gc1765 Posted March 30, 2007 Report Share Posted March 30, 2007 Let's take the anoalogy a bit further to reflect the actual reality. If you move into a house, and you find a box sitting on the floor, and the box has a sticker on it saying "deliver to" and then the address you know is where the former owners have moved, do you have to open the box to make sure it's not yours? Everyone keeps saying it's clearly marked with the address. I'll I see are the numbers 320-3 (rather discreetly on the side of one of the boxes). Do you have another video which shows the address clearly marked? Or is 320-3 your definition of a clearly marked address? If it had said "Property of the CPC, deliver to the office of the Prime Minister" I would agree with you 100%, but so far all I have seen is 320-3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted March 30, 2007 Report Share Posted March 30, 2007 Everyone keeps saying it's clearly marked with the address. I'll I see are the numbers 320-3 (rather discreetly on the side of one of the boxes). Do you have another video which shows the address clearly marked? Or is 320-3 your definition of a clearly marked address? If it had said "Property of the CPC, deliver to the office of the Prime Minister" I would agree with you 100%, but so far all I have seen is 320-3. No need for an internal document. 320-3 would be understood by Parliament of Canada staff and describes where within buildings that comprise the Parliament of Canada that the boxes were to be moved. The yellow sticker is clearly a Parliament of Canada moving sticker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Everyone keeps saying it's clearly marked with the address. I'll I see are the numbers 320-3 (rather discreetly on the side of one of the boxes). Do you have another video which shows the address clearly marked? Or is 320-3 your definition of a clearly marked address? If it had said "Property of the CPC, deliver to the office of the Prime Minister" I would agree with you 100%, but so far all I have seen is 320-3. All these tags might be necessary for you,but if you work at the House of Commons as a mover, this in all probability, is all the information you need. "Hey,Joe we got some boxes up in 145 that have to be moved" "Okay Bill I"ll get on it right away,after Mark Holland rifles though it" House of Commons Delivery Slip I think any reasonable person who works in the House of Commons would recognize an official yellow House of Commons moving slip. If it isn't your stuff why would you even touch it. Yellow tag with the Official Coat of Arms and words House of Commons on it means it's government stuff. My question is, first did Holland move the boxes somewhere else before the movers had a chance to move them? Second, knowing it wasn't his, what ethical reason would he have to rifle through it? Third,if it was there for a long period of time why didn't Holland not call those in charge and have them move it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Let's take the anoalogy a bit further to reflect the actual reality. If you move into a house, and you find a box sitting on the floor, and the box has a sticker on it saying "deliver to" and then the address you know is where the former owners have moved, do you have to open the box to make sure it's not yours? Not on topic as Parliament is everyone 's house as a sitting MP or PM. That aside, damn right I would rifle thru a box in my house. They moved, I own it now. I have had things left behind in houses I bought or rented. But, if the numbers are well known, as I suspect is true, and IF it is the job of the union and a staffer to ensure that boxes are moved , then the guy was morally wrong in the first place , and likely contravening Parl rules in the process . But that is politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Let's take the anoalogy a bit further to reflect the actual reality. If you move into a house, and you find a box sitting on the floor, ... What BOX? Who ever said the document was in a box? Con supporters are spinning like mad here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 That the documents Holland said were "left behind" were clearly marked to be moved to the PMO by Parliament Hill employees. As Holland confirmed that he opened the box it provides credible evidence for the Speaker to open an investigation into Holland breaching the Parliament of Canada Act. "Clearly Marked"? All I see is some rather plain looking boxes with a few numbers on the side. There is no indication of who owns such boxes. ...at least I didn't see anything in that video that was clearly marked. I didn't get to see the vid and it's gone now, but can anyone tell me ... (1) how is it known or assumed that the fax in question came out of the box on the video? (2) who says 33222020whatever is the PMO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Everyone keeps saying it's clearly marked with the address. I'll I see are the numbers 320-3 (rather discreetly on the side of one of the boxes). Do you have another video which shows the address clearly marked? Or is 320-3 your definition of a clearly marked address? If it had said "Property of the CPC, deliver to the office of the Prime Minister" I would agree with you 100%, but so far all I have seen is 320-3. No need for an internal document. 320-3 would be understood by Parliament of Canada staff and describes where within buildings that comprise the Parliament of Canada that the boxes were to be moved. The yellow sticker is clearly a Parliament of Canada moving sticker. So? How would Holland know what 320-3 means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 What BOX? Who ever said the document was in a box? Con supporters are spinning like mad here. Yes, of course what box? Robbin' Hood Holland and his gang of Merry Men walking down the street with 'What boxes?" labelled with House of Commons stickers saying that they are to be moved from the Opposition offices to the Offices of the Government. Of course it must be property of the Liberals,since they only plan to stay in opposition for a short time, yeh,right. Of course they must be Hollands "What boxes?" why else would he be carting them around. Yeh,right. Or maybe the pay is so low in the House that he has a part time job moving "What Boxes?" Yeh,right. Caught in the act. Holland and the Liberals are thieves...... Still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Holland and the Liberals are thieves...... Still. This kind of reminds me of the story of the woman who called police to tell them that someone stole her marijuana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 ...at least I didn't see anything in that video that was clearly marked....... I didn't get to see the vid and it's gone now, but can anyone tell me ... (1) how is it known or assumed that the fax in question came out of the box on the video? (2) who says 33222020whatever is the PMO? Hmmm why has the video gone ? Not to mention if you have doubts about how desperate the Liberals are, make sure you catch the rerun of Mike Duffy Live tonite. Reid claims the reason the Liberals lost the last election was that they were screwed by the RCMP - he then goes on to expound the Conservatives were engaged in a cover-up because there was something major to hide. When it was pointed out the scandal took place under the liberals he rambled into a conspiracy theory. When the segment end Duffy pronounced it bizarre. The Liberals have lost it - totally How does that go - Thieves, Thieves Tramps and thieves.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Has Day done the right thing yet and stepped aside so the RCMP can investigate these serious allegations properly? If not, why not? What is he hoping to gain by thwarting a full and fair review? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Has Day done the right thing yet and stepped aside so the RCMP can investigate these serious allegations properly?If not, why not? What is he hoping to gain by thwarting a full and fair review? Yes he has done the *fair and right thing*. He has brokered an agreement that the Conservative Party of Canada will disband and no one to the right of Stephane Dion will ever be allowed to vote or run for office again. That is fair and right isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stignasty Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 http://zone.artizans.com/images/previews/DEA2095.300.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Has Day done the right thing yet and stepped aside so the RCMP can investigate these serious allegations properly? If not, why not? What is he hoping to gain by thwarting a full and fair review? Yes he has done the *fair and right thing*. He has brokered an agreement that the Conservative Party of Canada will disband and no one to the right of Stephane Dion will ever be allowed to vote or run for office again. That is fair and right isn't it? Sounds good to me. I understand that he has also brokered an agreement with Layton and with the Greens. Kyoto and environmental causes will be first on the order paper, and all the profits made from Kyoto imposed penalties will make for no more personal taxes for Canadians and will give all social issues so much money that the Greens and NDP can also disband, as they won't be needed any longer. Long live the Natural Governing Party! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 So I love how you law and order tories can be so sanguine about the virtual certainty that someone broke the laws against political corruption in regard to Day's seat. Of course I'm not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 So I love how you law and order tories can be so sanguine about the virtual certainty that someone broke the laws against political corruption in regard to Day's seat. Of course I'm not surprised. Nah, we respect the decision that the RCMP made when they investigated the same thing years ago, and when they found the settlement between Hart and the Canadian Alliance within the law. Perhaps we should reopen the investigation on the negligence of the Liberal executives in preventing the Sponsorship scandal?? Or maybe we should reveal the names of the Liberal MP's currently sitting that won their seat through illegally obtained funds? Of course, that's not appropriate. Just as stirring up the pot on things settled many years ago is a ridiculous waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 So I love how you law and order tories can be so sanguine about the virtual certainty that someone broke the laws against political corruption in regard to Day's seat. Of course I'm not surprised. Nor am I, afterall they approved of Bush's stealing the election(s), so truthfully we all know how much they do not believe in democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Nah, we respect the decision that the RCMP made when they investigated the same thing years ago, and when they found the settlement between Hart and the Canadian Alliance within the law.Perhaps we should reopen the investigation on the negligence of the Liberal executives in preventing the Sponsorship scandal?? Or maybe we should reveal the names of the Liberal MP's currently sitting that won their seat through illegally obtained funds? Of course, that's not appropriate. Just as stirring up the pot on things settled many years ago is a ridiculous waste of time. I do appreciate the "virtual certainty" that a law was broken. I know to be found guilty of a crime someone has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure where virtual certainty exists with respect to that standard. The credibility of this "found" document is in serious question. Mark Holland is really hurting himself with his actions. Sadly he'll be part of the small rump the Liberals will be reduced to after the next election. Give him a decade or so in opposition and he'll probably end up in cabinet whenever the Liberals do regain Government. Heaven forbid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 The credibility of this "found" document is in serious question. No its not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 The credibility of this "found" document is in serious question. No its not. Maybe not to you. But your opinion clearly doesn't represent the mainstream view on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 What did this "found" document contain? And how classy is pawing through someone's trash? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 What did this "found" document contain? And how classy is pawing through someone's trash? Yet another tedious diversion. 1-If you want to know what it contains you can go ahead and read the thread and the various news stories cited here. 2-No-one pawed through any trash so far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 1-If you want to know what it contains you can go ahead and read the thread and the various news stories cited here. There is the rub. Nobody has actually posted the document itself. The diversion is you saying there is no questiona bout the credibility of the document without having actually seen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 1-If you want to know what it contains you can go ahead and read the thread and the various news stories cited here.There is the rub. Nobody has actually posted the document itself.The diversion is you saying there is no question about the credibility of the document without having actually seen it. What is the document said to contain? Maybe someone has the class Figleaf doesn't and can explain. Or maybe he's unable to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 What is the document said to contain? Maybe someone has the class Figleaf doesn't and can explain. Or maybe he's unable to. I don't think it's a lack of class. I am pretty sure that Figleaf hasn't seen the actual document. That wouldn't stop him from going after the Conservative Government. I guess it would be a single-minded obsession fueled by hatred. Honesty be damned. 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.