Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4270
Reputation: 242.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:54 am    Post subject: Ottawa puts a 10% tax bite on pot Reply with quote

Quote:
Ottawa wants 10 per cent pot tax
Ottawa’s proposal to tax pot upsets premiers who want greater slice of the revenues
By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITHOttawa Bureau
Tues., Oct. 3, 2017

OTTAWA—Ottawa wants to impose a 10 per cent tax on marijuana sales and split the revenues with the provinces but premiers want a bigger slice, arguing their jurisdictions are bearing most of the costs of implementing and policing the federal government’s plan to legalize pot.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used a meeting of provincial and territorial leaders Tuesday to table Ottawa’s proposal for a federal excise tax on marijuana, when it becomes legal next July 1.

Under the plan, each gram of marijuana would have a tax of $1 on sales up to $10 and a 10 per cent tax on sales worth more than $10. Tax revenues would be split 50-50 with the provinces.

But that revenue-sharing proposal rankled premiers who have voiced worries about Ottawa’s timeline to legalize pot, as well their own costs to set up the retail system to sell it and added policing costs to enforce laws such as impaired driving.

B.C. Premier John Horgan said the tax proposal “caught us a bit by surprise” and complained that provinces — facing costs in distributions, regulation and enforcement — may now have to share “whatever modest” revenue there might be.”

“I think many Canadians believe if we can tax this product, we’re going to be swimming in cash but that’s just not been the experience in the United States. It’s not likely to be the experience here,” Horgan told reporters.

That was echoed by Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister, who said that provinces and the federal government are headed into uncharted territory.

“We really don’t know what the ramifications are of this. This is a historic change. We don’t know the real costs. We do know the lion’s share of the work and expenses will be borne by provinces."

“We might be splitting a cost, not a net proceed,” Pallister said.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said the Tuesday’s tabling of the pot tax proposal was “the beginning of a discussion.”

“We are looking at this through the lens of public safety and health and undermining the black market,” said Wynne, who also flagged that Ontario municipalities are worried about looming enforcement costs.

Trudeau said he had the premiers’ concerns “loud and clear.”

“There are significant new costs going to be associated with bringing in a framework and legalized regime like this,” Trudeau told a news conference that wrapped up the daylong meeting.

Trudeau, who was joined for discussion on marijuana by Liberal MP Bill Blair — the government’s point man on pot — pledged that Ottawa wanted to act in a “co-operative” manner.

“We recognize that this is something that still requires much discussion with the provinces on levels of excise tax, on revenue sharing but mostly on the work we need to do to make sure this gets done right,” he said.

“I would like to reassure you. The objective around the table is not to want to make lots of money by legalizing marijuana.”

Ontario has said that only those 19 and older will be allowed to buy marijuana, while it appears Quebec will set the age at 18.

But Wynne predicted few problems with so-called cross-border pot tourism, noting there is already a similar difference between the two provinces in the age to consume alcohol.

“Our objective is to make sure that we put all of the conditions in place for the highest levels of public safety, particularly for young people,” Wynne said.

“We already have discrepancies and we will continue to manage them.”

Premiers took Ottawa to task on another front Tuesday as they pressed the prime minister and Finance Minister Bill Morneau on the potential impact of the Liberal’s controversial reforms to taxes on privately incorporated businesses.

Don Morgan, Saskatchewan’s deputy premier, said the changes would have a harmful impact on family farms and medical professionals in his province.

“We hope that we were heard today . . . . We regard it at best as a work in progress but we urge the federal government to take time to reconsider,” Morgan said.

Morneau offered some reassurance that the changes will be slightly adjusted to accommodate public concerns.

But Morneau, who met earlier with premiers at a first ministers conference in Ottawa, downplayed hopes the government would ditch proposals that have enraged many small business owners who say they need to shelter income at lower tax rates within their company to expand the business or get through hard times.

Morneau dodged a direct question from reporters about when he’d bring in the tax changes, but a Liberal caucus source told the Star the final version of the proposed tax reforms will be introduced in the fall fiscal update.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/03/ottawa-wants-10-per-cent-pot-tax.html


Now we get to the nitty-gritty -- the nationalization of criminal enterprise goes forth, tarted up as a kind of legalization''. But the tax is going to have to be higher to piece off the premiers This is going to start a price war. They want to get rid of the black market through higher prices? Good luck with that!
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6500
Reputation: 234.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( were now finding out what marijuana legalisation was all about , finding new tax revenue , at $1 per gram ( plus GST ) there poised to hit the jackpot and it will almost certainly be raised once the system is well established and illegal operators chased out of the market )


Feds want to tax weed $1 per gram — plus GST


A woman exhales while smoking a joint during the annual 420 marijuana rally on Parliament hill on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 in Ottawa. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin




Mia Rabson, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Nov 10, 2017
, Last Updated: 12:46 PM ET


Ottawa and the provinces and territories could have another $1 billion a year in tax revenues to split after pot becomes legal next year.

Liberal MP Bill Blair, former Toronto police chief and the government’s point man on legalizing marijuana, made public the federal tax proposal for legal pot Friday, kicking off a period of public consultations that ends Dec. 7.

That, Blair said, gives the government just enough time to solicit comments on the proposal so that federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers can discuss it when they meet in Ottawa Dec. 10-11.

The plan would add an excise tax of $1 per gram of marijuana or 10% of the final retail price, whichever is higher, with the revenues to be divided equally between Ottawa and the provinces and territories.

The final price, including provincial and federal sales taxes, would vary by jurisdiction, since the combined total is in some provinces is higher than in others. On an $8 gram of pot sold in Ontario, for instance, the final purchase price would be $10.17, with a $1 excise tax and $1.17 HST. In New Brunswick, it would be $10.35.

Alberta, which has no provincial sales taxes, could see the cheapest pot in the country at just $9.45 total for an $8 gram of weed.

“I’m very comfortable that the level of taxation that has been determined as appropriate in this case achieves our goals of keeping the price sufficiently low to be competitive with an illicit market, while at the same time not creating an incentive for the consumption and purchase of this drug,” said Blair.

“It’s a matter of finding the right level of taxation and price in order to achieve both of those very important public purpose aims. I believe that the work that we have done sets a very appropriate level.”

Blair gave $1 billion a year as a very rough estimate of how much Canada and provinces stand to raise from the plan, although that number is at the high end of the scale, he warned, since so much depends on just how many people will end up buying marijuana once it becomes legal.

“We’re working very closely right now to determine what the size of that market will be,” he said.

He said determining the market is very difficult, but the tax will end up being between one-fifth and one-quarter of the final price, with tax revenues to be split 50-50 with the provinces and territories.

“The market is currently controlled almost 100% by criminals,” Blair said. “It’s an illicit market. Quite frankly, they don’t share a lot of data on the size of their market, so right now we’re operating on estimates.”

The taxes would be levied on both on fresh and dried marijuana, pot-infused oils and seeds and seedlings used for home cultivation. Revenues would be used for public education, research, enforcement and other activities around the regulation and administration of legal pot.

The 50-50 tax revenue split idea has already rankled at least one premier — B.C.’s John Horgan — who complained that the provinces won’t be getting a fair share, considering they will be doing the bulk of the heavy lifting on legalization, including policing, distributing and regulating the sale of marijuana.

The discussions are still ongoing, said Blair, noting that the consultation period will end just before the provincial and territorial finance ministers gather Dec. 10 and 11 in Ottawa to sit down with federal counterpart Bill Morneau.

“It is part of an ongoing discussion that our finance minister is having with his counterparts, provincially and territorially,” Blair said. “It would be inappropriate of me to presume the results of the discussions that are currently taking place ... there is still work to be done in the consultations.”

Municipalities, too, have recently indicated they deserve a share of the revenues.

“We have recognized right from the outset that municipalities are an important stakeholder, and that they have a significant role to play in ensuring that the regulatory regime that is put in place is effective in achieving our public purpose aims, of protecting kids and keeping communities safe,” Blair said.

“As I’ve travelled across the country, I’ve always made a point in virtually every town I’ve gone into to go and meet with the mayor and the local chief of police to hear that perspective, and we’ve carried their concerns back, and we’ve responded to that already in a quite significant way.”

The government has already committed resources to municipalities, including $81 million for municipal and Indigenous police services to help offset the cost of additional training and resources, he added.

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/C.....64117.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4270
Reputation: 242.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marijuana users aren't used to paying GST. One wonders -- if it will be the full HST or just the GST?

People often buy weed in 'quarters' -- 7 grams. So that would add almost $8 to one government or another on top of the 10% of profits from the licensees ...

If prices are ...say ... $10 a gram at the bottom of the user chain, that means that the added taxes drive the price up to around $87 (in Ontario). If you bear in mind that the purchaser had to earn $100 to net out the $87, it means the tax load on a quarter ounce of weed will be about $30 or 43%!

Most people pay less than that. At $60 a quarter, the new price would be about $75.

As this 'good idea' is rolled out, prepare yourself for a prime illustration of the government's ineptitude in business. Unless you're talking about Hydro ...

But if the aim was to shut down the black market, they have to cut prevailing prices and provide better consistent quality.

If the effect of 'legalization' is to raise prices, it will only make the black market product seem even more attractive.

They should be thinking of price cuts of 25%, probably more, and worry about the income later.

What they forget is that this is an agricultural produc that is almost a weed. It can grow almost anywhere. It can be grown in a barn. In other words, they can't control the supply. So they will either compete or get draconian to make it work. If they compete, more people will be smoking more. If they get draconian, they will be doing the opposite of 'legalization'.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6500
Reputation: 234.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( liberals are already admitting they won't bring in a $billion dollars in tax revenues from pot anytime soon but the number sounded good when they were pushing for legalisation )



$1 billion in cannabis revenues a 'high estimate': Blair

Liberals announce consultations on $1 per gram excise tax – on top of GST


Friday, November 10th, 2017



Liberal MP Bill Blair talks with media in Ottawa on Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2016. iPolitics/Matthew Usherwood


Kyle Duggan


The Liberal government’s point man on pot says it’s still not clear how much revenue Ottawa will rake in from recreational marijuana sales, but at a press conference in Ottawa announcing a proposed tax level he suggested $1 billion is probably a bit too high.

The federal government plans on slapping an excise duty on cannabis of up to $1 a gram — or 10 per cent of a producer’s sale price — which would cover all cannabis products, including medical cannabis.

Liberal MPs Bill Blair and Joel Lightbound announced the start of a consultation phase Friday that would set the excise tax level, and that the feds would split the tax proceeds 50/50 with Canada’s provinces and territories.

Blair said no one knows for certain how much revenue the tax scheme would net the feds.

“I don’t have a precise number,” he said.

But he also admitted that the Finance Department never drafts up tax proposals without estimates.

“If the market is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400,000 kilos … the tax impact of that would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. But that’s a very high estimate, in my opinion,” Blair told reporters.

“The estimates at this point in time are now quite speculative. It depends on the size of the market, and I don’t have that answer.”

Past studies have tried to project what revenues could be; the PBO has suggested that in 2018, sales tax revenues would be about $618 million per year in its mid-range estimates — but that didn’t account for an excise tax.

Blair said there’s still not enough market data to produce substantive revenue estimates at this point.

“The market is currently controlled 100 per cent by criminals. It’s an illicit market,” Blair said. “Quite frankly, they don’t share a lot of data on their market, so right now we’re operating on estimates.

“We know it’s very substantial. There’s quite a bit of evidence $7 billion a year is their retail market. That’s what we’re intending to displace and take away from them, but the actual extent of the market is to be determined.”

A background document provided by Finance said the proposed excise tax would work like this: if the pre-tax price is $8 a gram, the excise tax (to be paid by manufacturers) would be $1, and the GST/HST would work out to $1.17, for a grand total of $10.17 per gram. The excise tax also extends to seeds and oils. The proceeds would go to public education and law enforcement.

An excise tax of $1 a gram was talked about back in June, and pitched publicly in October at meeting with the premiers, so the amount itself isn’t new.

Some Canadian premiers had bristled at the notion of a 50/50 revenue split when it was first floated.

Compared to tobacco, the feds are hanging on to more of the money from the excise tax. Roughly two-thirds of the excise taxes for tobacco revenue go to provincial governments, with the feds taking a third, according to a 2016 PBO report.

A subsequent PBO report projecting loose estimates on cannabis revenues noted that an excise tax would make legal weed less competitive with the illicit market.

A federal-provincial finance ministers meeting is scheduled for Ottawa on December 10 and 11, and Blair said the consultation results should be ready by then. The consultations will be open for public comment until December 7

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/11/10.....ate-blair/
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4270
Reputation: 242.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill Blair, the thug who ran the Toronto police force when they "kettled" people blocks away from the G-20 meetings, which, in any case, was behind a fence, and underground at the Convention Centre.

He spent a $billion -- or so it was reported -- flying cops in from everywhere to serve, and then failed to stop the ensuing riot even with all the expensive recruits.

This is not a guy with good judgement about things like expenditures and revenues. He's a civil servant that thinks money is something the government prints, rather than something people labour for.

The Toronto police force is the only metropolitan police force in North America that has not had a major drug bust. I remember the old police chief's -- McCormick's -- son was caught by the RCMP involved with some other thugs doing drug deals. He was also accused of extortion, but guess what happened in our supine Courts? The case was thrown out because it took too long to come to trial. It's probably the only case where this happened in Canadian history!

Sort of like Michael Bryant. Let us never forget Michael Bryant.

Pickton, after all, was held in prison for six years in British Columbia -- despite our laughable Charter giving him a right to a speedy trial. They felt justified in holding him that long because they didn't have a case. That means, despite what the Charter says, it joins a lengthening list of so-called "charter rights" that will not be enforced. Put differently, it means the Charter is a lie perpetrated to deceive the fools.

The prosecutors took Pickton to the BC Court jointly charged with 26 murders, which in a fair court system would never be allowed because just the number would prejudice the jury. Even then, they didn't get the jury to go along with a murder verdict. But the lawyers did it anyway. cuz ... you know, girls were being killed and there had to be arrests but it doesn't mean there has to be an investigation.

Just like they never really investigated when they charged Guy Paul Morin with murder, they just ran him through three murder trials, and then finally got the verdict they wanted but ... that damned DNA showed them that the previous jury had been right all along.

Justice in Canada! Kind of a cruel joke. I wonder who did kill that kid they charged Guy Paul with?

Blair says the government can rip off a $billion on this. Let's hold him to that! Maybe he will tell us how he came up with that number rather than $2 billion.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wasn't Michael Bryant the fellow who was attacked by a drunken cyclist who caused an accident where the cyclist was fatally injured?
As with any form of consumption tax, if you don't want to pay a tax on pot, don't use it.
I see a lot of people whining about the deficit but God help us if they try to increase revenue. It costs a lot to run a Government in the 21st century.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4270
Reputation: 242.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That was Michael Bryant's side of the story. What we know is that the two of them got into a discussion at the intersection of Yonge and Bloor, where they were narrowing the street as a traffic control thing. When the video footage starts, the cyclist is hanging on to the car door handle, the car zooms down Bloor Street at high speed, goes to the opposite lane, and wipes the cyclist off on a lamp post, leaving him dying, while he drove off, put his passenger (his wife) into a cab and contacted his public relations firm. He returned to the scene of the accident within an hour and turned himself in.

At the time, the City of Toronto was advertising the idea that cyclists had the same rights to the road as cars, and were encouraging cyclists to ride, like cars, in the middle of the road and basically follow the Highway Traffic Act.

I heard the first reports of the incident on CBC local radio in Toronto. It started off with the claim that the cyclist had just been rejected by his girlfriend, was a drug addict, was drunk at the time. I took it later to be the effect of the public relations firm.

Some wondered why Bryant wouldn't simply pull out his cell-phone and have a cop sent over. That's what would be expected of the rest of us.

He had until recently been the Ontario Attorney General. It was determined by an 'independent judge' from out-of-province that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Contrast this with the case if Mike Duffy where there really never was any prospect of conviction.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 602
Reputation: 92.2Reputation: 92.2
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
Wasn't Michael Bryant the fellow who was attacked by a drunken cyclist who caused an accident where the cyclist was fatally injured?


Not worth your time. The OP has a serious problem with the law and the courts and makes up senseless and stupid , not to mention worthless, thoughts on what went down.

Anyone with the internet can find out the truth but alas, our esteemed OP wants nothing to do with any truth on this .

Hmm....lets see......
Quote:
What we know is that the two of them got into a discussion at the intersection of Yonge and Bloor...
Nope.

"Peck said in the moments before Sheppard died, he cycled past Bryant’s vehicle along the driver’s side and then cut in front, stopping his bike directly in front of the convertible Saab and blocking its way."

Another Hmmm..
Quote:
the cyclist is hanging on to the car door handle, the car zooms down Bloor Street at high speed, goes to the opposite lane, and wipes the cyclist off on a lamp post,

Nope.

High speed is 34KPH ? Wow!

"Expert analysis conducted by Crown and defence investigators determined the car was travelling in the range of 34 kilometres an hour, in contrast to eyewitness accounts that it was driving between 60 and 100 km/h."

Oh and that lamp post? What lamp post? LOL

Nope
Quote:
“Although certain eyewitnesses described the vehicle as swerving and driving onto the sidewalk in an attempt to dislodge Mr. Sheppard, forensic examination has demonstrated that the Saab did not rub against the curb or mount the curb at any time,” Peck said.

“A fire hydrant was located close to the south curb in the area if 131 Bloor St. The distance from the fire hydrant cap to the curb was one foot. This fire hydrant caught Mr. Sheppard on the left side of his torso,” Peck said.

“This caused Mr. Sheppard to dislodge from the car, ultimately striking his head, either on the curb or a raised portion of the roadway. The impact was fatal.”


Want another...

Quote:
It started off with the claim that the cyclist had just been rejected by his girlfriend, was a drug addict, was drunk at the time. I took it later to be the effect of the public relations firm.


Geebus....."Sheppard’s blood alcohol level was measured after his death at 0.183 — more than twice the legal limit for driving — and he had a history of altercations with other motorists, Peck said"

Yup....good and drunk.

Oh...and the dead guys father?
"Allan Sheppard, the dead man’s adoptive father, said after that if he had been presented with the same evidence he wouldn’t have insisted on a trial. “I’m content with the result as it came,” he said on the steps outside Old City Hall.
He said that he genuinely believes that the people who made the decision to withdraw the charges listened to him. “They talked to me with great respect and they reached a decision and I’ll accept it.”

Funny that huh? Some internet warrior with a penchant for falsehoods wants to spread manure yet the father....hmm...he seems to be ok w the ruling.


The OP has a grudge against the judicial in this country. He was on the wrong end of something having to do with our justice system , probably arrested for something or other and thus has this grudge thing going.
Its actually quite funny to see him make up all these legal scenarios . I suppose if one is willfully blind and ignorant to the truth ....and LexisNexis ..... then they own it.

Yea....not worth the time. Seems a real problem with the truth.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/all-charges-dropped-against-former-ontario-a-g-michael-bryant/article4320411/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2010/05/25/prosecutor_why_charges_against_michael_bryant_were_dropped.html

....and many many more.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4270
Reputation: 242.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not even a point off his license and Bryant indisputably left the scene of the accident! There is a question of whether he was over the legal limit but he wasn't tested.

Bryant actually wrote the "road rage" law. Not because there was any particular problem with people going crazier than usual on the roads but because it was a part of a safety program in California. (He liked to pander) So certainly a guy like that would never lose his shit when faced with a bicycle courier who won't get out of the way.

Why wouldn't he just roll up his window and call a cop from the comfort of his car?

He also wrote a law imposing heavy penalties for street racing. No sooner had it been implemented than two kids from Rosedale were racing cars up the Mount Pleasant hill when they hit a cab and killed the driver.

Suddenly we heard a lot of talk about fine young men, and how his father was a prominent lawyer, and a fine family and ... guess what? Those are two lives we won't have to worry about ruining.

Didn't have any reasonable prospect of convicting them? But they did have a reasonable prospect of convicting Mike Duffy? What is TC saying? Does he have any standard at all?

Bryant later wrote a book in which he admitted to what an asshole he had been in his earlier life, which was the period we are talking about ... and how he had a big alcohol problem. His wife bailed out on him, he resigned from his sinecures, the whole catastrophe. Of course, he's a changed man ...

Michael Bryant, a piece of work. Who wants their kid to be like him?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 602
Reputation: 92.2Reputation: 92.2
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Not even a point off his license and Bryant indisputably left the scene of the accident! There is a question of whether he was over the legal limit but he wasn't tested.

If you understood what "leaving the scene of an accident" entails then you would not make the remark.
He didnt leave as per the law.

He also had been in AA for years by the time of the accident and had comsumed no booze.

Sigh....

I suppose this is filler for the previous embarassing post? Hope so..
[quote]
Bryant actually wrote the "road rage" law. Not because ....blah blah blah....irrelevant... won't get out of the way. [quote]
Quote:

Why wouldn't he just roll up his window and call a cop from the comfort of his car?

LOL........he was in a convertible with the top down. Oh my....someone still never reads and just ponders from addled mind.
Quote:

He also wrote a law imposing heavy penalties for street racing. No sooner had it been implemented than two kids from Rosedale were racing cars up the Mount Pleasant hill when they hit a cab and killed the driver.

Suddenly we heard a lot of talk about fine young men, and how his father was a prominent lawyer, and a fine family and ... guess what? Those are two lives we won't have to worry about ruining.

Didn't have any reasonable prospect of convicting them? But they did have a reasonable prospect of convicting Mike Duffy?

Irrelevant but nice filler in an attempt to look better.

Didnt work.

Quote:
What is TC saying? Does he have any standard at all?

Im saying you dont know what the F you are talking about and make up a whole lot of shite to try and hoodwink folks.

Pretty embarassing to be frank. You look pathetic.
Quote:

Bryant later wrote a book in which he admitted to what an asshole he had been in his earlier life, which was the period we are talking about ... and how he had a big alcohol problem. His wife bailed out on him, he resigned from his sinecures, the whole catastrophe. Of course, he's a changed man ...

Again, muddled and addled paragraph. Bryant went clean in 2006. There goes that attempt .

Sigh.....
Quote:

Michael Bryant, a piece of work. Who wants their kid to be like him?

Considering his work since, I imagine a lot of people would.

Sure beats being an internet warrior without a shred of credibility and truthfulness doncha think?

LOL !
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4270
Reputation: 242.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, TC, if you could explain to me -- and others -- where the problem about leaving the scene of an accident doesn't mean that you can't drive away, take your wife home, call some professionals (whose expertise involves distorting things in the media) and then return to the scene as the ambulance medics are checking to make sure they aren't leaving any body parts behind ... to go home later, uncharged with anything ...

Please, tell us how we can do that.

What other citizen in Ontario could do that, particularly after "being involved" in a road rage incident in which someone died by the driver's hand?

Quote:
Im saying you dont know what the F you are talking about and make up a whole lot of shite to try and hoodwink folks ...

Then why don't you explain what legal procedure allows for this kind of thing, so the rest of us can get the same treatment as Micheal Bryant? It should be easy for someone who knows what they're talking about, as you claim you do.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 602
Reputation: 92.2Reputation: 92.2
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well first I would expect to see , in print here no less, an acknowledgement of all the outright lies, ok lets call them untruths, you posted so far?

Bugs wrote:
Oh, TC, if you could explain to me -- and others -- where the problem about leaving the scene of an accident doesn't mean that you can't drive away, take your wife home, call some professionals (whose expertise involves distorting things in the media) and then return to the scene as the ambulance medics are checking to make sure they aren't leaving any body parts behind ... to go home later, uncharged with anything ...

Considering you have no idea what happened that night, the above is just more hogwash. You know it and I know it.

No idea what your reasoning is but thats your issue.

This is purely hogwash..."take your wife home, call some professionals (whose expertise involves distorting things in the media) and then return to the scene as the ambulance medics are checking to make sure they aren't leaving any body parts behind ... to go home later, uncharged with anything"
1) He never took his wife home. She called the Cops as did Bryant .
2) He never contacted the 'pros' until much much later.

It is not uncommon for someone with a high profile to be charged at a later date however they are normally advised to not go anywhere, surrender the passport etc.

So, HTA for Leaving the Scene of and Accident? One can , although not advisable , leave the scene provided they make all attempts to alert either the Police of the other driver. They must return to the scene (Bryant did)
Once they were around the corner on Avenue, they both called the cops.

Reasons can but not neccessarily be...
-Security- felt threatened
-Safety- various reason/weather/conditions
-Inability to think clearly- perhaps a blow to the head occurred .


Quote:


What other citizen in Ontario could do that, particularly after "being involved" in a road rage incident in which someone died by the driver's hand?

Yes, the cyclist was a piece of work wasnt he? He was road raging on many people, and in fact he was arrested 4 times that month for similar shite.
Had the cyclist not grabbed the steering wheel of the car (becoming the de facto driver) then he (cyclist) wouldn't be dead by his own hand.

Quote:

Then why don't you explain what legal procedure allows for this kind of thing, so the rest of us can get the same treatment as Micheal Bryant? It should be easy for someone who knows what they're talking about, as you claim you do.


Oh nice cutesy ploy there .

No legal procedures here , just the fact that you cannot for the life of you tell the truth that went on that night.

You have an entirely different set of ideas that occured that night.
A completely alternative line of events. One would call those lies.

The truth is out there. Now go find it.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4270
Reputation: 242.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are wrong. He drove her to the St. George or Spadina subway station, and dropped her off. He did call his PR firm. At ibe time I knew the name of it. When the news came on in the morning, it was full of negative material about the courier!

You are very wound up in this, and as a matter of fact, I followed it very closely all the way through ast the time. You know what a bug I am. I have even ridden a bicycle along that area -- very bike unfriendly, by the way -- when the construction (narrowing the street) was going on. I heard the first announcement on the radio, and the longer announcement on CBC drive show, with Galloway ...

Nobody else in the province of Ontario would get treated like that -- unless they were in the cabinet, perhaps. If they were the premier, the coppers would probably have disposed of the body for her. That's what objectionable.

I know what a shit-show the Ontario Attorney-General's office has become. Remember the Karly Homulka case, where the prosecutors -- eager to teach the public about men and violence -- made fools of themselves by giving a triple-murderess a sweetheart deal if she'd just blame it all on her husband? There were so many mistakes in that case ... the point being all the goofy lawyers involved in that have been promoted up the chain, and now are senior people in that department. Because there is no such thing as incompetence in the public service, nobody ever gets fired. They just fix the courts.

He rattles on ... "it's not uncommon for someone with a high profile to be charged at a later date .... " Ahem, there is a dead body lying there, and all the elements of road rage are clearly present, and nobody tested the known drunkard to see if he was fit, and nobody knows for sure what the original beef was about but it is inconceivable that there wasn't camera footage of it, even if that footage has never been shown. And lastly, regardless of what the cyclist did, there was no reasoable reason for Bryant to do what he did. He had every opportunity to roll up the window, and phone the police, and simply wait for them to arrive. There's a station in Yorkville, and one at Bay and College.

A decent hypothesis is that the cyclist was sitting in the lane ahead of the sharp little sports car, and Bryant wanted him to move over, and get his unsightly mass out of the way. Maybe Bryant got assertive with his car, being a little tipsy after the reception ... and nudged the courier, a knobby marginal type who wasn't about to make way for that snotty asshole in the smog-maker, and there was the makings of it ... perhaps.

It's what happens when people of little character wield a lot of power. They mistake the power of the office for their own magnificence. One finds expanded egos and "yes men". The rot starts at the top. First, our hero nips the problem of pit bulls in the bud ... before there is a problem, actually. The yes men applaud. The premier gives him a pat on the back. It's great to actually do something for society. And so it goes, with road racing and road rage ... the yes men cheer. Bryant gets a plaque to hang on his office wall from MADD. He's just the best law man since ... well ... who?

First thing you know, the ex-AG doesn't see an intersecton as a place you line up in cars, waiting for the light. He sees it as a place where an important person ought to be given priority, and here he's being inflicted with demands of one of the working poor ... who arrogantly demands the same rights to the road as not just a car, but even his car ...

Anyone else does what he did, and leaves the scene, they are frog-walked into Metro East and held over the weekend. Trust me ...
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 602
Reputation: 92.2Reputation: 92.2
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
You are wrong. He drove her to the St. George or Spadina subway station, and dropped her off.

That seems ....odd, considering I have had to correct you on almost everything to do with this story.
And its not the first nor do I sespect the last time I will have to.

Anyhow, his wife, Susan Abramovitch was dropped off at the hotel around the corner.
Quote:
He did call his PR firm. At ibe time I knew the name of it. When the news came on in the morning, it was full of negative material about the courier!

Opinion based and I can only suggest thats because he was a bad guy. The guy had numerous witnesses come forward and advise them that Darcy was seen many times drunk and hassling motorists. The Police confirm these stories.
Quote:

You are very wound up in this, and as a matter of fact, I followed it very closely all the way through ast the time. You know what a bug I am.

Then please explain how you get the almost ALL the facts wrong?

Quote:

Nobody else in the province of Ontario would get treated like that -- unless they were in the cabinet, perhaps. If they were the premier, the coppers would probably have disposed of the body for her. That's what objectionable.

Opinion and not one with much merit. In many cases Police lay charges well after the fact.
Quote:

I know what a shit-show the Ontario Attorney-General's office has become. Remember the Karly Homulka case, where the prosecutors -- eager to teach the public about men and violence -- made fools of themselves by giving a triple-murderess a sweetheart deal if she'd just blame it all on her husband? There were so many mistakes in that case ... the point being all the goofy lawyers involved in that have been promoted up the chain, and now are senior people in that department. Because there is no such thing as incompetence in the public service, nobody ever gets fired. They just fix the courts.

Karla Homolka. Yes, I do remember it very well, sadly I see your memory does not afford you the same.
They did give her a plea deal. It came very shortly after the Police, who had possession of the house for a month, could not find a bunch of video's in the ceiling of the house (bathroom IIRC)
The cops were stumped and the Crown knew it. If they could get her to testify against Paul they would win big. No one, including Bernardos lawyer thought Karla able to go along with all of it.She seemed to be a picture of while not innocence but naivety (my interpretation)
So, the Crown was facing a hard road ahead. A long trial and they wanted it done. The COps had nothing for them, except the Cops screwed up horrible on all of this.

TPS had interviewed Bernardo well prior in connection to the Scarborough Rapist , had sketches that he was very similar and other attaching facts yet never did arrest nor charge him. Huge screwup
The TPS and Niagara Reg'l Police fought about the Mahaffey French abductions all the time. They would not share info as each wanted to be the 'bagger of the bad guy"

So no, the Crown was in ways handcuffed as they needed either someone to corroborate the crimes (Homolka) via a plea deal or get evidence another way. They couldnt since the Cops effed it up so bad.

When the defence counsel found the tapes, "hey, lets look above this pot light" (the Cops couldnt do that in a month?) the lawyer had no idea what would be on them.
The idea once he reviewed them was to use them against Karla . But the Crown kept interference running to keep her off the stand. SO the idea that he could ambush her was never done. She signed the plea and we are where we are.

Quote:
He rattles on

You forgot to add "correctly and with knowledge". I know, youre sorry.
Quote:
... "it's not uncommon for someone with a high profile to be charged at a later date .... " Ahem, there is a dead body lying there, and all the elements of road rage are clearly present, and nobody tested the known drunkard to see if he was fit, and nobody knows for sure what the original beef was about but it is inconceivable that there wasn't camera footage of it, even if that footage has never been shown. And lastly, regardless of what the cyclist did, there was no reasoable reason for Bryant to do what he did. He had every opportunity to roll up the window, and phone the police, and simply wait for them to arrive. There's a station in Yorkville, and one at Bay and College.

1) Dead body, yup, and the other involved was there too. And?
2) He was tested and confirmed via interviews from staff at the shwarma place they ate, no booze but he did have an ice tea. Had been sober for years at this point.
3) Road rage was confirmed as having been done by Darcy Sheppard by numerous witnesses.
4) Nice revision of what he could have or should have done , except he couldnt put up the window since Darcy had his hand on the wheel.
5) Fight or flight has real life practicality. Apperently you cannot comprehend that.

Quote:

A decent hypothesis

Coming from one who has repeatedly got all of this wrong. You are not even close and frankly you know you are full of shit. But go ahead, make up all sorts of bs.
Quote:

is that the cyclist was sitting in the lane ahead of the sharp little sports car, and Bryant wanted him to move over, and get his unsightly mass out of the way. Maybe Bryant got assertive with his car, being a little tipsy after the reception ... and nudged the courier, a knobby marginal type who wasn't about to make way for that snotty asshole in the smog-maker, and there was the makings of it ... perhaps.

Not a shred of truth in that statement. You troll. But thats ok, you are understood to make up shite when you are fully pantsed.

Quote:

Anyone else does what he did, and leaves the scene, they are frog-walked into Metro East and held over the weekend. Trust me ...

Trust me? You havent got a line of this correct and 'trust me"

You couldnt be trusted to give a fair shot of anything having to do with legal.

What were you arrested and charged on ? It had to be serious.

And once again....embarssingly pantsed. <sigh>
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4270
Reputation: 242.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hopefully we can return to the story of the state nationalization of the former criminal enterprise of cultivating, selling, and ingesting marijuana. Or what the Liberal Party of Canada choosed to call 'legalization'.

And who better to get a piece of this pie?

Quote:
Former Toronto police chief now heads marijuana company
Julian Fantino says he embarked on a “fact-finding mission” to learn more about medical marijuana after serving as minister of veterans affairs in the Harper government. [[1]Psst -- He means he was against it before he was for it.-- Bugs[/i]]
By SAMANTHA BEATTIEStaff Reporter
Tues., Nov. 14, 2017

Julian Fantino, a former Toronto police chief who was an outspoken critic of legalizing marijuana, is now executive chair of a GTA medical marijuana company.

Fantino told a news conference for the launch of Aleafia in Vaughan on Tuesday that he now supports legalizing marijuana with conditions, and would use medical marijuana if it was prescribed to him by a doctor.

He was joined at the news conference by former RCMP deputy commissioner Raf Souccar, who is Aleafia’s president and chief executive officer.

Fantino also worked as chief of the London and York Region police forces and commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police before serving a single term in Parliament as the member for Vaughan-Woodbridge.

He said he embarked on a “fact-finding mission” to learn more about medical marijuana after serving as minister of veterans affairs in the Harper government.

“That enabled us to be more helpful to people who are not obtaining results from their medications, usually opiates,” he told the news conference.

“The medical profession is becoming better educated and better informed and there is more and more people who are being helped greatly with medical cannabis.”

Aleafia says it will connect patients with medically authorized cannabis and other health services at locations across the GTA.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/11/14/former-toronto-police-chief-now-heads-marijuana-company.html


To be fair, this is the one company that pretends to take medical marijuana seriously. And I don't doubt that there are some minor benefits. Some claim it can counter some kinds of cancer. But it is a raw agricultural product. This isn't a highly refined noxious substance like ... say, granulated sugar. But I wonder if it has the kind of hard fact science behind it that you would expect a tough cop to demand of an actual medicine? Or maybe there's just a tad bit of magic thinking?

These people have been living off government all their lives. Why would they stop now?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Ottawa puts a 10% tax bite on pot

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB