Topaz Posted June 19, 2010 Author Report Posted June 19, 2010 I think if Canada wants to have a G summit in the future, then have it on a military base, and everyone pays their OWN way! Put up tents for the elite on the base and they can eat what our generals eat. Simple. Since there are protesters every year, they aren't getting the job done, so they shouldn't expect the "lifestyle of the rich and famous" treatment. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 19, 2010 Report Posted June 19, 2010 I wouldn't put it past Harper to have some of his "security" forces disguised as protestors, with orders to start an incident that the Harperhoid can then use an excuse to justify the costs and put on a nice show of force... And do you believe the ubiquitous "anarchist" violence we've witnessed at all past events of this nature has been instigated by Harper's nefarious infiltrators? Quote
Topaz Posted June 21, 2010 Author Report Posted June 21, 2010 The Tories spending big bucks for security and now we hear that 12 police uniforms are missing. Probably the protesters got their hands on them so they can pretend they are the police , like when the police pretend they are one of the protesters! Quote
Molly Posted June 23, 2010 Report Posted June 23, 2010 Agh! I just did a bit more obvious thumbnail math wrt the costs! Even assuming that every one of the heads of state has an extensive coterie of clingons requiring as much personal security and entertainment as they do, and that those coteries are so extensive (say, averaging 25 officials per nation, and counting 40-ish nations) that as many as 1000 people must be hosted and kept safe -- thats still well over a million dollars a nose!!!! For one stinking weekend. And it doesn't even cover the disruption and damage costs. Nobody can tell me that's a reasonable or even a defensible cost. It's complete craziness. Absolutely insanity. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2010 Report Posted June 23, 2010 (say, averaging 25 officials per nation, and counting 40-ish nations) I would say conservatively each nation will bring a minimum of 100 staffers ( which is actually 26 nmations including observer nations as well as 7 International organizations. CTV estimate the official attendance will be 30,000 http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100617/g20-us-travel-alert-toronto-100617/ Feel free to do the math again Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted June 23, 2010 Report Posted June 23, 2010 All over downtown? Hardly...a few cameras at younge and dundas and a few more in the night club district is not all over down town. There are currently only 18 cameras in all of Toronto and only 16 down town. I bet there are a lot more than what you claim. They can be put anywhere and you won't even know about it. And I seriously doubt the new cameras will be removed after the event. If they are paying to install them, they will be there for the long run. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2010 Report Posted June 23, 2010 I bet there are a lot more than what you claim. They can be put anywhere and you won't even know about it. And I seriously doubt the new cameras will be removed after the event. If they are paying to install them, they will be there for the long run. 1) That isn't my claim, the number is from the official police report. Unless you are venturing into tinfoil hat territory, the number is factual. 2) Depends whether the cameras are bought or leased. I would hope thought that there will be more one way or another. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted June 23, 2010 Report Posted June 23, 2010 1) That isn't my claim, the number is from the official police report. Unless you are venturing into tinfoil hat territory, the number is factual. 2) Depends whether the cameras are bought or leased. I would hope thought that there will be more one way or another. We don't need more cameras where a fat ass cop sits in front of computer screens 'walking the beat with his finger'. We need police presence on the streets. Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 23, 2010 Report Posted June 23, 2010 We don't need more cameras where a fat ass cop sits in front of computer screens 'walking the beat with his finger'. We need police presence on the streets. It is not an "either or" equation. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.