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

[mxs]

Forum Sponsor

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

In part because the cost is actually an aggregate cost for two distinct events being held in two distinct locations. The G8 meet is being held in Huntsville, while the G20 is in Toronto.

So I guess that this fact makes it all OK, correct? Somebody had to say yes to both events being held at the same time, secondly, somebody must have suggested two distinct locations and somebody must have approved this crazy fiscally irresponsibly event in the first place.

Every student in Canada could receive a 1000 dollar cheque from the government and the suggestions goes on and on ............ make your pick.

The politicians are just crazy bunch. How do they sleep? I have freaking no idea .... I hope this will do Harper no good, but I have my doubts that the Liberals or NDP would act much differently ...

 

[mxs]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Two separate locations, two sets of security planning, two sets of security and perimeter control, two sets of catering, accomodations, meals logistics, and on it goes.

I'm not going to comment on cost comparisons with other countries because you then get into apples and oranges comparisons. The US in particular already has a huge existing security infrastructure and heightened in-situ security awareness because of the Homeland Security environment that has has existed since 9/11. We do not have anywhere near that kind of existing infrastructure (or paranoia), so a lot of the security planning here is being done on a one-off special event basis just for this set of meetings. One-offs in any sphere of endeavour tend to cost more.

In any case, you'll have a big concentration of the world's most influential leaders all in one spot at one time. The consequences of a successful terrorist attack would be catastrophic, and the unfortunate reality is that threats of terrorism are a big part of today's reality. Better that money is spent now to help ensure adequate or even extravagant security measures, than money be spent later to deal with the aftermath of a successful terrorist attack.

I was waiting for your catastrophic scenario type of an excuse ... I guess you are one of those who really believe that we are safer today than we were 5 or 10 years ago, right???

How about saying simple NO, sorry cannot do it this time around. Or yes I can, but only one event, or both, but one spot in the middle of nowhere. They don't need anything around do they? They will work hard for two days and get out, no need for luxurious goodies or entertainment, right?

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

I was waiting for your catastrophic scenario type of an excuse ... I guess you are one of those who really believe that we are safer today than we were 5 or 10 years ago, right???

WW1 was triggered by a lone assassin killing one leader. Since then, methods of attack have only become more varied and efficient. You don't even have to be in the same street block any more. What do you suppose would be the impact of say a dozen or more western leaders being taken out in one go?

You have to plan for the worst scenarios "just in case", not just for this meeting but for many aspects in life. Were that not the case, none of us would bother with any type of insurance on our possessions, we wouldn't need multiple safety systems on our vehicles, various emergency services would not have contingency plans for various peace-time emergency situations, and nations would not have standing armies.

How about saying simple NO, sorry cannot do it this time around. Or yes I can, but only one event, or both, but one spot in the middle of nowhere. They don't need anything around do they? They will work hard for two days and get out, no need for luxurious goodies or entertainment, right?

How about, we have membership in various international organizations and with membership come both benefits and obligations. I agree that one meeting location for both G8 and G20 would make more sense from a logistical cost and efficiency standpoint, but such is not going to be the case for whatever reason. Ask the government for their rationale behind that decision.

 

[inreb]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Better that money is spent now to help ensure adequate or even extravagant security measures, than money be spent later to deal with the aftermath of a successful terrorist attack.

Wow, thanks for explaining all that. But since we're talking about money is there any figure that would make even you question the sanity of it all? Since you like to dodge the real questions let me put it this way: if the tally was 4 billion would you still put up the same post?

OK, let's see, 1000000000 divided by 30000000 = call it $35 for every man, woman and child in the country. Cheap getaway.

 

[LiNK666]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

They're spending 1million dollars on providing safe food... ****

As a citizen of this country all I can say "FML"

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Wow, thanks for explaining all that. But since we're talking about money is there any figure that would make even you question the sanity of it all? Since you like to dodge the real questions let me put it this way: if the tally was 4 billion would you still put up the same post?

OK, let's see, 1000000000 divided by 30000000 = call it $35 for every man, woman and child in the country. Cheap getaway.

Look, I'm already wondering about the $1.1 billion figure and wondering if better cost efficiencies could reasonably be found. That said, I can understand some of the cost differential between the upcoming G8 and G20 summits and various summits held in past.

Last year's G8 summit in Italy cost $359 million. We're going to end up paying about three times that, but that covers the costs for both a G8 AND a G20 summit, each held in different geographic locations. Even with that comparison our summits will be more expensive, but not orders of magnitude more expensive.

Who knows, much of the difference may even by explained by differences in the way that different countries do the financial charging and accounting for the costs of various police, military and intelligence services.

Now, were the two summit costs forecast to be in the $4 billion range, that would be a much different story.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

In part because the cost is actually an aggregate cost for two distinct events being held in two distinct locations. The G8 meet is being held in Huntsville, while the G20 is in Toronto.

2 locations, 2 events, over a billion dollars. London was listed as a high roller of 30 million... we're looking at over 33 times the cost of what london paid for 1 event... shouldn't we get 33 events out of it?

And the final tally hasn't come in yet either.

 

[turbodish]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

2 locations, 2 events, over a billion dollars. London was listed as a high roller of 30 million... we're looking at over 33 times the cost of what london paid for 1 event... shouldn't we get 33 events out of it?

And the final tally hasn't come in yet either.

Is that $30 million a realistic figure? Somehow I doubt it would cover the accommodation and meal costs, let alone the real costs of advance planning and set-up, security, travel, etc costs. The Canada bill includes distinct figures for the costs of police and military services. Were these even included in the London accounting? And what of Italy's reported $359 million cost for just a G8 summit last year?

 

[AdRath]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

When the money trough if open all the little piggies rush to feed. All of events where you can use a scare tactic 'security' to justify almost anything. How much is safe enough?

I still don't get why the G8 can't meet the same time as the G20. Are the G8 affraid those not worthy out of the 20 might find out some of their agenda? Really these events are just a wank for these world leaders to feel important. The real business happens afterward in one on one meetings I'm sure.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

In any case, you'll have a big concentration of the world's most influential leaders all in one spot at one time. The consequences of a successful terrorist attack would be catastrophic, and the unfortunate reality is that threats of terrorism are a big part of today's reality. Better that money is spent now to help ensure adequate or even extravagant security measures, than money be spent later to deal with the aftermath of a successful terrorist attack.

So why in the hell would you have such an important event in the most heavily populated area of the country... even if there was a successful attack (due to the juicy target you created) why would we want it in downtown TO?

 

[Camping Canuck]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Yeah, that is the plan!

Did I mention that we use independent couriers who tend to be of middle eastern/southeast asian origin, driving unmarked beat up cars, carrying dozens of otherwise unmarked packages, containing sensitive information that can NOT be opened for anyone, even Jesus Christ?

You dont happen to work for Symcor do you?

 

[El Zilcho]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

WW1 was triggered by a lone assassin killing one leader. Since then, methods of attack have only become more varied and efficient. You don't even have to be in the same street block any more. What do you suppose would be the impact of say a dozen or more western leaders being taken out in one go?

The assassination that led to WWI was not the sole cause of the war.

In any case, this scenario only illustrates that these people should not be allowed to be in the same location. There are ways to get them to communicate without being physically present in the same room.

The waste of everybody's money on such events is simply mind-boggling.

 

[iridebikes]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

So why in the hell would you have such an important event in the most heavily populated area of the country... even if there was a successful attack (due to the juicy target you created) why would we want it in downtown TO?

That's pretty much the crux of it all. If the G20 wasn't being held in the busiest most congested part of this entire country, it wouldn't have to cost so damn much.

The logistical nightmare of these events is what makes them so pricey. That, and Im sure a lot of nice greasy pork added in for good measure. The bottom line is this: the people in charge of orchestrating these events are not paying for it with their own money, nor are they ultimately accountable when half of it gets wasted on frivolous ********.

I gotta wonder how many government agencies and departments are now getting funding for things they previously wanted but were never granted because the taxpayers wouldn't hear of it. Shuffle it under "G20 spending", no problem!

 

[KRFDPSSTI]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

How about these "leaders" set up a top of the line video conference with and save the taxpayers 999 MILLION dollars. **** for a million bucks i think they can set something up and there wouldnt be a possibility of all of them getting killed...win win, no?

 

[roadtoruin]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Look, I'm already wondering about the $1.1 billion figure and wondering if better cost efficiencies could reasonably be found.

LOL sure you are, like maybe 2 sonic cannons as opposed to 4?

Now, were the two summit costs forecast to be in the $4 billion range, that would be a much different story.

I doubt it, you would still defend that number.


This whole thing is like pooping in our collective mouths and calling it icecream.

 

[mxs]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

Last year's G8 summit in Italy cost $359 million. We're going to end up paying about three times that, but that covers the costs for both a G8 AND a G20 summit, each held in different geographic locations. Even with that comparison our summits will be more expensive, but not orders of magnitude more expensive.

Now, were the two summit costs forecast to be in the $4 billion range, that would be a much different story.

Even 359mil is outrageous, but the bottom line is that tax payers in Italy were only on the hook of one 1/3 what we are (at the end the total cost will be probably 1.5B, so it will really ne 1/4th). I don't care how much more they are getting done here. Most of ordinary hard working people do not want to pay for crap like this. Something not important to their daily lives.

Now that last paragraph just shows that you are or were employed in law enforcement agency, military or whatever and certainly have very high threshold as far as government spending in those areas. Not surprisingly so. I get it 1.1B is cool, 2B would be cool too, well 3B kind of high but still acceptable, 4B ... man isn't it a bit too much??? ..... nice, I am glad you are not signing the dotted lines in Ottawa.

 

[suprPHREAK]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

You dont happen to work for Symcor do you?

I am unable to confirm or deny this inquiry at this time.

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...me-for-billion-dollar-g20-tab/article1586428/

“Canadians understand that in a democracy you have the police rather than the army in the streets. And so those are political decisions you make, but I think they’re very, from a perception point of view, very, very important.”

Ok then... what's the difference when it comes to perception today?

 

[CdnVStar]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

At the current cost of holding the summit, it would be cheaper to send all of the leaders to the international space station. There would be no securities issues there as only have a few countries have the capability to send things into orbit and pretty much all of them will have their leaders at the summit.

 

[nfq]

Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

At the current cost of holding the summit, it would be cheaper to send all of the leaders to the international space station. There would be no securities issues there as only have a few countries have the capability to send things into orbit and pretty much all of them will have their leaders at the summit.

as ridiculous as that sounded to me the first time I read it, the more i read it, the more and more it makes sense.

Better still, if we just keep them up there.

Forum Sponsor