I replied to Jon, and explained some of my views more detailed. The whole text is published below with minor corrections of wrong spelling. * * *Dear friend,
this your statement is highly appreciated and is suitable to make the picture complete. If you have
read my posts in the GLR forum, you certainly have noticed, that I do not spare with critics on Jaix and other legislators as well. Aspecially I critisezed their being reluctant to try and change the system by following the formal proceedures. I advised them to be smart, they were not, by reacting on certain provocations.
But you will have to admit, that Privy Council strongly hindered the work of the parliament because
it disagreed with its policy. Yes, due to the GLK Act 2004 there exists a passage about making meetings on the first Monday of each month, that's true. But there also exists a passage that the Emperor (or you as Lord Protector in his place), HAVE TO call for a meeting, if a certain number of the assembly demands this from him.
The exact wording is:
***************************************************
Division 2-Procedure of Legislative Assembly
(1) The Legislative Assembly shall meet on the first Monday of each month.
(2) The Emperor shall convene the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly after a general election of that Assembly and thereafter shall convene a meeting of that Assembly whenever requested
to do so by such number of members of that Assembly as is prescribed by enactment.
(3) The Emperor may convene a meeting of the Legislative Assembly whenever, in his opinion, it is necessary to do so. by notice published in the Fairytales Government Gayzette.
***************************************************
Though I didn't find an exact statement about the number of legislators required to enforce HIM to call for a meeting, on a similiar passage about the Executive Commitee there was a talk of 3 people. As you can see, the GLK Act 2004 gives you (as you are acting legally instesd of Dale) the freedom to call for a meeting when the Assembly members ask you to do so, you just had to show a little bit more good will. Even more, you ARE in duty to call for the said meeting, if they demand this from you. You cannot tell me that the PC was NOT seeking the confrontation, as the said statement from Dale (written by whom?) was issued just a couple of days BEFORE the said meeting for the Assembly. This was a clear Coup'd Etat, not in the wording of the law, but in its intents and sense. There was no reason not to wait the said 2 or 3 days and ask the Assembly what it thinks about Dale's plans. No, the Assembly was ignored on purpose.
Generally, I have not received A SINGLE statement for many of my concrete allegations and critics. OK, you are a friendly quy and at least are trying to present your view of the happenings, but the usual answer to every critic from the GLK's officials is an icy silence or open hostility. Enrique, for example, answered all critics on Bill with a remark, that Bill is his friend and if I ever regarded him (Enrique) as a friend, I should stop critisise him. Is this a way to deal with serious critics? Yes, I called Bill and Dale to be liars in a private letter to Bill because of some reasons, and Dale's statement proved I was right. But no one sems to care, indeed from BILL no excuses were published, just absolutely NO COMMENTS. No statements that he and others PC members knew about the matter but preferred to keep this knowledge for themselves.
All this shows how less sensitiv the PC members are handling the matters of law and truth.
As to make you an example, I demonstrate this on the simple examples of resignations. Kai Seay was fired and declared that she resigned. Joe Grande's resignation was accepted and officially published (100% sure), he was NEVER re-appointed again, instead a wrong statement was published that his resignation was not accepted. Beatrice tried to resign several times but this was not accepted because she seemed to be usefull. Gunnar didn't send you a FORMAL written
resignation, and still you accepted it without further questioning, despite the GLK Act 2004 is pretty explicit on that topic. I do not blame you really, as he WANTED to resigne, but the proceedings were not fulfilled in accordiance withe the law. You see what I mean? Everytime whe the law is serving the interests of Bill or the PC, you guys are quick to cite it. But in cases the law is contrary to your interests, you gently oversee it. Please understand me right: psychologically it can be understood, but as person in charge you shall protect the law even if it does serve your opponent rather than you.
I regard you as a man of principles and aknowledge the simple fact, that from your point of view things are looking a bit different. This is NATURAL and this is the reason why this things have to be DISCUSSED, that's the reason for democracy being a better choice than absolute monarchy or a one-party system. The Privy Council tries to regulate things "privately", without letting the public know what is going on and about what topics different opinions are existing. This is foolish and extremely contra-productive.
As to my critics, pease take into consideration that I am not a neutral journalist but a person involved into the process and I have my opinions about acters involved and how things could be done better (in my view, of course). If you think certain statements are incorrect, especially those about what happened when and who was violating the law at what occasion, it is your right and duty to take position and report your point of view. This has nothing to do with being a "pissing match", this is a normal process of a democratic discussion. People WANT to know, what is
going on and they WANT to decide by THEMESELVES, what opinion is right or wrong. The broad mass can not read the thougts of those in power, and if you fail to communicate you must not wonder that people get suspicious. Especially if the government makes decisions contrary to the will of the people, the government is well-advised to explain its behavior extensely and should let the people decide, whether they prefer to keep the government or to elect a new one. But at THIS point many from the PC, and parts of the new assembly too, will probably strongly disagree with me. Because these guys consider themselves as especially well-informed and educated, whereas the rest of the people are dumb "mob", though with university degrees and certain experience in politics, economy and science.
If you wish your point of view to be published in our forum, there are 2 ways: a) You allow me to publish your communication or b) you register for the forum and post whatever you think required by yourselfe. The registering for the forum is free from any obligations to join our organization, as we also made clear in the FAQ section (new). If you wish, you can join the special group for externals, but with a limited access, though. Please let us know, under which nick-name you will register, as out of "conflict of interest"
we appreciate to know who is who in the forum. However, you are completely free to publish your opinion.
And, once again, our differences are mostly based upon the matter as such, and less on personal hostilities towards any specific people. OK, Donald would rather have problems to go drink a beer with Mr. Freeman, but my objections against Bill are rather of political nature.
The cake and coffee are waiting for you, feel free to visit us at our "Cafe to the Coral Sea"
Warm hugs,
Vicky
* * *
