Comments on: Packed courtroom hears Election Petitions Appeal Case

By: mtb

mtb — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:19:44 +0000

why not just call a new election?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: VeNoM

VeNoM — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:52:44 +0000

Tenman, that was quite an interestin response. However, you never mentioned the issue of a stay, in your initial arguement so why introduce it now? I took issue with you stating that that the judge erred on the side of caution & invalidated the seats. My arguement, therefore, remains thus: wouldn’t for her to err in the side of caution more reasonably be to leave the sitting members, in parliament, since she had NO evidence that the the late openings disenfranchised anyone? I.e. wouldn’t it have been more prudent to not invalidate the seats, even while she admits that; from the evidence before her; she could not determine that anyone was disenfranchised? Why then, if she was erring on the side of caution, did she still go ahead & toss out the three, without clear evidence to support doing so? I dare say that, in my anology of a murder trial, if that judge had sentence that person or allowed their conviction to stand, with no clear evidence that the person was guilty, it would have been a grave injustice. Even though that judge was considering that this person, innocent as he/she may have been, was likely to cause harm to others, he/she could NOt convict that person because there was, simply no evidence to support the conviction!
In your innitial arguement, you suggested that she was “exercising caution….to preserve our democracy.” However, looking at the political fallout, & the state of affairs that now exists here, following her ruling, would you say that such a ruling-as cautious as you suggested was-has served to preserved our democracy? has it helped or has it served to cause, what some have suggested is “constitutional disaster?” Bare in mind, that the MAIN reason for the UPP’s appeal is, her making a decision to invalidate seats, even though she claims the evidence, before her, did not prove the claimant’s arguement. Had she based her ruling on the evidence, presented & had she really erred on the side of caution, we would not have been where we are today!

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: kevin

kevin — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:01:57 +0000

dorsett hurry up we got to get rid of alp and upp,the to of them are the same none no teuqi than none . u tell me how can a minister that makes $4000 a month aquire so much i make that an more so i know not even if u save all u will have what they have

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: TC

TC — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:53:46 +0000

Yes I have notice that Tenman. Even my post above at 3:25 took a long time to be added. And Caribarena sometimes has the same problem.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: tenman

tenman — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:52:31 +0000

Venom your example of someone being tried for murder is an interesting one because I would like to see how that person would go about getting a stay and there not be conditions of at least bail. You make a good argument in terms of the need for proving guilt or innocence, however you ignore the fact that the judge ruled a crime(breach) was committed (the late opening of the poles). The next question to be answered was is this sufficient enough to void the elections. Using your example of someone being found guilty of murder the next step would be to determine the penalty. Would you not say in most cases in determining the penalty to be exercised most judges would err on the side of caution in regards to protecting the public?

Regarding Observer posts TC, I did say seems. Have you not noticed how slow they are to post comments? Have you noticed if you post lets say about 8PM that it most likely will never show up? This is why I suggested that they state clearly how their system will work. As I write this I am wondering if this will even be posted. If i was posting at carib arena and I had an issue I would simply email the support tech to see if there was an issue. Observer provides no link to such a person.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: TC

TC — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:25:41 +0000

Careful Zackie, the same thing is happening under the UPP and like you said it is selfishness. If we really sit down and have an honest debate, we would realize that some supporters on both political party are condoning the same thing that they were or is opposed to.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Zackie

Zackie — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:40:23 +0000

Edmond, the answer to your post is simple and its called selfishness. Under Lester and ALP, a number of persons benefitted over and above many. A friend of mine who works at a bank told me that he will vote ALP because he would stop paying income tax. Another told me that He has money and can buy his children’s uniform and feed them so he want ALP to win so that they will cut out the schools’ meal and free uniform. Another told me that it was easy for him to get duty free under ALP. Notice, not one said anything about country; it is all about self. That is what is driving those persons who want ALP back in office but, they are foolish. The global recession is real and so is its effect upon us so as soon as ALP ‘takes’ govt, God forbid, they will start talking about global recession and how they cannot remove the taxes at this time. Then they will once again jump on the gravy train, borrow and dont pay back, to the detriment of Antiguans and Barbudans. So to those people you mentioned Edmond, I say, ‘be careful of what you wish for!’

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: TEXAS

TEXAS — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:23:44 +0000

If what alp members have planned and done is of human origin;it will disappear
But if it comes from GOD,you cannot possibly defeat them.

You could find yourselves fighting against GOD.
They will turn away from listening to the truth and give their attention to legends.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Pull Up

Pull Up — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:52:59 +0000

Tenman, I agree with you. I used to have similiar problems with Observer’s posting in the past. It takes forever for the comments to post, and sometimes your comments are not post, which is why I was missing for a while. They do need to have a such update system like Caribarena, so bloggers can have “real” debates.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: VeNoM

VeNoM — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:42:24 +0000

Tennman, are you saying that the judge, not having any evidence presented to her in court, proving that the late start disenfranchised any voter; was correct to err on the side of “caution”-as you put it-& make the the decision she did; even though there was strong evidence to the contrary? re. the voter turn-out in other constituencies, not affected by late starts.
If so, then by deduction, a judge who errs on the side of caution & convicts a person or allows a conviction to stand (“in order to perserve/protect persons unknown), even though that judge had no evidence that the person had committed the crime but who simply thought that person was “potentially” dangerous, would; likewise; be correct! Isnt that so & wouldn’t the judge’s placing of that rational, in his or her judgement, cause any defence lawyer, woh is worth is pay, to appeal that decision? Just as obtains now!
On another note, the issue of the flawed list was NEVER an issue brought to the court! Therefore, NOTHING the PM or any other person said, outside of the court, concerning the list was admissible. Just like the three members of the ALP, whose polls opened late, are still allowed to remian in parliament, legally, even though the court tossed out other results for late starts.

Like or Dislike: 0 0