On 8/4/2010 7:49 PM, Christian Volney wrote
PD,
I feel the frustration in your words and do not disagree in principle with your overall intuition. The difference between us is I am (whilst with reservation) not convinced overall because politics is a dirty game which has manipulated better men and women than us.
One point I will agree with you on is Edison James; I honestly believe he was a victim of a weak and corrupt team he empowered. Nativity is an inherent flaw in honest and decent leaders, which ‘usually’ leads to their demise by crafty opposition politicians and their legal advisers. The labour party capitalized on that reality and got elected as a result of that reality.
- Ron Green was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee which is mandated to keep an eye on the Public accounts.
- Edison James was a member of that Committee. They have had unfettered access to all the relevant files relating to the transactions on the garbage bins and fertilizer purchases.
- They also ‘by law’ had access to the public officers involved, as well as the independent Director of Audit.
- The Committee held meetings, and if Ron and Edison had unearthed any evidence supporting their claims of corruption by Skerrit and or any members of his cabinet I am certain that they would have exposed it by submitting a report, as they were mandated to do.
- Furthermore, Ron Green admitted to a BBC reporter on the BBC Caribbean Report that he was not able to produce any evidence of corruption.
- It had been reported at a meeting of the UWP held in Castle Bruce before the election that they indicated they would release the evidence on the day following the election!
I had been very concerned about the allegations of corruption being made by the opposition forces, and I had been awaiting anxiously for the evidence substantiating those allegations, being released.
The Public Accounts Committee members (Ron Green and Edison James) ‘constitutionally by law’ could not disclose (before the election) any information substantiating the allegations of corruption before the first sitting of parliament; that came and went without any disclosure of substantiated proof from them which (many, including myself anxiously awaited) questioned the authenticity of the allegations and opened the door to the ‘possibility’ that it may have been no more than a political ploy to discredit Roosevelt Skeritt and gain favor of the electorate!
This is where my indecisiveness on guilt began to surface and why I have ‘opted’ to presume the Prime Minister’s ‘innocence’ unless proven otherwise ‘legally’,and not based on the word or whim of men and women I ‘truly’ respect.
Politics is a dirty game and influential members of our society have been ‘duped’ in the past because they have traded their intuitive ‘gut feelings’ (naively) on the word of respected members of society who have been misguided in their convictions.
When it comes to politics, my convictions are that of an independent thinker; this allows me the latitude to question the evidence. I hold a healthy skepticism of ‘all’ politicians because history dictates prudence needs to be exercised because they cannot be trusted!
Is is possible I could be wrong? Absolutely! I will however guarantee you that this dilemma I am faced with within my moral conviction will not be swayed by the words of any man or woman who is politically motivated. This is not about the credibility or integrity of those who suggest otherwise; this is about ‘my’ intuitive understanding of the anti-trust I hold for politics and politicians.
Cheers,
CV
