It is true. There is nothing to celebrate with the PLP and its leader is disconnected from reality. The irony and the issue? The exact same thing is true of the FNM.
Agree 100%. A convicted criminal with an extreme sense of entitlement believing that despite his crime, he ought to have what no other Bahamian man with the same record can have. Almost all murders in this country are committed with illegal firearms and ammunition. He is an ammunition convict who ran the streets for years and is parading around here as an upstanding individual. What is saddest is that due to the almost non-existent compass of many Bahamians, this reality does not matter simply because of who the criminal is. Once we like a person, we will swear that he or she is good and that their actions are right, no matter what the truth and facts are.
Further to my original question, it is disappointing though not surprising that the heads of the Tribune, which includes lawyers, have not used this matter to raise what ought to be raised; which is that having to ask for permission to assemble is unconstitutional to begin with. Your Constitutional right is to assemble. If in your assembly you begin to hurt people or break laws, law enforcement should act, but there is no one who is supposed to be able to tell you "yes" you can or "no" you cannot assemble. The Constitution already answers that question. The answer is always yes, so long as you don't violate the rights of others while doing so. Advising the authorities of a plan to assemble, depending on where you want it to be is one thing - at which point you have the right to be accommodated. Asking for permission to do so in public spaces ought not be. A police officer or government official does not have the Constitutional right to tell you as a Bahamian "no, you cannot assemble in this public place because I say so." And any law written in that vein should be challenged as unconstitutional.
This is what the powers that be in this country do not make the people to understand about their rights; and it is very obvious why. We talk about the Constitution in this country, but it is only in the vein of what the United Nations wants us to change about it. Other than that, the Constitution is not a document taken seriously in this country.
Why don't you ask them? Why don't you meet with them and put your questions to them instead of feigning interest and concern on pages like these? Do you really expect your questions to get answered here when you can simply go to the source? Unless of course you don't truly want answers and instead are simply being passive aggressively negative with no genuine concern.
> “So I told them no we can’t,” Mr Henfield said, “we can’t expect an administration to be accountable, to follow the law, if we are not going to follow the law. John (Bostwick II) and I agreed, we can’t be breaking the law, you can’t be asking for the government to be law-abiding and accountable, just because the crowd is angry.”
She is mouthing the foolishness being spouted by the pseudo-intellectuals, unstable lawyers and useless hangers-on around her, and she does not seem to have the gray matter in this regard to counterbalance it all. How can you tell the public that though the FNM already has a candidate, you can also be the FNM candidate? How can she not understand how crazy that is, regardless of who is putting that to her? And from her statements to the Guardian, she seems to believe that the nomination is an entitlement of hers. She seems not to get that a nomination is the Party's to give or take; it does not personally belong to the candidate. It is not the candidate's personal possession, regardless of the process by which one is nominated. The FNM at this stage is truly a bag of mixed nuts!
Publius says...
It is true. There is nothing to celebrate with the PLP and its leader is disconnected from reality. The irony and the issue? The exact same thing is true of the FNM.
On Minnis: Nothing to celebrate for PLP
Posted 13 January 2017, 11:16 a.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
> “We don’t know what is going on with that,”
Very obviously in her case, as it is clear she does not even know what it is.
On Loretta: PM failed to deliver on Pointe Heads of Agreement
Posted 12 January 2017, 4:33 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
So much can be said on this but nonetheless, this is a good letter submitted.
On Paediatric care in The Bahamas
Posted 12 January 2017, 4:31 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
Agree 100%. A convicted criminal with an extreme sense of entitlement believing that despite his crime, he ought to have what no other Bahamian man with the same record can have. Almost all murders in this country are committed with illegal firearms and ammunition. He is an ammunition convict who ran the streets for years and is parading around here as an upstanding individual. What is saddest is that due to the almost non-existent compass of many Bahamians, this reality does not matter simply because of who the criminal is. Once we like a person, we will swear that he or she is good and that their actions are right, no matter what the truth and facts are.
On EDITORIAL: A young man of principle leads a movement
Posted 12 January 2017, 4:10 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
Further to my original question, it is disappointing though not surprising that the heads of the Tribune, which includes lawyers, have not used this matter to raise what ought to be raised; which is that having to ask for permission to assemble is unconstitutional to begin with. Your Constitutional right is to assemble. If in your assembly you begin to hurt people or break laws, law enforcement should act, but there is no one who is supposed to be able to tell you "yes" you can or "no" you cannot assemble. The Constitution already answers that question. The answer is always yes, so long as you don't violate the rights of others while doing so. Advising the authorities of a plan to assemble, depending on where you want it to be is one thing - at which point you have the right to be accommodated. Asking for permission to do so in public spaces ought not be. A police officer or government official does not have the Constitutional right to tell you as a Bahamian "no, you cannot assemble in this public place because I say so." And any law written in that vein should be challenged as unconstitutional.
This is what the powers that be in this country do not make the people to understand about their rights; and it is very obvious why. We talk about the Constitution in this country, but it is only in the vein of what the United Nations wants us to change about it. Other than that, the Constitution is not a document taken seriously in this country.
On EDITORIAL: A young man of principle leads a movement
Posted 12 January 2017, 3:58 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
Why don't you ask them? Why don't you meet with them and put your questions to them instead of feigning interest and concern on pages like these? Do you really expect your questions to get answered here when you can simply go to the source? Unless of course you don't truly want answers and instead are simply being passive aggressively negative with no genuine concern.
On EDITORIAL: A young man of principle leads a movement
Posted 12 January 2017, 3:56 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
> “So I told them no we can’t,” Mr Henfield said, “we can’t expect an administration to be accountable, to follow the law, if we are not going to follow the law. John (Bostwick II) and I agreed, we can’t be breaking the law, you can’t be asking for the government to be law-abiding and accountable, just because the crowd is angry.”
What law?
On EDITORIAL: A young man of principle leads a movement
Posted 12 January 2017, 3:20 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
Yes. Sadly, neither should the other contenders. What a sorry state the country now finds itself in.
On Loretta 'has not quit FNM'
Posted 9 January 2017, 1:40 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
She is mouthing the foolishness being spouted by the pseudo-intellectuals, unstable lawyers and useless hangers-on around her, and she does not seem to have the gray matter in this regard to counterbalance it all. How can you tell the public that though the FNM already has a candidate, you can also be the FNM candidate? How can she not understand how crazy that is, regardless of who is putting that to her? And from her statements to the Guardian, she seems to believe that the nomination is an entitlement of hers. She seems not to get that a nomination is the Party's to give or take; it does not personally belong to the candidate. It is not the candidate's personal possession, regardless of the process by which one is nominated. The FNM at this stage is truly a bag of mixed nuts!
On Loretta 'has not quit FNM'
Posted 9 January 2017, 1:27 p.m. Suggest removal
Publius says...
I see in the Guardian she actually says she can still run as an FNM candidate in Long Island. Once again I say, her actions are psychotic.
On Loretta 'has not quit FNM'
Posted 9 January 2017, 1:07 p.m. Suggest removal