blueblood

Like I said you have to pay close attention, it's not as pronounced as it is over in Atlantic Canada.

We're not talking about that, its about whether or not they can forcibly seize something, which they cannot. All they can do is deny access, and request that you leave said bad item behind. It's like a drunk driving case, you have to dot your I's and cross your T's if you want a conviction. Cops have to follow procedures when going through with search and seizure, security guards do to. There's no take, its handed over freely by passengers. If not its no plane ride. It's that simple.

Southern Ontario. It's noticeable if you pay close attention.

If its serious enough, off to court. Why be unruly if that person knows they have a possible case to take to court. Wrong, people willingly hand over thousands of items every day if they want a plane ride. It's legitimate because CATSA follows protocol. Oh really, isn't there that deal with unlawfull seizure in the Charter? Correct, and Security Guards have rules of their own to follow.

You do that all by yourself.

Same holding pattern for the last 2-3 years.

There is no right to confiscate. That's theft. The only thing a security guard can say is bottles are not allowed on the plane. It's then up to the passenger to decide what to do with it - turn around or hand it over willingly. Smallc See above. There is a difference between the passenger handing over bottle of tequila willingly, and the guard forcing you to give it to him with no options. Oh yes you did, DrGreenthumb, on 19 March 2010 - 06:00 AM, said: to Posted Yesterday, 08:03 PM Still searching without asking permission, another no-no. to Posted Today, 10:20 AM Letting in minors while they check their booze at the door is a mistake. You just committed theft. Not only that, chances are said minor will get someone to pull for them at that social. Wouldn't want to be you when MLCC shows up. It's the same for fake ID's, do you "confiscate" those too? I have also done security/bartending at socials, there is no way one person can control 500. One fight breaks out, all hell breaks loose. All you can do is deny entry and escort people out. Looks like significant back peddling to me.

That cuts the other way as well, if we punish those who have wealth. There is also a problem. Those who have wealth already affect lives of untold numbers of people. They do so through tax contributions, where they spend their money, their investments in others, and whether or not they decide to employ others in order to gain more wealth. It is democratic (just not the way you like it), it is fair, but it is not equal.

Kimmy has this dialed. There's protocol that security must go through conerning things. I have been at an airport had to give the security guards my deodorant and toothpaste. Being as I wanted to fly, I had no problem with that. The guards didn't say "You have to give me your deodorant and toothpaste", they instead said "Deodorant and toothpaste aren't allowed on the plane", I put them in the little bin, went into the secure area, and it was end of story. It's the same with the scanners, you want on the plane, you walk through, but you do have the option of turning around (albeit you wasted money on your plane ticket). We're talking about the fact that some security guards (Dr. Greenthumb before he backpedalled) don't give people that option.

Probably one reason why they have cops posted in Airports. One call on the radio to them will take care of the illegal items snaffoo. This is where things get murky...

Welcome to the debate on opinion about equalization/taxation.

Here's the deal. 1) All parties of parliament are full of opportunistic schiesters. 2) If this isn't a game, then why not wait until the end of the war when there is much less risk posed to the troops. 3) I don't recall deadlines being part of the law. The only trouble the gov't can get in is if the documents are destroyed, which they are not. 4) Nobody but a select amt. of people knows whats in those documents. There could very well be things in there that could compromise the safety of the troops. 5) the only reason this is brought up now is because the nature of parliamentarians is to be opportunistic schiesters. Nobody cares about the afghans, only about getting power and getting it by any means necessary as quick as possible. The question I pose is why would any government want to risk national security/the troops in the middle of the war all because the opposition wants to literally play games? What the gov't is doing is just as legal as the opposition. It's like a drunk driving court case, the defence attorney is going to use every trick in the book he's allowed to in order to get his client off - and some of the time it works. Not only this, there could be potential blowback for the Liberals, being as prisoners under their watch were sent to Guantanamo Bay. Waterboarding anyone?

I'm not saying it doesn't. If parliament wants to play games, then games it shall be.

Agreed, Blackburn should have Fed Ex'd the bottle of tequila. However if he had a bottle of Patron (apparently the grand daddy of tequila), I can understand his frustration.

You are not the cops, you cannot confiscate sweet f*** all. All you can do is tell the underagers to beat it, that's it. If the cops see you confiscating things, you and the little kiddies are getting fines. Do you "confiscate" fake ID too? Then there's frisking, you have less right to frisk than the cops do. All you can do is ask to empty their bag/pockets, you cannot search them. Those kids can tell you to pound sand. All you have the right to do is refuse entry, that's it. For someone who is defensive about their "job" in something law related, it's quite a stretch for you to be after someone telling you how to do your job, while you seem quite insistent on telling everyone how police should do theirs.

What parliament is doing right now is straight up games, and using the legallity of the constitution to not only justify it, but defend it. The problem that brings debate to this issue is that parliament is full of opportunistic schiesters, that are out to score political points at the expense of the soldiers (that would be all sides). We have all the time in the world to hash out the documents, why now? It's opportunism. Let the soldiers fight their fight and deal with the outcome when its finished. The problem I see is that some parliamentarians don't realize the amount of responsibility they have concerning highly classified documents. To play with the national security of our country because the constitution permits it is putting our country on the trolley tracks for trouble. As for violating the constitution, unless those documents are destroyed, the gov't can take all the time it wants to hand them over.

And this is the out the gov't has up its sleeve. Had the opposition waited and bided their time until the conflict is over, the gov't wouldn't have a leg to stand on. In the middle of a war, where it can go either way, it is not only irresponsible for parliament to be playing these games, its dangerous.

Shareholders are people, that's the thing. They own a part of the company and exercise their rights. So if a corporation is "affecting" policy, that's in essense the shareholders influencing policy, the shareholders who happen to be voters in gov't elections.

Wrong. Corporations are among the most democratic institutions there is. The board of directors is elected by shareholders, and the CEO is picked by the majority of the board of directors. The CEO can hardly do diddly squat without running it by the board of directors. If the company performs poorly, the board can fire the CEO, and if need be the shareholders can turf the board of directors. Not only that by law corporations have to publish their wheelings and dealings on a regular basis free of charge to the public. Sounds pretty legit to me.

And you as a security guard should also know the rules concerning theft. The patron has to give you said booze if they want in the social, not you grabbing it. You as the security guard have the right to let into the social whoever you want and to make the demand if the patron wants in, leave your booze. Under no circumstances do you have the right to up and snatch somebodies booze and to deny that person the booze if they want it back (provided they say to hell with going to the social). The only people that can snatch open liquor legitly are the cops.

I thought it was due to Mr. Canada not being able to pay the piper for his nonsense.

This is the price of power and fame, entitled to their entitlements. They're all guilty of that little foible. These types of threads are like leafs fans and habs fans bickering with each other.

There are guys out in the country that have small scale fish farms in their shops. They can sell as much fish as their heart's desire. For the price of a new boat plus liscencing, a person could have a small scale fish farm in their shop. The fishing industry is like the bison industry years ago. You can't just harvest, harvest, harvest. Those fish don't follow any borders, making regulations and enforcing them a wash. Traditional fishing is an industry on life support, and unless those stubborn fishermen change, there will be nobody eating any fish. Eating crappy fish in the short term is better than no fish at all.

No Eyeball is just selfish like the rest of us. It's all for Eyeball and to hell with anyone else. He would have the entire economy tank, just so he could have a healthy fishing industry. Which is ironic because fishermen are among the worst stewards on Earth. They can't even manage to have a sustainable industry.

They do that with royalty payments. Some are more favorable than others. And everyone suffers because of it.