*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 ---->
  |
|
Page 1 of 1
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1945
  
votes: 5
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:41 am Post subject: Adventures in Fantino-land ... |
 |
|
This is a way of picking up on a theme of mine -- the disgracefully low quality of the services provided by our welfare state. One of the stinkiest areas is that part of the Leviathan that goes by the Orwellian moniker of the 'administration of Justice'.
I have drawn attention, in a fleeting way, to some of the daily incidents that flit through our newspapers, without mention ... and how they show that this whole area of the state doesn't feel that the law applies to them.
Perhaps this illustrates the point:
| Quote: | Ontario is fighting a court ruling scolding it and provincial police for seizing $75,000 in suspicious cash from a motorist stopped for driving too slowly, then handing some of the stash to Canada Revenue and keeping the rest without legal authority.
"Such conduct ... will raise questions in the mind of a court about the propriety and legality of such conduct," Ontario Superior Court Justice David M. Brown wrote recently in a stinging rebuke to a belated provincial government attempt to permanently pocket the cash.
The Ministry of the Attorney General is seeking leave to appeal the ruling.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/n.....z0xP6PQAmD |
You can read the whole story for yourself. Basically, the police pull over a car for driving too carefully, and search it ... hmmmm ... and find a large bundle of money. So the police take the money as 'evidence' ... of what, whoever knows ... and offer to split it with National Revenue ... and keep the rest themselves. For certain off-the-books purchases, for example ... I wonder who ends up with signing power over that money, in the end?
And it's going to be OK ... you just watch and see how the courts back the police up ...
Comments? |
|
|
|
 |
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1945
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, OK, I understand, nobody wants to talk about this kind of thing.
But it is getting to be more and more typical of public sector behaviour towards the public. Look at this ...
| Quote: | Peter Jaworski has been holding backyard barbecues at his parents’ property there for 10 years. It’s a house in the country on 40 secluded acres. Once a year, Peter invites a few dozen of his friends to spend the weekend eating his mom’s cooking and camping next to the swimming hole. I’ve been there: it’s one part family reunion, one part picnic and one part political talk.
So clearly, the Jaworski family must be stopped.
First came the health department. They poked and prodded, and even took water samples. No one has ever got sick at a Jaworski barbecue — the opposite; everyone comes for the food — but the government ordered that no home cooking would be allowed. The Jaworskis complied with these costly and ridiculous demands, catering the whole weekend and serving only bottled water, at great cost.
But bureaucrats travel in packs. A local bylaw enforcement officer waited until the barbecue itself, and marched right onto the property — no search warrant needed! — and started peppering the guests with questions.
He wasn’t a health officer; he was a bylaw officer. Yet he demanded to know what the guests had for lunch. In the name of the law!
Armed with this devastating information, the officer charged Peter’s parents with running an illegal “commercial conference centre,” which carries a fine of up to $50,000. The officer, a burly, tattooed, six-foot-something man, told Peter’s mom to “be very careful.” She burst into tears.
I phoned that bylaw officer to ask him about the Jaworskis. I found a man on a mission, boasting to me that his next step would be to take down the street sign for the family’s small bed and breakfast.
He was particularly pleased that he could do that without issuing a summons, or even receiving a complaint. When he sensed my sympathy for the Jaworskis, he hung up on me.
|
The whole article is at http://www.torontosun.com/comm.....17901.html
Runaway bureaucracy? Crushing of our former common law property rights? Hmmmm?
Just saying ... |
|
|
|
|
orenda14
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 94
votes: 2
Location: nova scotia
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This sort of thing is happening all over the country, it starts with our federal goverment trampling all over common rights with their beaurocratic jack boots and filters down to the local wannabee as was the case here.
The major problem is most people do not have the money to challenge them in a court of law whereas their legal expenses are footed by the taxpayer, the other problem is that if you do take them to court and win your case they appeal it to a higher courty, at present the cost of getting a case to the supreme court is well over 100,000, they know it so they flaunt it |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1945
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree, orenda14. People willfully ignore that the police don't understand that they are supposed to obey the law.
The idea that the police should be paragons of legality is no longer part of the organizational culture of the police. It shows up in a million little ways in the everyday behaviour of those inside those organizations. They park where they like, they drink and drive, trusting to the 'diplomatic immunity' cops give to each other.
This shows more of what the common attitude that the police have to the public. You ought to be able to have a little fun at work, shouldn't you?
| Quote: | Kamloops Mounties would not confirm a report Saturday that an HIV-positive woman had a sexual encounter with another woman in an RCMP detachment holding cell as four officers and three municipal staffers looked on and did nothing to stop them.
Citing an unidentified source, Global News reported Friday that seven people in the Kamloops detachment are under investigation by Kamloops RCMP over the Aug. 18 incident involving two women in custody.
Global said the two women had an "intimate encounter" in the cellblock for as long as an hour.
It said staff and Mounties watched live video of the encounter for up to seven minutes without intervening.
Police would say only that one of the two individuals in custody faces a criminal probe.
They would not confirm reports that the probe stems from the person's alleged failure to inform a sexual partner of his or her HIV status. |
The RCMP say the members present will get an official 'tut-tut' placed in their dossiers. There is a suggestion that the members were investigating to see if flea-bitten Lesbian skanks informed their lovers of their HIV status.
Otherwise, they confirm nothing.
The story closes with this little bon-bon.
| Quote: | SFU criminologist Rob Gordon said the Kamloops detachment appears to be undergoing some "difficulty."
"Certainly in the last month there's been a couple of major events, and that usually amounts to more than simply bad luck, which suggests that there is some sort of structural problem, or supervision problem, or some other difficulty at the Kamloops detachment," Gordon said.
Calgary police are currently investigating a police-involved fatal shooting in Kamloops in late July. |
Oh-oh ... they've been killing people.
You can read the whole story if you need a good laugh: http://www.theprovince.com/hea.....z0y0FnjvIM |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1945
votes: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another bit of evidence ...
| Quote: | The mass arrests at the G20 protests in Toronto look no less excessive in hindsight. Indeed, as more charges are dropped, it becomes ever more clear that hundreds of people were arrested with absolutely no cause.
Of the more than 1,100 people who were arrested at the June protests, more than 800 were released soon after. Now, a further 58 have had their charges dropped.
When police deal with riots or other emergencies that threaten public safety, it is normal to see a few people detained for short periods without being prosecuted. But in this case, the scale of the police reaction seems out of proportion to the potential threat.
Many of the people arrested were not behaving violently. Some weren't even protesting -- they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The police justified some of these arrests by saying their targets looked like they might be intending to protest.
The police acted not to protect the public from a dangerous mob but to shut down a legitimate expression of dissent in a public space. On the face of it, that looks like a violation of two of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed to Canadians: freedom of speech and of assembly. |
Personally, I don't think we have a right of assembly anymore. It's like we don't have a right to a speedy trial either, despite what the Charter says. The police and courts have trampled all over these rights.
Not that most Canadians should be upset.
You can read the whole thing at: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/o.....z0yEImijFS |
|
|
|
|
Bugs
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1945
votes: 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
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
|
Adventures in Fantino-land ... |
|
phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB |
|
