DPP rules that PNP Councillor in the St Thomas Division be charged !

On January 9, 2015 I wrote the following

The PNP councillor in this case was arrested because he choose to insert himself into a case which the police was investigating and is lucky he is not facing a criminal charge.


Well it seems the councillor was not so lucky after all as it was made public today that the DPP ruled that he be charged for attempting to pervert the course of justice..

When I wrote this particular article, I was taken to task by another blogger, but as one can see that I was correct in my assessment of the situation and what I believed ought to have occurred.

I wonder what the loud mouth idiots who were seen on TV making a ass of themselves have to say about the ruling of the DPP, are they going to question her capabilities ?


4 Responses

  1. @ Mr Anonymous we would love to hear from you on the ruling from the DPP.

    • Heh heh heh heh…. When your hypocrisy is called into question you always attempt to seek a scapegoat. I have no problem with the Councilor being arrested for a crime, what I question is your predictable behavior to only chastise “PNP” Councilors, while totally ignoring similar (or even worse) transgression by your fellow “JLP” Councilors. That, my friend, is the crux of the matter. This something you fail miserably to understand, given the optics of the situation. Did you not notice the pain I went through to support my point with links to public available data points?

      Even more telling here is the fact that a certain “Businessman” from your Parish was also slated to be charged as a co-conspirator, yet you cleverly fail to even mention this in any of your commentary. Is it that you are unable to tagged the “Businessman” as a PNP operative or even worse, that the person in question is aligned to your party? BTW, who is this “Businessman” Jay? We all know that nothing happens in St. Thomas that you do not have personal knowledge of.

      Clearly, if the word PNP cannot be attached to a crime, then it is just igored by you, since that association is what is important to you, not that a crime was committed. Obviously, all that I’m saying is going over your head, lost in the logic-ridden void of a Labourite who is hell bent on scoring political points, as oppose to calling a spade a spade. From an objective standpoint, your assessment is definitely ornamental, not functional! 😀

      How is that for hearing what I have to say on the matter?

  2. Mr Anonymous see this news release. You may want to write to the Gleaner for saying not just Councillor but PNP Councillor in their article.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: