Who of those serve in the LegAss understand being ‘honourable’

May 3, 2019

It was obvious that those of us listening to the events as they unfolded in the Legislative Assembly (LegAss), on that somewhat tumultuous March 29, 2019, that the story was not near what was coming over the airwaves. It was such that even those who might have been present in the gallery were unaware of what was taking place.

It turns out and there are those of us who would easily understand from being present in the gallery at times and those who would say what and this and that which they wouldn’t do, if they were the Speaker or a legislator, depending on the circumstances.

Over the last several years for over a decade, it wasn’t difficult to tell if a Speaker was being more than bias towards a government or opposition or different members as the case may be. Whichever way that was, except the members were prepared to take some action as may be or could be necessary, in an environment where people talk out mostly in gossip, it meant the situation would only get worse.

It was an unpleasant experience, though not surprising because somehow the lack of integrity and just ordinary common sense that is prevailing among many, leaves no doubt that being forthright for honesty and decency is somehow at an all time low to the point where good is unnoticed, wrong acceptable, and bad is seen as the norm, and good.

With regards to the behaviour of our legislators, or some of them, it was surprising taking into consideration the little rattle preceding here that the Speaker would hold this opinion when she said this. “I find it very troubling that there could be Members of this House, leaders in our community, setters of standards for the others of us who could declare that they find the occurrences of March 29t altogether out of order, regrettable, unacceptable and never to be condoned, and in the same breath also declare that the primary consideration is not the violation, but the votes that they might not get in the upcoming elections, from voters who might disagree with the penalties meted out to those members who violated the rules of the house.”

That is indeed really quite sad to hear, listening to the six charges she read out, and all she had said before. Of course, that may be because she had just said this prior to that statement. “Members are required to take a stand when problems arise and indeed where members are unwilling to take a stand it becomes a problem. To the extent that the members refuse to hold their members to the highest standards they also prevent the Speaker from properly defending the dignity and reputation of the House and, in this case, from addressing the indignity that was heaped upon the House.”

Let’s list them here, the infractions of the offending members. Disruption of house proceedings. Violation of the dignity and honour of the House. Disregard for the authority of the Chair. Unparliamentary language. Leaving the House without the permission of the Speaker. Grave misconduct in the House, including abuse of the use of parliamentary speech.

The Speaker says she doesn’t see these or much else as an attack on her or even disrespect to her. If a singe of those charges in any mix can be made against any other member of the house that does tell of the dire situation this territory faces as it is already looking out to hear or see those who from among them and others who will present themselves to the electorate in less than a year’s time.

There are those who were unhappy that she spoke so long on the matter, but from what she said it appears that it was necessary. It is difficult to believe that anything she said was new to any member and for those of them who were bored and falling asleep, we hope that they will seek to hold each other to the fire as is necessary. And what if she did not speak as fast as she did!

More than half of the members are new, four having served at least one term before with one having a third consecutive term. But they are in the fifth year. All have had training parliamentary training since elected, but could it be they misunderstand the title honourable?

And thinking that even after nearly an hour that there are still those who felt nothing wrong took place. And could it be that the Speaker was accused of lying when they thought they were not guilty as charged? After all, those who voted against or abstained from voting should be called upon to explain their position, if they still consider it honourable.

Leave a Reply

Please Support The Montserrat Reporter

This is bottom line for us! Unless we receive your support, our effort will not be able to continue. Whatever and however you can, please support The Montserrat Reporter in whatever amount you can (and whatever frequency) – and it only takes a minute.
Thank you

TMR print pages

Flow: (MON) Handset Upgrade

Know about your Land Transactions

Newsletter

Archives

Flow: Handset offer – Upgrade

https://indd.adobe.com/embed/2b4deb22-cf03-4509-9bbd-938c7e8ecc7d
May 3, 2019

It was obvious that those of us listening to the events as they unfolded in the Legislative Assembly (LegAss), on that somewhat tumultuous March 29, 2019, that the story was not near what was coming over the airwaves. It was such that even those who might have been present in the gallery were unaware of what was taking place.

It turns out and there are those of us who would easily understand from being present in the gallery at times and those who would say what and this and that which they wouldn’t do, if they were the Speaker or a legislator, depending on the circumstances.

Over the last several years for over a decade, it wasn’t difficult to tell if a Speaker was being more than bias towards a government or opposition or different members as the case may be. Whichever way that was, except the members were prepared to take some action as may be or could be necessary, in an environment where people talk out mostly in gossip, it meant the situation would only get worse.

Insert Ads Here

It was an unpleasant experience, though not surprising because somehow the lack of integrity and just ordinary common sense that is prevailing among many, leaves no doubt that being forthright for honesty and decency is somehow at an all time low to the point where good is unnoticed, wrong acceptable, and bad is seen as the norm, and good.

With regards to the behaviour of our legislators, or some of them, it was surprising taking into consideration the little rattle preceding here that the Speaker would hold this opinion when she said this. “I find it very troubling that there could be Members of this House, leaders in our community, setters of standards for the others of us who could declare that they find the occurrences of March 29t altogether out of order, regrettable, unacceptable and never to be condoned, and in the same breath also declare that the primary consideration is not the violation, but the votes that they might not get in the upcoming elections, from voters who might disagree with the penalties meted out to those members who violated the rules of the house.”

That is indeed really quite sad to hear, listening to the six charges she read out, and all she had said before. Of course, that may be because she had just said this prior to that statement. “Members are required to take a stand when problems arise and indeed where members are unwilling to take a stand it becomes a problem. To the extent that the members refuse to hold their members to the highest standards they also prevent the Speaker from properly defending the dignity and reputation of the House and, in this case, from addressing the indignity that was heaped upon the House.”

Let’s list them here, the infractions of the offending members. Disruption of house proceedings. Violation of the dignity and honour of the House. Disregard for the authority of the Chair. Unparliamentary language. Leaving the House without the permission of the Speaker. Grave misconduct in the House, including abuse of the use of parliamentary speech.

The Speaker says she doesn’t see these or much else as an attack on her or even disrespect to her. If a singe of those charges in any mix can be made against any other member of the house that does tell of the dire situation this territory faces as it is already looking out to hear or see those who from among them and others who will present themselves to the electorate in less than a year’s time.

There are those who were unhappy that she spoke so long on the matter, but from what she said it appears that it was necessary. It is difficult to believe that anything she said was new to any member and for those of them who were bored and falling asleep, we hope that they will seek to hold each other to the fire as is necessary. And what if she did not speak as fast as she did!

More than half of the members are new, four having served at least one term before with one having a third consecutive term. But they are in the fifth year. All have had training parliamentary training since elected, but could it be they misunderstand the title honourable?

And thinking that even after nearly an hour that there are still those who felt nothing wrong took place. And could it be that the Speaker was accused of lying when they thought they were not guilty as charged? After all, those who voted against or abstained from voting should be called upon to explain their position, if they still consider it honourable.