![[Paul Lismore] " ENE BANDI POU RESS ENE BANDI": DOES THIS MEAN THAT "ENE VOLEUR LARZAN LEPEP POU TOU LE TAN KOKIN LEPEP"?](https://www.zinfos-moris.com/photo/art/grande/37293046-32986941.jpg?v=1568469782 "[Paul Lismore] \" ENE BANDI POU RESS ENE BANDI\": DOES THIS MEAN THAT \"ENE VOLEUR LARZAN LEPEP POU TOU LE TAN KOKIN LEPEP\"?")
![[Paul Lismore] " ENE BANDI POU RESS ENE BANDI": DOES THIS MEAN THAT "ENE VOLEUR LARZAN LEPEP POU TOU LE TAN KOKIN LEPEP"?](https://www.zinfos-moris.com/photo/art/default/37293046-32986941.jpg?v=1568469786 "[Paul Lismore] \" ENE BANDI POU RESS ENE BANDI\": DOES THIS MEAN THAT \"ENE VOLEUR LARZAN LEPEP POU TOU LE TAN KOKIN LEPEP\"?")
He could have said so many things, for example, " La cour in decider et mo ena full confiance dan nou systeme la zistis. Li parey kouma kan la cour supreme ti finalman truv moi innosan dan sa zafer Medpoint la, malgre ki ene la cour ti dire ki mo coupable. Kom Premier Ministre, mo koir dan lindependance nou judiciaire et si la cour in decide pou cancel sa charge la, alor mo felicite Navin Ramgoolam".
That would have been the comment of a Statesman, a real Prime Minister who has a Constitutional duty to ensure the independence of our institutions. But we do not have a real Prime Minister; instead, we have a little schoolboy in baggy shorts that reach down to his knees, so often bullied by others, but who now finds himself in a position of power surrounded by friends who egg him on to say the most stupid things imaginable.
He still believes he is in the school playground, with his friends 'advising' him to "dire sa! Reponne li! Fou sa dan so la guele". And the toothy one, with a grin that would give even Moby Dick a severe inferiority complex over the size of its teeth, continues to behave like the spoilt little, lonely child finally able to make his voice heard, because he now has 'friends' around him....
As soon as I heard him say that, 3 images flashed in my mind:
1/ When he signed a cheque for Rs 47 millions to Daddy when he was minister of finance 2003-2005. 2/ When he signed another cheque with undue haste, this one of Rs 144 millions for his sister and brother in law, in order to beat the Capital Gains Tax deadline. 3/ When as Minister of Finance, he quietly changed the Finance laws so that the hotel belonging to Lady Macbeth and her family could be saved from bankruptcy.
I then remembered how he, as minister, together with an Attorney General who seems to believe that the law is for everyone else but for him and his family, Roshi Badhain, Rakesh Gooljaury, and the then head of our National Shit Service kept two foreign nationals against their will in the plush apartment of Yerrigrodoudou, and wanted the two foreigners to give them a nice percentage of the profits made by the Duty Free services at Plaisance.
To sweeten the deal, the chap who 'fer seki li dire et envi fer ar nou pou 5 ans enkor' offered the two foreigners some charming female company....presumably to do some readings of Shakespeare interspersed with some nice Quawali renditions...The affidavit of those two foreigners detailing all these 'patriotique' activities remains in the lamoresse of Marionette, as no police action was ever taken to even initiate an investigation....
Numerous other details come to mind about how a voleur is servi nou pays and therefore, according to his wisdom, will always remain a voleur. Things like he is the only Prime Minister who has ever been accused by our most notorious drugs dealer of being the source of the financing of most drugs importation, and how he then failed to carry out his promise to give his version to the Commission on Drugs....
But there are too many to mention in this post, so let me now move to a zavoka who they tell me 'serves' on the IPCC, and I would emphasise the word 'Independent' here.
His name is 'Dick' and that should in no way allow you to titter or to make allusions about how it is natural for him to behave like a prick, ok? Someone sent me a post on Dick's Facebook page where he asks whether the DPP will appeal the decision of the magistrates to throw out the case against Navin Ramgoolam.
Question: What independence can this man show in his functions at the IPCC if he feels the need to question any future action of the DPP towards the leader of the PTr, a party which stands a good chance of winning the next elections, and therefore wresting power from the party he supports, the MSM?
Someone then made the ludicrous connection in his post about the DPP being the brother of Arvin Boolell, i.e. therefore the dice were loaded and thrown in Ramgoolam's favour right from the start. The buffoons of course would fail to understand this simple point:
Why did the DPP, as Arvin Boolell's brother, lay 12 charges against his leader, Navin Ramgoolam?
This is all part of a nasty, whispering, insidious campaign which no representative of a so called Independent body funded entirely by the taxpayer ought to ever participate in, or even give the appearance to be condoning.
The zavokas really need to look at the Law again and then the full judgement and ask themselves and their zombie supporters, " On what grounds can the DPP appeal this?" The answer is none. Let me quote from the magistrates' judgement: " It is an ESSENTIAL element of the offence under Section 298 9f the Criminal Code Act that the Prosecution PROVES that the offence has NOT taken place." The magistrates emphasised that "it is beyond dispute that a larceny did occur" and that Judas Gooljaury, Chief Inspector Goinden and Police Sergeant Bhujun confirmed during "a full fledged inquiry" that Rs 20,000 had been stolen.
The magistrates decided that "We are of the considered conclusion that the prosecution has FAILED to establish one of the elements of the offence of conspiracy, and .....taken at its HIGHEST, the prosecution has not established a prima facie case against the accused parties."
Now, you want the DPP to appeal this after what the magistrates have said? Ki jhant zot koir sa pou rasser?
To sum up. ene voleur pou res ene voleur....et soucerres pou res soucerres et bon zis pou met zot la guele fesse dan selfies ki lerla amerde tonkin dimoune, sirtou kan guet sa zis avan manzer!
That would have been the comment of a Statesman, a real Prime Minister who has a Constitutional duty to ensure the independence of our institutions. But we do not have a real Prime Minister; instead, we have a little schoolboy in baggy shorts that reach down to his knees, so often bullied by others, but who now finds himself in a position of power surrounded by friends who egg him on to say the most stupid things imaginable.
He still believes he is in the school playground, with his friends 'advising' him to "dire sa! Reponne li! Fou sa dan so la guele". And the toothy one, with a grin that would give even Moby Dick a severe inferiority complex over the size of its teeth, continues to behave like the spoilt little, lonely child finally able to make his voice heard, because he now has 'friends' around him....
As soon as I heard him say that, 3 images flashed in my mind:
1/ When he signed a cheque for Rs 47 millions to Daddy when he was minister of finance 2003-2005. 2/ When he signed another cheque with undue haste, this one of Rs 144 millions for his sister and brother in law, in order to beat the Capital Gains Tax deadline. 3/ When as Minister of Finance, he quietly changed the Finance laws so that the hotel belonging to Lady Macbeth and her family could be saved from bankruptcy.
I then remembered how he, as minister, together with an Attorney General who seems to believe that the law is for everyone else but for him and his family, Roshi Badhain, Rakesh Gooljaury, and the then head of our National Shit Service kept two foreign nationals against their will in the plush apartment of Yerrigrodoudou, and wanted the two foreigners to give them a nice percentage of the profits made by the Duty Free services at Plaisance.
To sweeten the deal, the chap who 'fer seki li dire et envi fer ar nou pou 5 ans enkor' offered the two foreigners some charming female company....presumably to do some readings of Shakespeare interspersed with some nice Quawali renditions...The affidavit of those two foreigners detailing all these 'patriotique' activities remains in the lamoresse of Marionette, as no police action was ever taken to even initiate an investigation....
Numerous other details come to mind about how a voleur is servi nou pays and therefore, according to his wisdom, will always remain a voleur. Things like he is the only Prime Minister who has ever been accused by our most notorious drugs dealer of being the source of the financing of most drugs importation, and how he then failed to carry out his promise to give his version to the Commission on Drugs....
But there are too many to mention in this post, so let me now move to a zavoka who they tell me 'serves' on the IPCC, and I would emphasise the word 'Independent' here.
His name is 'Dick' and that should in no way allow you to titter or to make allusions about how it is natural for him to behave like a prick, ok? Someone sent me a post on Dick's Facebook page where he asks whether the DPP will appeal the decision of the magistrates to throw out the case against Navin Ramgoolam.
Question: What independence can this man show in his functions at the IPCC if he feels the need to question any future action of the DPP towards the leader of the PTr, a party which stands a good chance of winning the next elections, and therefore wresting power from the party he supports, the MSM?
Someone then made the ludicrous connection in his post about the DPP being the brother of Arvin Boolell, i.e. therefore the dice were loaded and thrown in Ramgoolam's favour right from the start. The buffoons of course would fail to understand this simple point:
Why did the DPP, as Arvin Boolell's brother, lay 12 charges against his leader, Navin Ramgoolam?
This is all part of a nasty, whispering, insidious campaign which no representative of a so called Independent body funded entirely by the taxpayer ought to ever participate in, or even give the appearance to be condoning.
The zavokas really need to look at the Law again and then the full judgement and ask themselves and their zombie supporters, " On what grounds can the DPP appeal this?" The answer is none. Let me quote from the magistrates' judgement: " It is an ESSENTIAL element of the offence under Section 298 9f the Criminal Code Act that the Prosecution PROVES that the offence has NOT taken place." The magistrates emphasised that "it is beyond dispute that a larceny did occur" and that Judas Gooljaury, Chief Inspector Goinden and Police Sergeant Bhujun confirmed during "a full fledged inquiry" that Rs 20,000 had been stolen.
The magistrates decided that "We are of the considered conclusion that the prosecution has FAILED to establish one of the elements of the offence of conspiracy, and .....taken at its HIGHEST, the prosecution has not established a prima facie case against the accused parties."
Now, you want the DPP to appeal this after what the magistrates have said? Ki jhant zot koir sa pou rasser?
To sum up. ene voleur pou res ene voleur....et soucerres pou res soucerres et bon zis pou met zot la guele fesse dan selfies ki lerla amerde tonkin dimoune, sirtou kan guet sa zis avan manzer!
