RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wah yuh seh Maudib, Lazie & di rest -

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Willi View Post
    It seems like it has been pre-spent on road projects.

    In other words the contracts have been lined up for the future (to 2015) with guarntees etc.

    Its not apparently stolen, just spoken for, so cant be used for other purposes.
    LOL... so YP Seaton aggo bathe fi di nex few years?? That would be unprecedented for mere repair work for funds to be encumbered into the future like that.

    Those contracts should be abrogated especially in view of the corruption engulfing this JDIP sitten... put Missa Christie pon di case
    TIVOLI: THE DESTRUCTION OF JAMAICA'S EVIL EMPIRE

    Recognizing the victims of Jamaica's horrendous criminality and exposing the Dummies like Dippy supporting criminals by their deeds.. or their silence.

    D1 - Xposing Dummies since 2007

    Comment


    • #17
      If irregular yes, but if not, ah courthouse business.

      I would not call it encumbered. The money was lent for roadworks and it lined up for the future. If the pricing is good, then it can be seen as organized future planning, and not last minit high priced ramshackle. IF, big if.

      JDIP was never intended or purposed for Jeeping, so I dont see any basis to cry foul cause money lined up for the intended purpose.


      I have no special insight into the details, just read what you read.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Willi View Post
        It seems like it has been pre-spent on road projects.

        In other words the contracts have been lined up for the future (to 2015) with guarntees etc.

        Its not apparently stolen, just spoken for, so cant be used for other purposes.
        and you know that willi... so you are saying that you know that work is guaranteed for the next 4 years...
        'to get what we've never had, we MUST do what we've never done'

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Willi View Post
          If irregular yes, but if not, ah courthouse business.

          I would not call it encumbered. The money was lent for roadworks and it lined up for the future. If the pricing is good, then it can be seen as organized future planning, and not last minit high priced ramshackle. IF, big if.

          JDIP was never intended or purposed for Jeeping, so I dont see any basis to cry foul cause money lined up for the intended purpose.


          I have no special insight into the details, just read what you read.
          it would be foul if the road work reparations (main and local) were not completed in the next 4 years...
          'to get what we've never had, we MUST do what we've never done'

          Comment


          • #20
            So they ran with it, right?


            BLACK LIVES MATTER

            Comment


            • #21
              I agree, but that is a different issue. That is specific performance of contract.

              Comment


              • #22
                No, and dem fool on dat account.

                Run wid it would mean the money dished out widely fi ketch vote.

                This is contractor selection and contractual arrangement. No real money pass, but the budget done. In finance, yuh haffi differentiate between budget, periodic expense and cash flow. This is budget.

                Comment


                • #23
                  yuh mean, as in usain bolt's world record sprint...
                  'to get what we've never had, we MUST do what we've never done'

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I dont KNOW anything. I am intuiting this from what I read. This is the clear implication.

                    I didnt say the work was guaranteed, I said it was contracted out with certain guarantees to the contracted parties who are now bound to deliver specific performance.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Not at all.

                      I mean that COULD be the case, bit that is not what are reading about.

                      What U and Mo are talking about would be something else that could arise in an audit.

                      However, what we discuss is the total forward allocation of the budget. This means that you cant easily unwind these obligations.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        refrain from the ignorant yapping.. please.

                        what did Omar have to 'karrec' ?

                        Road work ah give out from wheh day.. that is not the crime that Omar committed.

                        What 'problem' is JDIP creating ?

                        What problem did 'run wid it' create ? Ask Omar if yuh confused.. at least him admit it (although him nevah know summady was a tape him confession to the inner circles)

                        How unnuh comrades suh fool fool, nuh wandah you ah clap di PNP eediat dem when dem eff up di country.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          So you really think a 'future road repair contract' to fix roads that probably not yet damaged is just a simple contractor selection arrrangement?? No 'real' money pass? No kick-backs? No preferential treatment? I have a beach lot to sell you...shld be ready in 4 yrs...still backfilling...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I didnt say that. All you said could still have happened and would not invalidate the point I was making. Read my post again. I am not in the business of defending 'ticians and assuming that all they do is above board. That is a fools bet.

                            Road not damaged yet?? From what I heard, the money cant even cover all the road when done dmaged long ago.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X