Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

Who was in the wrong?

  • Cop

    Votes: 23 20.7%

  • Dude who got shot

    Votes: 33 29.7%

  • I like turtles

    Votes: 55 49.5%
  • Total voters
    111
Re: OPP wants to be in politics now

The thing with the CEO income started in the 1970s when CEO compensation changed from just compensation like normal people to compensation based on the stock price. Which in turn creates artificial pressures to do whatever it takes to increase the stock price no matter what. This is what destroyed Nortel. People looking to pad their pay by lying to bump up the stock price.

Other places like India, Europe, etc are beginning initiatives to get away from this insanity. A human being does not _need_ to be paid 20 million dollars a year or even more. After all the toys, that cash just gets socked away and sits. It doesn't trickle down to the working poor. Meanwhile these same wonderful human beings are looking to further increase their stock price by firing Canadians and bringing in slaves to work at Tim Hortons under the foreign worker program for minimum wage.
 
Re: OPP wants to be in politics now

After 10 years of university, med school, residence I think they have proven they want to treat people.
And doctors had their salaries restricted.

When you mention CEOs are you talking Bill Gates, Steve Jobs type CEOs?
Are taxes paying their salaries?

jc100 said:
Maybe doctors should only be paid $50k a year, then you'd only get the ones interested in treating people.

You can take it too far. I still think more anger should be directed at fat cat CEOs happy to pay minimum wage to workers and instigate pay freezes while they suck the bank dry. Hudak will make sure they have more people to exploit at the lower end of the pay scale and who will have no access to union support.
Click to expand...
 
Re: OPP wants to be in politics now

Bruin said:
After 10 years of university, med school, residence I think they have proven they want to treat people.
And doctors had their salaries restricted.

When you mention CEOs are you talking Bill Gates, Steve Jobs type CEOs?
Click to expand...

Not specifically those, but they can qualify. I'm thinking of bank CEOs, big company CEOs, etc. to give you an idea my last job was at a bank. Started at level 2 for 28k a few years back. The poverty line in Canada is 23k at which point you are "abject poverty". The CEO of the bank was making 10-15 million at the time. These banks hire foreigners and ditch the people who live here. Eg RBC and all the others.
 
Re: OPP wants to be in politics now

Bruin said:
After 10 years of university, med school, residence I think they have proven they want to treat people.
And doctors had their salaries restricted.

When you mention CEOs are you talking Bill Gates, Steve Jobs type CEOs?
Click to expand...

I teach some of these people and there are quite a few who only have an interest in the money and presumed prestige.

Most CEOs now fall into a category where there is a massive difference between the workers pay and their own. Yes they should get more, but not as much as they effectively get awarded and especially not if their workforce are enduring hardship or if the company isn't even performing well.
 
Re: OPP wants to be in politics now

Shaman said:
...Blood is boiling over this today, so I called my friend that was previously working HR for a nearby Force. She says that there's confusion right now amongst her co-workers and they're wondering how this is going to turn out themselves. Then she proceeds to tell me that the municipal forces (Kingston, for example) are trying to defect to the OPP because the pay is so much higher and all they have to do is drive around on the rural roads and kick dead animals off the pavement or arrest the occassional drunk that puts himself into a corn field. Everyone on the local force knows the OPP are eating cake and they want their share.

Boiling.
Click to expand...

Being the victim of a home invasion that resulted in over $26,000 in damages and lost property I can speak with some authority on the matter. Of all the criminal charges that can be laid against a person only seven carry the Canadian maximum penalty, that of life in prison. The break and enter of a dwelling home is one of those seven. So one would assume that it's taken as a very serious crime. Yet, perpetrators of such crimes seemingly have more rights than the victims. The entire system is totally FUBARed!

When the regional municipality of Quinte West was formed they decided that it was better to roll the existing forces into one. New uniforms, repainting vehicles and changing stationary was far cheaper then what the OPP had quoted. However, just a few short years latter that's exactly what Quinte West did. Former Quinte West officers and staff were trained as, and transferred over to, the OPP. Oh and our taxes? Well, um... they went up to cover that much needed better protection. Ask me if I think I got my money's worth.
 
Re: OPP wants to be in politics now

Makes one think that perhaps a little handshaking and backscratching was going on. Not that I believe government is competent at ANY level.
 
No jail time for me at 143mph, but I got really lucky having an awesome highway patrol officer. He clocked me on my way to 160mph.
Click to expand...

RBkGDrV.jpg

EZIbqgk.jpg
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I understand TPS's position, but the law is the law.
Click to expand...

After a QUICK glance at the MFIPPA (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90m56_e.htm) and specifically at Part II, I'm not seeing the issue. It's collected for LE purposes and disclosed to CPIC for LE purposes, both conditions listed as acceptable.

And then there's the flip side to this; people are saying police should have known that the person they were dealing with had mental health issues... providing police knew the name of the person they were in or about to contact, this very information disclosure provides that!
 
Last edited:
coyo said:
After a QUICK glance at the MFIPPA (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90m56_e.htm) and specifically at Part II, I'm not seeing the issue. It's collected for LE purposes and disclosed to CPIC for LE purposes, both conditions listed as acceptable.

And then there's the flip side to this; people are saying police should have known that the person they were dealing with had mental health issues... providing police knew the name of the person they were in or about to contact, this very information disclosure provides that!
Click to expand...

Collect? Sure, but what they are doing impacts upon Provincial and Federal FIPPA guidelines.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Collect? Sure, but what they are doing impacts upon Provincial and Federal FIPPA guidelines.
Click to expand...

Strangely, the wording for LE is almost identical in both documents, and both clearly allow for disclosure to other LE agencies (MFIPPA s.32(f), FIPPA s.42(1)(f)).
 
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
What about FIPPA section 43?
Click to expand...

43 has nothing to do with 42(1)(f), only 41(1)(b) and 42(1)(c). Again, the Acts allow for the collection and disclosure of information by and to LE agencies.

Quickly looking at the documents filed by the watchdog in the Star report, it would seem that the TPS is ignoring her RECOMMENDATIONS (her quote) and she's not happy with that. I don't see a breach of either Act and, as mentioned, take that info away from front line police and I would argue it puts EVERYONE in a riskier position.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Point taken on 43. It was the first thing that occurred to me.

*EDIT* Here is the application for review.

http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resourc...ial-Review_reCrossingtheLinespecialreport.pdf
Click to expand...

I'd glanced at that and it would seem she wants to CHANGE the Act, not that there's a breach of it. Again, I feel the information is a benefit to responding police, as I think you do from a previous comment you made. The Commissioner's main problem, it seems, is the RCMP disclosing the information to the US Border Services.
 
coyo said:
I'd glanced at that and it would seem she wants to CHANGE the Act, not that there's a breach of it. Again, I feel the information is a benefit to responding police, as I think you do from a previous comment you made. The Commissioner's main problem, it seems, is the RCMP disclosing the information to the US Border Services.
Click to expand...

She's asking for a judicial finding that the current law bars TPS from releasing that specific sort of information.
 
coyo said:
I'd glanced at that and it would seem she wants to CHANGE the Act, not that there's a breach of it. Again, I feel the information is a benefit to responding police, as I think you do from a previous comment you made. The Commissioner's main problem, it seems, is the RCMP disclosing the information to the US Border Services.
Click to expand...

That's some spin there. Read it again. Sections 4 and 5 are pretty obvious.

...the Commissioner determined..... that police disclosure practices in this connection do not comply with s. 32 of MFIPPA....
Click to expand...

...the practice followed by...TPS... automatically disclosing personal information concerning all incidents of attempted suicide and threats of suicide in the CPIC database, does not comply with s. 32 of MFIPPA....
Click to expand...
 
coyo said:
And once again, s.32(f) allows LE to disclose to LE.
Click to expand...

That is what she is asking a judicial inquiry to rule on; that TPS thinks it can automatically disclose such information, without qualifying it. Based on my cursory reading I would say that it goes not only to the disclosure, but the validity of collection in many cases.

For example someone is picked up for shoplifting. Along the way a witness is interviewed who says that the suspect was once suicidal. TPS would automatically disclose that information, as part of their data collection, without considering if it was germane to the case at hand (or even if it was true).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom