Guest Derek L Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 And it's turning violent - in Vancouver, the occupiers have bitten two police officers. I hope the constables get checked for rabies. I hope they, and the Victoria city workers, get tested for hepatitis and HIV….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) No, (fire) safety is the Fire Department's call. Whether it was safe to go in is the police chief's call. It wasn't safe. He called it wrong, for peacekeeping purposes. And he keeps talking about "the masks" as if that was part of his decision, not the fire. No, he's escalating it to provoke violence on purpose, WITHOUT AN INJUNCTION. Now he knows. Most will hold their ground peacefully. A few will fight. Now the politicians know ... It won't look pretty for them. Maybe that's his purpose. I hope so. I sure don't want to see this escalate any further. The politicians are naive. They think police can 'remove' people without violence. hahaha Edited November 9, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome Rob Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Whether it was safe to go in is the police chief's call. It wasn't safe. He called it wrong. And he keeps talking about "the masks" as if that was part of his decision, not the fire. He's escalating it on purpose. The Fire Department requires permission from the chief of police to enforce the fire code? Since when? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Whether it was safe to go in is the police chief's call. It wasn't safe. He called it wrong. And he keeps talking about "the masks" as if that was part of his decision, not the fire. He's escalating it on purpose. Why wasn’t it safe to “go in”? It’s public land……Vancouver has bylaws regarding open fires…..I can’t go into Stanley park and have an open fire wherever I please……Why should they? On top of the already voiced concerns, the occupier’s track record on complying with public safety is not exactly stellar…….aside from the obvious overdoses, they have numerous potential fire hazards and their unsanitary conditions are attracting rats. The police didn’t escalate anything………They’ve given the campers numerous warnings and letters outlining the cities concerns and by-laws, and the campers refused to acknowledge the city officials authority……The police didn’t go in there looking to be bitten…..Your line of thinking is akin to someone that states a women asked to be raped by walking down a street late at night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 How many times have they gone in aggressively before? Why not? Because they knew they would escalate it to violence. And now you all know. They won't leave voluntarily. The police will have to use violence. Now the politicians will be able to consider more carefully whether it's worth the damages to Vancouver's reputation, business - tourism etc- A drunken hockey riot is an accident. Violent removal of hundreds of protesters in a worldwide movement? That's an accident in planning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Now the politicians will be able to consider more carefully whether it's worth the damages to Vancouver's reputation, business - tourism etc- Damage to its reputation in your eyes. A bolstering of its reputation in the eyes of others. Maybe you think Vancouver will benefit from a reputation of being a city where overdosed corpses lie around in tents outside the art gallery, I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 How many times have they gone in aggressively before? Why not? Because they knew they would escalate it to violence. And now you all know. They won't leave voluntarily. The police will have to use violence. No, the police will respond to the protestors violence……..Which has already been demonstrated. Now the politicians will be able to consider more carefully whether it's worth the damages to Vancouver's reputation, business - tourism etc-A drunken hockey riot is an accident. The removal won’t even compare to the hockey riots……..there’s 15-20 people staying there overnight…..the largest daytime crowd over the last week or so has been around 200.……During the Hockey riots, there were thousands of people in the downtown core……..the removal of the campers will be at the chosen time of the police……the hockey riots started in the third period…….. Personally, I’d remove them early in the morning, on a weekday, before the morning rush hour…… As for the Cities reputation, you’re completely wrong……..Hippies don’t attract business or tourists….the Christmas village that normally occupies the art gallery at this time of year does….. Violent removal of hundreds of protesters in a worldwide movement? How they handle the occupiers in the States or around the world is not really any of my concern…..I don’t pay taxes there. That's an accident in planning. Chicken & the egg………..Who broke the law first? As for an accident, not at all……..Haven’t you been following the legal means the cities across Canada, infected with an occupy movement, have been taking? Get an injunction, issue numerous warnings, and give the protestors enough rope to hang themselves in front of the general population and the media……..Not an accident at all, but a well thought out strategy. As I said weeks ago, the occupiers should have hired a PR firm and some decent lawyers (not activists themselves), that would have “advised them” on what to do, and what not to do. Would we be having this conversation if the protestors followed all the cities requests and shaped their message? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Damage to its reputation in your eyes. A bolstering of its reputation in the eyes of others. Maybe you think Vancouver will benefit from a reputation of being a city where overdosed corpses lie around in tents outside the art gallery, I don't. Indeed, I’d give credit to the lead started by the mayor of Quebec City, and quickly followed by Victoria and Vancouver………Now look at all the cities following in step……..Perhaps other cities with the same infliction around the globe will use a similar tailored approach based around their own laws……Oakland was obviously “what not to do”……….It’s funny, the mayor of Oakland was a “progressive”…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) The mayor of oakland didn't know they'd shoot at people's heads with tear gas canisters. The bad apples among police have to be considered. They went nuts en masse at Toronto G20. I agree the go slow route that's evolving is the only way. I really don't think any canadian city is going to drag people out. Edited November 9, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 The mayor of oakland didn't know they'd shoot at people's heads with tear gas canisters. The bad apples among police have to be considered. They went nuts en masse at Toronto G20. I agree the go slow route that's evolving is the only way. I really don't think any canadian city is going to drag people out. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/london-ont-police-remove-occupy-tents-from-city-park/article2230250/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 The mayor of oakland didn't know they'd shoot at people's heads with tear gas canisters. The bad apples among police have to be considered. They went nuts en masse at Toronto G20. I agree the go slow route that's evolving is the only way. I really don't think any canadian city is going to drag people out. London, Ontario dragged them out last night! We'll see who's next. I think what you don't understand is that the OCCUPY protesters have very low public support. It's not 1967, with a very popular cause like stopping the Viet Nam war. For a number of reasons, almost nobody cares about the protesters! You're living in a dream, not seeing reality. This movement desperately needs some leadership, with people who have some smarts! All they've succeeded in doing so far is hurting their cause, not helping it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/london-ont-police-remove-occupy-tents-from-city-park/article2230250/ Didn't drag em out. Just got rid of their tents. They can stay but can't use the park as a campground anymore. It's probably how these things have to be broken up. I didn't even know there was an Occupy London, Ontario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 London, Ontario dragged them out last night! We'll see who's next. I think what you don't understand is that the OCCUPY protesters have very low public support. It's not 1967, with a very popular cause like stopping the Viet Nam war. For a number of reasons, almost nobody cares about the protesters! You're living in a dream, not seeing reality. This movement desperately needs some leadership, with people who have some smarts! All they've succeeded in doing so far is hurting their cause, not helping it. That isn't true. In fact a recent survey found that 80% of Canadians generally supported the "Occupy" movement. Thsi action by the City of London will have serious consequences. Watch in the next week of two for the beginning of the end for Joe Fontana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 What you believe is indeed wrong. 1. Many agencies have measured the distance to the moon using the retroreflectors left there by the Apollo missions. Had the missions not happened, those retroreflectors would not be there. This is an easy experiment to do and has been done by universities, students, and scientists in many countries. They were even featured in an episode of the Big Bang Theory. 2. The lunar landing sites and physical landers have been directly photographed by other spacecraft. 3. The terrain in the original 1960s photographs exactly matches the terrain as mapped by Japanese and Indian probes that radar mapped the Moon's surface. No radar maps of lunar terrain existed in the 1960s, and constructing (hoaxing) the exact right topography by chance is statistically impossible. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Photographs This topic deserves its own thread but I will say a few things. What was in question was NASAs claim to have astronauts land on the moon and return to Earth. Sending a projectile to the moon or mars was never in question. Those pictures on the link you provided remind me of the one the pentagon released of the plane hitting on 911. Inconclusive! Oh and by the way did you notice on the JAXA picture there is no shadows on the lunar surface? Start a thread about this and tell me where to look for it and I will be glad to continue,or if not and you still want to debate this ask me and I'll start the thread,I'll find the appropriate category and I'll tell you where to look ok. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 In fact a recent survey found that 80% of Canadians generally supported the "Occupy" movement. cite? I think people are sympathetic with the idea the Middle Class is under attack but not in agreement with these methods of protesting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Ok looks like there seems to be a common theme here about lack of public support for the OCCUPY movement.And now that a few Canadian cities are successfully dispersing OCCUPY some may believe that this is finaly over? Obviously time will tell. After all these people(OCCUPY) have other matters to attend to.And the coming weather/season is not friendly for public protest in Canada so this was predicted. The question remains still about spring 2012?(Canada OCCUPY) Will there be so much abundant good economic news that OCCUPY Canada won't see the light of spring 2012? From Jim Flarety's speech yesterday I think not! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Ok looks like there seems to be a common theme here about lack of public support for the OCCUPY movement.And now that a few Canadian cities are successfully dispersing OCCUPY some may believe that this is finaly over? Obviously time will tell. After all these people(OCCUPY) have other matters to attend to.And the coming weather/season is not friendly for public protest in Canada so this was predicted. The question remains still about spring 2012?(Canada OCCUPY) Will there be so much abundant good economic news that OCCUPY Canada won't see the light of spring 2012? From Jim Flarety's speech yesterday I think not! WWWTT Occupy Cancun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 London's mayor's going to need 24hr round the clock police protection now. Big mistake on his part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 London's mayor's going to need 24hr round the clock police protection now. Big mistake on his part. Ooooo...scary! Mustn't anger the violent Occupy thugs. Be afraid mayors of the world....be very afraid! Or....just teargas and arrest their asses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 London's mayor's going to need 24hr round the clock police protection now. Big mistake on his part. Another big difference between protesters today and back in the 60's! Peace, Love, Dove Rick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Ooooo...scary! Mustn't anger the violent Occupy thugs. Be afraid mayors of the world....be very afraid! Or....just teargas and arrest their asses. The next time hundreds of Americans get killed by a terrorist, remind me to laugh and give thanks that the world's a better place because for it.Thanks in advance pal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Another big difference between protesters today and back in the 60's! Peace, Love, Dove Rick! Peace and love don't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 This topic deserves its own thread but I will say a few things. No. It really doesn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) London's mayor's going to need 24hr round the clock police protection now. Big mistake on his part. Mistake, I agree.But nobody's threatening any personal violence. It's specifically NOT a strategy endorsed by OCCUPY, and wouldn't be welcome. Black Bloc tactics, for example, are not about personal violence. In Vancouver, when police and firefighters came in to the camp, the Black Bloc strategy was to link arms around the fire (in a barrel) and prevent them from extinguishing the fire. They were not the ones fighting with police. They know police are not the real targets. Others may have beefs with police, but engaging physically with police, politicians, etc. Is NOT an OCCUPY strategy. And while smashing windows of banks, corporations and bad employers, BB avoid personal violence and looting. Black Bloc actions are symbolic, not personal. Here's an interesting comment from the CEO of Wells Fargo bank in the US: In addressing the lack of job growth, Stumpf said bank vaults are "overflowing with deposits." But he said small businesses, a key engine for job creation, don't have the confidence to invest. http://www.startribune.com/business/133504023.html Gee ... maybe the banks and corporations and governments DO need 'the little guy' for economic recovery! Edited November 9, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 London, Ontario dragged them out last night! We'll see who's next. NO they did not touch protesters. Just stole their tents and belongings and threw them in garbage trucks, a provocation that will figure in lawsuits for damages, to be sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.