not an MP was paid is not illegal”
Further, Datadin said that even if it were illegal, it may be almost impossible to establish that a bribe was passed.
Datadin also lent his opinion that government officials are blowing hot air. He said that he noted comments in the press attributed to Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo and PNCR Official Aubrey Norton to the effect that a bribe was passed.
“I read that they have all this proof, but they are not saying anything.”
Datadin said, “I have no doubt in my mind that if there was any irrefutable evidence, it would have been out in the public domain front and center; it would have been everywhere.”
Datadin said, “The assertions are made up of nebulous hearsay, working on people’s imaginations.

These are opinions and all are entitled to theirs'. The fact that it isn't an offence does not make it morally right. Lets start with the fact that if you were sure you were going to win, there should be no reason to hedge your bets (pun intended) with a bribe. Now, let say for argument sake that the APNU became aware of this bribe, offered something more tangible, like a ministerial position, how would the opposition have reacted? Once again, bribery has yet to be proven.

I totally agree with you, no offer of inducement should be given to any MP to be on your side, however, the evidence has to be proven. 

Election is constitutionally due in 18 months since this drama unfold, the risk of bribery is huge knowing Charrandas did not had a good relationship with Jagdeo.

According to Rickford Burke,( Mars posted this )  he Rickford send evidence to PNC since November 16 or 18 2018 of a transaction and PNC failed to act. But PNC as of today, did not reply to this statement- strange rite .

On point........

So when we gun see de evidence? 

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

Nah. If it was for political outcome, it’s horse trading.  Happens all the time.

If it’s for personal benefit or enrichment, it’s bribery, illegal!

From what I read, he felt the coalition was on the wrong path and defected.  Unless it’s proven he benefited personally, I go with that.  

Casino, lifestyle etc means squat!

I understand what you're saying. If that was the case, a bribe should not have been necessary for him to do what he thought was right. I would quite understand a reward AFTER the fact, for taking a stand. It still has to be proven that he took a bribe.

An accusation does not make it fact even if you repeat it 1000 times.  Unless someone comes up with hard evidence and validated in a court of law.  Until them, it's just an accusation, like OJ killed his Ex wife!

yuji22 posted:

 

They are like a bunch of jackasses gone mad. They have been braying since Jagdeo bussed their balls. 

So he graduated from "Skraching". 

Baseman posted:

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

GTAngler posted:

Baseman posted:

If it was for personal enrichment, it’s an offense.  If he traded it to benefit a political outcome, then it’s not!

Bullshit. Bribery is bribery. I am surprised you'd think like that. What constitutes a "benefit" to a political outcome? The very fact that a bribe had to be introduced shows the lack of confidence in their ability to win, if there was a bribe.

Nah. If it was for political outcome, it’s horse trading.  Happens all the time.

If it’s for personal benefit or enrichment, it’s bribery, illegal!

From what I read, he felt the coalition was on the wrong path and defected.  Unless it’s proven he benefited personally, I go with that.  

Casino, lifestyle etc means squat!

I understand what you're saying. If that was the case, a bribe should not have been necessary for him to do what he thought was right. I would quite understand a reward AFTER the fact, for taking a stand. It still has to be proven that he took a bribe.

An accusation does not make it fact even if you repeat it 1000 times.  Unless someone comes up with hard evidence and validated in a court of law.  Until them, it's just an accusation, like OJ killed his Ex wife!

Ow bai, nah dah meh ah seh all deh time??????

Do we know how far in yards, the police are away in trailing this bribe money? They have been closing in for a while now. The longer they take, it will be harder for them to trace. Ramjattan and PackooSOCU were hot on the trail. Did the tracking dogs lose the scent? Like too much rain washed the scent away.

skeldon_man posted:

Do we know how far in yards, the police are away in trailing this bribe money? They have been closing in for a while now. The longer they take, it will be harder for them to trace. Ramjattan and PackooSOCU were hot on the trail. Did the tracking dogs lose the scent? Like too much rain washed the scent away.

While Ramjat and Packoo  SOCU runs around to find evidence 

Harmon is signing away lease 

Vanwest Charles cooking the books with fake invoicing for GRA 

I heard Broomes giving away more gold license to her families.

caribny posted:

D2 posted:

 

Yes the constitution needs over hauling. It has been my mantra some 20 years now. You and I argued this when you first came on here as CaribJ

We didn't argue about the need for a constitutional change. We argued about how the constitutional should change.  In those days you were influenced by the Ravi Dev notion that building ethnic "nation states" and having this built into the constitution was the solution.

My argument was that people needed to develop a contemporary analysis of the root causes of our ethnic angst before rushing to develop a constitution. I think that both Africans and Indians are disillusioned with their respective elites.  They still however remain as ethnically anxious as ever.

So developing a constitution which enshrined the interests of these elites I didn't see as a solution.  This being almost as bad as any governing entity combining the PNC and the PPP.   And in fact rumors are that Jagdeo and Granger might be more open to this than people think as they both feel hurt by small parties.  The leadership of the PPP and the PNC are closer to each other on an individual level than folks think, and even in their current supposedly adversarial role, are alleged to cooperate in corruption.

I think that its up to the various stakeholders in civic society to develop a new constitution.  Hopefully a meeting of the minds of people with diverse interests will address the weaknesses of the current constitution.  I stood by that then and I stick by it now. 

I maintain that its not that Indians or Africans are wedded to the notion that their elites must rule and rule in an ethnically exclusive manner.  Their problem is their fear of economic exclusion, and I can assure you, at least as far as blacks are concerned, it goes way beyond who the leaders are.  Look at APNU in charge and the whole thrust of the PNC meeting, when Volda went on her rant, is because they didn't see the PNC elites protecting their economic interests.

I will not attempt to discuss the basis of the CONTEMPORARY Indian ethnic anxiety. Except to suggest that  bunch of ageing PPPites, who left Guyana under Burnham,  and who still hurt from the violence of the 60s, probably aren't qualified to discuss this either.

A big problem of GNI is that almost all of us are over 50 and in fact many of us are over 60 or very near to it.  Many of us also left over 30 years ago.

You rass mad. I was never for ethnic states. I wrote a lot on that for the Guyanajournal then.

No reputable text on ethnic conflict resolution takes resolving the peoples psychological outlook as a starting point. The root causes are always the same...land culture,,,religion political access. Ours is not that bad we just want to own the state. That is a matter easily settled.

I never spoke to elites. I spike to republicanism, bicameralism  and devolution via non territorial federalism and a change of the electoral system to a multi vote system among other things.