Daffeh,

 

That is what you want to believe and you have a right to your own interpretation of what is stated... Again, that is NOT what the statement implied unless you want to believe so....

 

Will publish your rejoinder as an individual opinion and not a UDP official version... I hope you understand the difference...

 

Regards

Demba

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:04 AM, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It is not our job to corroborate anything. We are happy to allow the process to be exhausted before our comment.

If you study your editorial once again, you will find out that what you actually implied was that udp had refused to accept the 5 year transition and its attendant conditions while in nadd. Whether this was inadvertent is another matter but that's what you implied. No doubt about it.

Anyway, I hope you will publish my rejoinder.

Thanks
Daffeh

On Fri,,day, 23 September 2011, Demba Baldeh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mr. Daffeh,
>  
> I think you need to re read the statement with a little more open mind.... What the below statement is saying is that these were stipulations in the NADD MOU that all parties signed off to before the break up. It is not by any means saying that UDP walked away from NADD because of these conditions... so in essence the statement refers to conditions that both parties agreed to...
>  
> "It is worth noting that these were conditions that were key demands in the default Memorandum of Understanding of the failed NADD coalition in 2006. Many independent observers reported that UDP has made serious concessions which they refused to do in previous coalition efforts." Gainako
>  
> I think what would be helpful is if you or other UDP folks can collaborate what is reported by releasing the written demands that were presented by UDP for the public to see if in fact it was true that a written document was presented. It will only lend more credibility to the UDP and the process as you know UDP has been acused in the past of operating in verbal words instead of documenting their request...
>  
> So please help clear this misconception once and for all.... look forward to the release!
>  
> For the struggle...
>
> Demba
>  
>  
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:28 AM, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> ‘‘UPD, according to reports by those who attended the meetings presented a written proposal where they demanded a party led coalition to be headed by the UDP. They reported to have put everything else on the table including a popular demand for a five year transition and the flag bearer would also not contest or endorse any party or candidate after the five year transition. It was also reported that the UDP party also indicated that it was willing to have an equal representation of all opposition parties regardless of size in a UDP led government.
>>
>> It is worth noting that these were conditions that were key demands in the default Memorandum of Understanding of the failed NADD coalition in 2006. Many independent observers reported that UDP has made serious concessions which they refused to do in previous coalition efforts." Gainako
>>
>> The UDP voluntarily signed the NADD MOU which also contained the 5yr transition programme and its attendant conditions. When the party withdrew from NADD three yrs later, it stated its reasons for doing so and the 5yr transition programme including all its attendant conditions were not part of those reasons. Therefore, the above insinuation is misleading and does not reflect UDP’s positions in relation to NADD. I hope the Gianako editorial team will find the need to retract their statement in the interest of fair and accurate reporting.
>> At this crucial stage of our struggle, it is imperative that we do everything possible to avoid distorting each other’s past records.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Daffeh
>>
>> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>>
>> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
>
>
> --
> "Be the change you want to see in the World"
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>

> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

--
"Be the change you want to see in the World"
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤