Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by albert:

 

The premise that the recording is illegal is abject garbage. The reporter can record his own conversation and the AG knew he was speaking to a reporter and did not indicate the conversation was off the record.

 

To go out and ask a leading question and pretending you are getting at facts is what the PPP propagandists do. The above is for a completely different scenario and cannot be compared with what happened/.

FM
Originally Posted by albert:
Originally Posted by Cobra:
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:

Money can always purchase a few fools. This is no representation of public opinion in GY or any civilized country.

You're listening to the public opinion on privacy and you still can't recognize it. What a funny fell you is...

You actually expect better?

You are a low breed dunce.

Mitwah
Originally Posted by albert:
Originally Posted by Cobra:
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:

Money can always purchase a few fools. This is no representation of public opinion in GY or any civilized country.

You're listening to the public opinion on privacy and you still can't recognize it. What a funny fell you is...

You actually expect better?

What all yuh low breeds know about privacy and public opinion?

 

Alex can't help thief man who stealing tax payers money to buy sperm fuh e wife.

FM
Originally Posted by albert:
Originally Posted by Cobra:
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:

Money can always purchase a few fools. This is no representation of public opinion in GY or any civilized country.

You're listening to the public opinion on privacy and you still can't recognize it. What a funny fell you is...

You actually expect better?

When the government changes. U know dey b coming looking  4 u. GT Bob. 

S
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
The premise that the recording is illegal is abject garbage. The reporter can record his own conversation and the AG knew he was speaking to a reporter and did not indicate the conversation was off the record.

A reporter has the obligation to, first and foremost, request permission from the individual to be interviewed to record the proceedings. Unless such discussion take place immediately before the interview, and the one to be interviewed quite clearly and explicitly agrees, everything that is recorded are illegal and should never be used in any discussion or proceedings.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
The premise that the recording is illegal is abject garbage. The reporter can record his own conversation and the AG knew he was speaking to a reporter and did not indicate the conversation was off the record.

A reporter has the obligation to, first and foremost, request permission from the individual to be interviewed to record the proceedings. Unless such discussion take place immediately before the interview, and the one to be interviewed quite clearly and explicitly agrees, everything that is recorded are illegal and should never be used in any discussion or proceedings.

Aright DG, let's say you right.

 

So, we treat the conversation as not taking place. How do we go about removing the stench coming from the AG's mouth that the world has heard?

 

 

 

 

 

cain

“This is, and historically has been, an entitlement of every member of Cabinet long before my appointment.”
Contrary to the so-called “entitlement” which Nandlall said existed “historically” even before his appointment, Nagamootoo, a former member of the People’s Progressive Party contended that this was never the case.
Additionally, the AFC executive member said that Nandlall also contradicted himself when in the recording he said that he leaned on a Ministry for money and paid it back. He turned around in his PR statement to say that he reimbursed the money.
“Nandlall is clearly trying to confuse the nation. Reimbursement is when you receive money that you expended. So if it’s a reimbursement why did he have to repay as he told Gildarie?
“Also, if this is a so called entitlement why did he have to get cabinet’s approval? Why did you have to go through that kind of process for a historically established privilege?”

 

“It is only reasonable that Cabinet explain to the people the criteria for this kind of approval for monies. They need to clear this up. This has to be some recent development for it never existed in my time,” Nagamootoo said.

FM
Originally Posted by cain:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
The premise that the recording is illegal is abject garbage. The reporter can record his own conversation and the AG knew he was speaking to a reporter and did not indicate the conversation was off the record.

A reporter has the obligation to, first and foremost, request permission from the individual to be interviewed to record the proceedings. Unless such discussion take place immediately before the interview, and the one to be interviewed quite clearly and explicitly agrees, everything that is recorded are illegal and should never be used in any discussion or proceedings.

Aright DG, let's say you right.

 

So, we treat the conversation as not taking place. How do we go about removing the stench coming from the AG's mouth that the world has heard?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cain

 

If you may permit me to say that the AG's language was disgraceful.

FM
Originally Posted by cain:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
The premise that the recording is illegal is abject garbage. The reporter can record his own conversation and the AG knew he was speaking to a reporter and did not indicate the conversation was off the record.

A reporter has the obligation to, first and foremost, request permission from the individual to be interviewed to record the proceedings. Unless such discussion take place immediately before the interview, and the one to be interviewed quite clearly and explicitly agrees, everything that is recorded are illegal and should never be used in any discussion or proceedings.

Aright DG, let's say you right.

 

So, we treat the conversation as not taking place. How do we go about removing the stench coming from the AG's mouth that the world has heard?

Immaterial Cain -- as the recordings are illegal hence there is nothing to discuss.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by cain:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
The premise that the recording is illegal is abject garbage. The reporter can record his own conversation and the AG knew he was speaking to a reporter and did not indicate the conversation was off the record.

A reporter has the obligation to, first and foremost, request permission from the individual to be interviewed to record the proceedings. Unless such discussion take place immediately before the interview, and the one to be interviewed quite clearly and explicitly agrees, everything that is recorded are illegal and should never be used in any discussion or proceedings.

Aright DG, let's say you right.

 

So, we treat the conversation as not taking place. How do we go about removing the stench coming from the AG's mouth that the world has heard?

Immaterial Cain -- as the recordings are illegal hence there is nothing to discuss.

A-ha! Dat easy eh?

cain

The recordings did happen, Nandlall admitted on the tapes that he stole government money to pay for procure sperm for his wife.

 

There are no laws that you DG or anyone else can point to that were violated, you mention illegal but you cannot quote the laws you are referring to anywhere. Therefore what you are talking is complete shyte. It is amazing that an adult like you can sit and spew such blatant lies. How do you live with yourself?

 

 

FM
Originally Posted by cain:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by cain:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
The premise that the recording is illegal is abject garbage. The reporter can record his own conversation and the AG knew he was speaking to a reporter and did not indicate the conversation was off the record.

A reporter has the obligation to, first and foremost, request permission from the individual to be interviewed to record the proceedings. Unless such discussion take place immediately before the interview, and the one to be interviewed quite clearly and explicitly agrees, everything that is recorded are illegal and should never be used in any discussion or proceedings.

Aright DG, let's say you right.

 

So, we treat the conversation as not taking place. How do we go about removing the stench coming from the AG's mouth that the world has heard?

Immaterial Cain -- as the recordings are illegal hence there is nothing to discuss.

A-ha! Dat easy eh?

Correct Cain ... it is preferable to not get involved with unauthorized issues.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by cain:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by cain:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
The premise that the recording is illegal is abject garbage. The reporter can record his own conversation and the AG knew he was speaking to a reporter and did not indicate the conversation was off the record.

A reporter has the obligation to, first and foremost, request permission from the individual to be interviewed to record the proceedings. Unless such discussion take place immediately before the interview, and the one to be interviewed quite clearly and explicitly agrees, everything that is recorded are illegal and should never be used in any discussion or proceedings.

Aright DG, let's say you right.

 

So, we treat the conversation as not taking place. How do we go about removing the stench coming from the AG's mouth that the world has heard?

Immaterial Cain -- as the recordings are illegal hence there is nothing to discuss.

A-ha! Dat easy eh?

Correct Cain ... it is preferable to not get involved with unauthorized issues.

I disagree. What the man did was unauthorized, I'm speaking of the AG and yes the law has to get involved.

cain

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×