- You need to include copyright tags to the image. Do you consider this fair use of a copyright image? You need to include that information.
- Can you explain what you mean by "removing the political slant" - the facts of how he was appointed PM, and the fact that he appointed his wife - both unprecidented in TT politics - should not be in the article? It seems rather POV to whitewash the article of major criticisms
Guettarda 15:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you are incorrect there. Where the law is not explicit, British and Commonwealth precident is the law. Much of the way that Parliament is run is not actually spelt out in the constitution or in the law. While there was no precident in TT, there is a precident in UK and Commonwealth practice, and that is that a sitting PM is given first preference in forming a government. So what Robinson did was contrary to Parliamentary procedure. The President is not free to pick whomsoever he likes. Quite correctly he sought advice from Commonwealth constitutional scholars. Quite incorrectly (or, at least, not in keeping with tradition), he chose to ignore that advice. Acting "in your opinion" is not a carte blanche to act as the President feels.
- While Robinson acted within the law (because the courts can't review an action by the President) that does not mean he acted within established precident.
- Hazel Manning was appointed Senator by the President. Again, this was unprecidented, and it was widely considered nepotism. To leave that out, given the level of outrage it generated, is POV. (Please read the NPOV policy. Guettarda 16:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
|Image deletion warning||The image Image:Pm manning sm.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.|
Guettarda 21:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)