olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Almost 2 years of spying on Canadians ... billion dollars wasted on a non event and only to charge how many people? Remember when Harper said you wouldn't recognize Canada after he got finished with it? This is what he meant http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/22/g20-police-operation.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Almost 2 years of spying on Canadians ... billion dollars wasted on a non event and only to charge how many people? The G20 wasn't mounted as a trap to lure anarchists and charge them! It's a regularly occuring meeting that's so non- of an event, all the world's media have cameras pointed at it every time it takes place. Of course, you (purposefully) neglected to note that the "Canadian communities" (envision happy suburbs filled with laughing children under sunny skies) being spied on were anarchist groups plotting specific disruptions to said globally watched event and it was the RCMP's job - as it is the job for any police force in advance of similar summits or public spectacles - to make as sure as possible that as little violence as possible takes place and that the conspirators planning to conduct such violence are brought before a court. You just seem generally unaware that the tactic of undercover infiltrators has been used by authorities for centuries, with revolutionaries, assasins, mobsters, bootleggers, communists, biker gangs & etc. Even if it doesn't constantly result in huge numbers of convictions, it keeps a wedge of distrust and suspicion permanently thrust into such organisations. One wonders what you think the better alternative is to this tried and tested method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Almost 2 years of spying on Canadians ... billion dollars wasted on a non event and only to charge how many people? Remember when Harper said you wouldn't recognize Canada after he got finished with it? This is what he meant http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/22/g20-police-operation.html Once again I just can't understand how you came to such a premise. This was a security issue! There was every possibility that someone would blow something or someone up, real good! Isn't it simple prudence to try to prevent that? To use intelligence gathering techniques to find out if there is a real threat or not? What are you implying here? That the Tories wasted money because the threat wasn't serious enough? Would it have been better to have had a much more serious threat that possibly happened? Or are you upset that they didn't flush out and arrest enough people to match the expense? Perhaps you would have been happier if they had have arrested more people. Me, I really wouldn't care about numbers. I'd be happy if with such security threats they came up with just one guy - the one with the actual bomb! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Once again I just can't understand how you came to such a premise. This was a security issue! There was every possibility that someone would blow something or someone up, real good! Isn't it simple prudence to try to prevent that? To use intelligence gathering techniques to find out if there is a real threat or not? What are you implying here? That the Tories wasted money because the threat wasn't serious enough? Would it have been better to have had a much more serious threat that possibly happened? Or are you upset that they didn't flush out and arrest enough people to match the expense? Perhaps you would have been happier if they had have arrested more people. Me, I really wouldn't care about numbers. I'd be happy if with such security threats they came up with just one guy - the one with the actual bomb! Not a security issue at all---- the usual scene in downtown TO is broken store windows with looter-thieves running off with jewellery, electronics & clothing, setting police cars on fire and smashing the heads of cops, pelting them with rocks and the Media stupidly filming all of it to show police brutality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Not a security issue at all---- the usual scene in downtown TO is broken store windows with looter-thieves running off with jewellery, electronics & clothing, setting police cars on fire and smashing the heads of cops, pelting them with rocks and the Media stupidly filming all of it to show police brutality. That's hindsight, Tilter! Surely a G20 summit could be a viable target for many terrorist groups, who would appreciate the diversion of some rioting lougans? Are you saying NO security is necessary? Or that the minimum would be adequate? Unless you're a psychic, I don't see how you can safely make that determination. Then again, I'm old and could be missing something. Then again, if it were YOU or your family at risk, who would you rather have setting the security standards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Not a security issue at all---- the usual scene in downtown TO is broken store windows with looter-thieves running off with jewellery, electronics & clothing, setting police cars on fire and smashing the heads of cops, pelting them with rocks and the Media stupidly filming all of it to show police brutality. Where did that happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 so much wasted money only to charge 6 people along with falsely arresting 1000+ others and you see nothing wrong about this? good god man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Where did that happen? I don't know maybe hea confusing Toronto with London? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 so much wasted money only to charge 6 people along with falsely arresting 1000+ othersand you see nothing wrong about this? I do: You can't separate one event from another. You also don't know what false arrest means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) I do: You can't separate one event from another. You also don't know what false arrest means. the Ontario police falsely arrested a thousand + people with a secret law about the perimetere that is no conspiracy..that happened so yes falsely arrested also police participated in pretending to be rioters and to provoke a riot which has been proven as well Edited November 23, 2011 by olp1fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Once again I just can't understand how you came to such a premise. This was a security issue! There was every possibility that someone would blow something or someone up, real good! Yeah, they couldn't find the "big threat" so they had police act as rioters to create a riot scenario to justify the money spent So, yeah, your tax dollars hard at work there Bill, I hope you're happy with that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 When it comes to scandals the cons are brutal at them, I miss the days when liberal were in power , they knew how to make a real scandal involving billions of dollars not just wasted but stolen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Here is what Bills billion dollars was spent doing arrested for blowing bubbles! Edited November 23, 2011 by olp1fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Yeah, they couldn't find the "big threat" so they had police act as rioters to create a riot scenario to justify the money spent So, yeah, your tax dollars hard at work there Bill, I hope you're happy with that You know, sometimes you're about as focused as a fart in a mitt! The OP was about gathering intelligence against possible threats. Now apparently it's about police acting under a phony law and faking a riot. Also, it seems, about me being happy about that! Why on earth would you assume that just because I consider keeping tabs on potential security risks I would support those phony police actions? That's apples and oranges! Can't you tell the difference? Or maybe there's no contradiction, if we keep in mind that you see people in straw man caricatures, according to your prejudices. For the record, I thought from the first that McGuinty was totally wrong trying to use a fake law. Lord knows there are enough real ones! He was trying for a blank cheque, one that he and no government ever deserves. I did think that the protesters weren't the brightest lights on the Christmas tree but I supported their right to believe any cockamamie thing they wanted! I also supported their right to protest, although I also believe that when it goes too far into looting they should be subject to capital punishment! PEACEFUL PROTEST was their right! As long as they didn't commit any crime while protesting then they should have been left alone. A shopkeeper shouldn't lose money to feed his kids just so that some protester can have a flat screen TV. That's also not to say it was only common sense to keep an eye on them and the cops handy, in case the lougans hiding within the larger crowd got out of hand. Although they were McGuinty's police I've no doubt that Tony Clement of the feds was involved. I have a good opinion of Tony, having met the man personally some years ago. That being said, I think he doesn't have the right to dodge any questions or responsibility. If there's enough smoke to justify an inquiry then one should be held, the same as for any other member. As for police faking a riot, I have no blanket confidence in the Ontario police since Caledonia. Anything that was run by Julian Fantino is suspect, by my lights. That includes the Tory ministry he now occupies. I hope you're not too disappointed with that, to coin a phrase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 You know, sometimes you're about as focused as a fart in a mitt! The OP was about gathering intelligence against possible threats. Now apparently it's about police acting under a phony law and faking a riot. The fact that they couldn't find any threat means they had to make one up themselves to justify the billion dollars spent on security Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 the Ontario police falsely arrested a thousand + people with a secret law about the perimetere.. that happened so yes falsely arrested There was no secret law; the Public Works Protection Act was passed by the Ontario legislature in the normal fashion and has been on the books ever since. Only one arrest was made using powers granted by the act, on the (later found to be mistaken) belief that the act applied up to five meters beyond the fence around the secure zone. Most of the arrests that weekend took place much more than five meters away from the fence; I've heard of none of those being made under some pretense about the Public Works Protection Act; I've heard of no arrest having been deemed by a court to be false. also police participated in pretending to be rioters and to provoke a riot which has been proven as well As is common practice all around the world. Nothing to do with false arrests or the G20 being a near-billion dollar trap set just to make them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) There was no secret law; the Public Works Protection Act was passed by the Ontario legislature in the normal fashion LMAO at this being "normal fashion" http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/828367--g20-law-gives-police-sweeping-powers-to-arrest-people The province has secretly passed an unprecedented regulation that empowers police to arrest anyone near the G20 security zone who refuses to identify themselves or agree to a police search. A 31-year-old man has already been arrested under the new regulation, which was quietly passed by the provincial cabinet on June 2. The regulation was made under Ontario’s Public Works Protection Act and was not debated in the Legislature. According to a provincial spokesperson, the cabinet action came in response to an “extraordinary request” by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who wanted additional policing powers shortly after learning the G20 was coming to Toronto. The regulation kicked in Monday and will expire June 28, the day after the summit ends. While the new regulation appeared without notice on the province’s e-Laws online database last week, it won’t be officially published in The Ontario Gazette until July 3 — one week after the regulation expires. Edited November 23, 2011 by olp1fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 The fact that they couldn't find any threat means they had to make one up themselves to justify the billion dollars spent on security Any factual evidence at all to support those allegations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Any factual evidence at all to support those allegations? Yeah, only 6 charged and they weren't charged for terrorist, conspiracy to commit murder or anything big like that also the fact they had to pass a special law and did so quietly to give police powers to arrest anyone for going near the barriers all of that proves there was no big bad wolf Edited November 23, 2011 by olp1fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 LMAO at this being "normal fashion" LMAO at it if you wish. But, all that excerpt does is demonstrate that the author of the article didn't do her research and doesn't know what an Order-in-Council is, let alone how to differentiate it from an Act of Parliament. It does not prove the existence of any "secret law", nor does it outline any improper action by the Ontario government when applying the Public Works Protection Act to the G20 secure zone. Nor is it relevant to anything in your OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Yeah, only 6 charged and they weren't charged for terrorist, conspiracy to commit murder or anything big like thatalso the fact they had to pass a special law and did so quietly to give police powers to arrest anyone for going near the barriers all of that proves there was no big bad wolf Your opinion (based as it is on a mix of irrelevancies and inaccuracies) is not proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Your opinion (based as it is on a mix of irrelevancies and inaccuracies) is not proof. "Six of the defendants pleaded guilty to counselling mischief and two of those to an additional count of counselling to obstruct police" The biggest charge they could get out of the G20 spying sting was counseling mischief counseling to obstruct police where are the BIG charges related to these sting operations which would justify the money spent on it? Edited November 23, 2011 by olp1fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) One wonders what you think the better alternative is to this tried and tested method. A free democratic society The problem with integrated national security enforcement undercover ops is that they assist and collaborate with the people charged. It is essentially abetting the act and thus entrapment, meaning the charges should have no validity due to the defence of entrapment. Unfortunatly these ops are leading some groups so it is utter entrapment and poisoning the well. It ain't just the g20 this is occuring for. Them identity of g20 agents is still being gagged and it is far deeper than most realize. This is all machevellian bs Edited November 23, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 A free democratic society Already have it. Any other suggestions? The problem with integrated national security enforcement undercover ops is that they assisted and collaborated with the people charged. It is essentially abetting the act and thus entrapment, meaning the chargs should have no validity due to the defemce of entrapment. Except that it was all done with the permission of a court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted November 23, 2011 Report Share Posted November 23, 2011 Already have it. Any other suggestions? a "real" free democratic society not the convoluted mockery residing somewhere in the space between your ears. Except that it was all done with the permission of a court. really? where is the info on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.