omg omg omg 143 (mayo is gayo)
03-18-2013
, 05:54 AM
03-18-2013
, 06:03 AM
LOCAL NEWS
Who paid for the Washington visit?
The Opposition is claiming the Government's press statement regarding the Chief Minister's Washington visit and its attendance at presidential inauguration events, raises more questions than it answers.
It reiterates it's aware that the Government itself could not have paid for attendance but repeats the question of who paid and what arrangements, if any, does the Government have with those individuals or companies.
It believes any Opposition in any European democracy would be asking the same question and that it would be provided with an answer.
The GSD claim that for the Government to refuse to identify the individuals or companies that invited the Chief Minister and Dr John Cortes to these events, is nothing short of scandalous, especially since the list of donors is public knowledge.
The Opposition insists that the Government's assertion seems to imply that it's are aware that donations may have been made. It believes this is even more reason for the Government to answer the question in the public interest. It questions why if the answer is simply 'no', the Government does not say so?
The Leader of the Opposition, Daniel Feetham, claims that for the Government to refuse to do so, is an affront to transparency and simply serves to create concern. He adds it needs to realise that it is not the guardian of patriotism and cannot hide behind bare assertions that the Opposition is tarnishing Gibraltar’s image and refuse to expose itself to public scrutiny when it might be inconvenienced by the truth.
Mr Feetham states it's has done so on the issue of the apes, fishing, the Gibraltar Savings Bank and now the Washington visit. He adds that by seeking to invoke it as often, and for such cheap party-political motives as it does, it's betraying its nervousness to an electorate, which is growing increasingly tired with the its handling of the important issues of the day.
Who paid for the Washington visit?
The Opposition is claiming the Government's press statement regarding the Chief Minister's Washington visit and its attendance at presidential inauguration events, raises more questions than it answers.
It reiterates it's aware that the Government itself could not have paid for attendance but repeats the question of who paid and what arrangements, if any, does the Government have with those individuals or companies.
It believes any Opposition in any European democracy would be asking the same question and that it would be provided with an answer.
The GSD claim that for the Government to refuse to identify the individuals or companies that invited the Chief Minister and Dr John Cortes to these events, is nothing short of scandalous, especially since the list of donors is public knowledge.
The Opposition insists that the Government's assertion seems to imply that it's are aware that donations may have been made. It believes this is even more reason for the Government to answer the question in the public interest. It questions why if the answer is simply 'no', the Government does not say so?
The Leader of the Opposition, Daniel Feetham, claims that for the Government to refuse to do so, is an affront to transparency and simply serves to create concern. He adds it needs to realise that it is not the guardian of patriotism and cannot hide behind bare assertions that the Opposition is tarnishing Gibraltar’s image and refuse to expose itself to public scrutiny when it might be inconvenienced by the truth.
Mr Feetham states it's has done so on the issue of the apes, fishing, the Gibraltar Savings Bank and now the Washington visit. He adds that by seeking to invoke it as often, and for such cheap party-political motives as it does, it's betraying its nervousness to an electorate, which is growing increasingly tired with the its handling of the important issues of the day.
03-18-2013
, 06:12 AM
03-18-2013
, 06:29 AM
03-18-2013
, 07:21 AM
03-18-2013
, 07:30 AM
03-18-2013
, 07:37 AM
03-18-2013
, 07:59 AM
03-18-2013
, 08:10 AM
03-18-2013
, 08:14 AM
03-18-2013
, 08:17 AM
03-18-2013
, 08:25 AM
