Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Locke

Because I've met Fuzz and he's as white as they come.

How is it that I have a 'crappy agenda' when all I'm suggesting is that maybe Police shouldnt be able to just do whatever they want to whoever they want without any consequences?

I dont think asking for an end to Police coverups is all that patently unreasonable.

Cool. I don't think there's any debate there.

But back to the thread, please be VERY clear on what the police cover-up was in this case. Who was involved? When did it occur? What levels of government were involved?

Also, again, considering this thread, how were police doing whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted to without consequence.

You've made a lot of innuendo and I, and I'm sure others, would like to see what facts you have.

I don't think any of that is patently unreasonable.

[Pizza]

Estimates of 400 in the Resign Chu side, 200 in the Pro Chu

https://twitter.com/user/status/1452347870972039168

[MoneyGuy]

I’m baffled how anyone could support this creep.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I’m baffled how anyone could support this creep.

They have skeletons in their own closets and want his behaviour to be normalized.

[GreenLantern2814]

If you’re this desperate for Sean Chu to be your alderman, you’re a ####ing loser.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

https://twitter.com/user/status/1451682940954431490

Democracy means having the right to cast an informed vote. Those who cast their votes early were essentially denied this right. It makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Democracy means having the right to cast an informed vote. Those who cast their votes early were essentially denied this right. It makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it.

Being informed with the information available at the time and being informed with all information is two different things.

We don’t have all information about any candidates and election dates have to have dates in which they end. That this information came out when it did should be investigated to ensure there was no suppression of information during the election. However I strongly disagree that people didn’t have the right to cast an informed vote.

The vast majority of those voting early did so out of choice and not need.(speculation on my part) Those people decided the level of information they had was sufficient knowing that info could come out later. We were just reminded of this in the federal election. If late dropping info was a concern most people could have mitigated this.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

Cool. I don't think there's any debate there.

But back to the thread, please be VERY clear on what the police cover-up was in this case. Who was involved? When did it occur? What levels of government were involved?

Also, again, considering this thread, how were police doing whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted to without consequence.

You've made a lot of innuendo and I, and I'm sure others, would like to see what facts you have.

I don't think any of that is patently unreasonable.

Suggesting the possibility of a cover up, especially anonymously on the internet, does not mean anyone has to name who when or what was covered up. It is speculation that has little value one way or another, but we are allowed to speculate. If you have any information to provide I'd love to read it.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

Being informed with the information available at the time and being informed with all information is two different things.

We don’t have all information about any candidates and election dates have to have dates in which they end.

Nevertheless, this is a major problem. Chu secured another term based on a completely false mandate. It's clear that more voters in this ward want Kelly to be the councillor than Chu, yet Chu gets another 4 years anyway. This is antithetical to the entire concept of democracy. I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that Chu might have won another term if the news came out prior to early voting.

The vast majority of those voting early did so out of choice and not need.(speculation on my part) Those people decided the level of information they had was sufficient knowing that info could come out later.

Don't try to pin any part of this on people who chose to vote early. They wanted to avoid lineups on election day during a pandemic, and you can't in any way shape or form blame them for that.

We were just reminded of this in the federal election. If late dropping info was a concern most people could have mitigated this.

What if the info had dropped the morning after election day? To me, that wouldn't have made it any better. Tons of people would have voted differently if they had the information when they voted.

There needs to be some kind of recall mechanism, so politicians can be removed on an emergency basis.

[RedHot25]

Uh, anyone hear anything about this?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1452328612422733827

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Suggesting the possibility of a cover up, especially anonymously on the internet, does not mean anyone has to name who when or what was covered up. It is speculation that has little value one way or another, but we are allowed to speculate. If you have any information to provide I'd love to read it.

I suppose you're right in the sense that things said on the internet, especially in this context, hold little value in the grand scheme of things. It's not like it is going to affect the outcome of this Chu disaster.

But, if we have learned anything over the past few years, it's that wild speculation and misinformation doesn't promote a healthy dialogue and can in fact, have serious consequences. So my point was that if you want to speculate and or allege some sort of cover up or conspiracy at least have the sense to post relevant information as to why you feel that way. Again, I don't think that's too much to ask. It is a forum for discussion afterall.

Locke (and others) has a history of anti-police sentiment and of post fly-bys that add little to the conversation. If he wants to paint all police issues with one brush, that's his prerogative. But he should also be called out on it.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

I suppose you're right in the sense that things said on the internet, especially in this context, hold little value in the grand scheme of things. It's not like it is going to affect the outcome of this Chu disaster.

But, if we have learned anything over the past few years, it's that wild speculation and misinformation doesn't promote a healthy dialogue and can in fact, have serious consequences. So my point was that if you want to speculate and or allege some sort of cover up or conspiracy at least have the sense to post relevant information as to why you feel that way. Again, I don't think that's too much to ask. It is a forum for discussion afterall.

Locke (and others) has a history of anti-police sentiment and of post fly-bys that add little to the conversation. If he wants to paint all police issues with one brush, that's his prerogative. But he should also be called out on it.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

To ask for information on a police cover up is a losing cause as many police cover ups have been proven throughout my lifetime. Even though these cover ups are not directly related to this case, many PD's have abused this same power imbalance. That is all once again speculation but it leads to believe the potential of corruption could exist in this case. You're right that it is a forum for discussion, but no one on this forum owes anyone anything. That's the beauty of it, you don't get to enforce them to prove anything, and they don't enforce you.

If you legitimately have something to refute a cover up I can guarantee we all want to hear it.

Edit: it is also important to note that he inappropriately touched a child by his own admission, im not one for backing people who inappropriately touch children, but thats my choice.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

I suppose you're right in the sense that things said on the internet, especially in this context, hold little value in the grand scheme of things. It's not like it is going to affect the outcome of this Chu disaster.

But, if we have learned anything over the past few years, it's that wild speculation and misinformation doesn't promote a healthy dialogue and can in fact, have serious consequences. So my point was that if you want to speculate and or allege some sort of cover up or conspiracy at least have the sense to post relevant information as to why you feel that way. Again, I don't think that's too much to ask. It is a forum for discussion afterall.

Locke (and others) has a history of anti-police sentiment and of post fly-bys that add little to the conversation. If he wants to paint all police issues with one brush, that's his prerogative. But he should also be called out on it.

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

There was this bit...

HH pursued the matter through appeals for nine years.

First, she filed a complaint against the officers who investigated her allegations.

HH alleged the officers were guilty of misconduct and a "general coverup."
A 1999 LERB decision shows her complaint against the officers was dismissed but the board ruled that CPS was "obligated to conduct" an investigation under the Police Act and had failed to do so.

LERB found that the allegations required two investigations, one criminal and one in the context of contraventions of Police Service Regulation under the Alberta Police Act.

"The board was equally persuaded that this matter was not resolved as required by law," reads the decision

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rges-1.6212651

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by fuzz

there was this bit...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rges-1.6212651

nvm

[CliffFletcher]

nm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Nevertheless, this is a major problem. Chu secured another term based on a completely false mandate. It's clear that more voters in this ward want Kelly to be the councillor than Chu, yet Chu gets another 4 years anyway. This is antithetical to the entire concept of democracy. I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that Chu might have won another term if the news came out prior to early voting.


Don't try to pin any part of this on people who chose to vote early. They wanted to avoid lineups on election day during a pandemic, and you can't in any way shape or form blame them for that.


What if the info had dropped the morning after election day? To me, that wouldn't have made it any better. Tons of people would have voted differently if they had the information when they voted.

There needs to be some kind of recall mechanism, so politicians can be removed on an emergency basis.

We have a recall mechanism. It’s called an election. It occurs every 4 years.

Do you support the UCP recall legislation? Now it limits it to 18 months after Election Day and has very high thresholds of constituents required?

I think it’s a waste of time. Democracy is one of those things where good enough is usually good enough. Chu the representatives behaviour in council will be unchanged by this. He will be the same crappy councillor he has always been (or great councillor of thats what you like). The type and quality of representation provided will be the same. So it’s tough to argue that the people in ward 4 or the city will be materially affected on a day to day basis. They just have a morally bankrupt person as their representative.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

We have a recall mechanism. It’s called an election. It occurs every 4 years.

You can't possibly not know what I was talking about when I said "recall mechanism to remove a politician on an emergency basis".

I'm talking about something that would allow the citizenry to remove a politician any time between elections. A very large petition would have to be presented (signed by a significant percentage of citizens in the riding), along with some level of collateral that would be forfeited in the event that the recall was unsuccessful (to dissuade frivolous recall attempts). A certain number of members of council would also have to sign off on it, then a recall election would take place.

As for no material difference, that's not necessarily true, as the Ward 4 vote on council could potentially be the difference between some legislation passing vs not passing.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You can't possibly not know what I was talking about when I said "recall mechanism to remove a politician on an emergency basis".

I'm talking about something that would allow the citizenry to remove a politician any time between elections. A very large petition would have to be presented (signed by a significant percentage of citizens in the riding), along with some level of collateral that would be forfeited in the event that the recall was unsuccessful (to dissuade frivolous recall attempts). A certain number of members of council would also have to sign off on it, then a recall election would take place.

As for no material difference, that's not necessarily true, as the Ward 4 vote on council could potentially be the difference between some legislation passing vs not passing.

When I say no material difference I mean Chu, admitted molester of underage girls, and Chu, I just suck at city council would both perform equally and it’s pretty clear that Chu, I just suck at city council is the choice of ward 4. He was crushing DJ Kelly in the early vote. Since the two Chu’s both vote the same way on every piece of legislation there is no loss of representation.

Do you like the UCP recall thresholds? I think they are too high to be realisticly achievable but any lower leaves them open to abuse. The election every 4 years is a reasonable way of addressing this issue. Remember that in introducing recall legislation you need to assume it will be abused to the maximum extent possible.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I am obviously not a fan of Chu, but at this point I don't think there is much that can be done if he refuses to resign. Recall is basically useless as written. Even if the thresholds are lower, I still think it should only be available when a current sitting politician is convicted of an indictable offence, or something along those lines.

Enjoy useless Chu for 4 years. I don't see him being any different/better than the last 4 and council seemed to run reasonably well in spite of him.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Enjoy useless Chu for 4 years. I don't see him being any different/better than the last 4 and council seemed to run reasonably well in spite of him.

his votes won't really matter particularly now that council is more progressive this time around, but he's still a massive time waster for any meetings or sessions. another 4 years of having to explain basic procedures to him means getting less stuff done in general. a big dumb anchor is not as bad as a snake in the weeds, but still not ideal.