Quote:
Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan
Because the National Post is a complete rag that ran the story and got people riled up for no reason. They should redact their ‘story’ as well as a certain poster in this thread that was all too eager to post a tweet about it.
|
There's nothing to redact if the statement was made, and CaptainCrunch's statement still stands, RCMP is contradicting itself. Here is the document:
https://democracywatch.ca/wp-content...tMay252023.pdf
Page 1 explicitly states that this matter is currently under investigation, as the reason for the redaction. That is verbatim direct from the RCMP.
This statement gets reported on, and RCMP immediately backtracks on its own words once the statement becomes public.
Also note the RCMP's most recent comments, in the updated story from NP.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ion-of-justice
Quote:
Democracy Watch had received May 25 response to an access-to-information request filed by the group’s co-founder Duff Conacher that was partially denied by the Mounties, as the RCMP said the requested records concerned a matter “currently under investigation,” and invited him to resubmit his request once court proceedings had concluded.
However, the RCMP’s statement on Monday evening said its response to Conacher’s access to information request “was sent using information available at the time.
Democracy Watch responded Monday night on Twitter that the RCMP was “contradicting itself.” If the documents it had requested from the RCMP had been refused improperly, because the RCMP had claimed it was due to an investigation, which it now says it dropped, the group said they should be released now.
“(T)he RCMP should release the 86 pages they refused to disclose to DWatch because the matter was ‘currently under investigation,'” the group tweeted.
|
Guess in a month things change. May 25 this matter was under investigation, today is is not.
So if the RCMP erroneously stated on this requested report that the matter is currently under investigation when it was not the case as they now state, it should thus un-redact the requested report they erroneously redacted. Very simple solution to this
I'm sure you and others would agree to this right? If Democratic Watch want to go on a wild goose chase and supposedly there is nothing in those redacted documents of concern as there is no ongoing investigation, let them do so.