CTC soldier charged with trafficking drugs
- Thread starter McG
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
DND News Release
News Release
CFB GAGETOWN BASED SOLDIER CHARGED WITH TRAFFICKING
GPFC 2008-001 - January 10, 2008
CFB GAGETOWN, NB– The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged one soldier stationed at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown today, in relation to allegations of drug trafficking.
Corporal Jeremy Springer, attached to the Canadian Forces Armour School (Gagetown), was charged with one count of trafficking, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This charge was in relation to alleged trafficking in marijuana.
"The Military Police take any allegations involving the use or distribution of drugs seriously. The CFNIS has always taken a proactive approach to drug investigations and will continue to combat drug use within the CF," said LCol William Garrick, Commanding Officer of the CFNIS. "In conjunction with the local Military Police, we will continue to work closely with the chain of command to ensure a drug free environment within the CF."
The CFNIS received information that the accused was allegedly involved in drug trafficking. The charges are a result of the subsequent investigation of which involved the use of an undercover operator.
The CFNIS is an independent Military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, DND employees and CF personnel serving in Canada and abroad.
News Release
CFB GAGETOWN BASED SOLDIER CHARGED WITH TRAFFICKING
GPFC 2008-001 - January 10, 2008
CFB GAGETOWN, NB– The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) charged one soldier stationed at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown today, in relation to allegations of drug trafficking.
Corporal Jeremy Springer, attached to the Canadian Forces Armour School (Gagetown), was charged with one count of trafficking, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This charge was in relation to alleged trafficking in marijuana.
"The Military Police take any allegations involving the use or distribution of drugs seriously. The CFNIS has always taken a proactive approach to drug investigations and will continue to combat drug use within the CF," said LCol William Garrick, Commanding Officer of the CFNIS. "In conjunction with the local Military Police, we will continue to work closely with the chain of command to ensure a drug free environment within the CF."
The CFNIS received information that the accused was allegedly involved in drug trafficking. The charges are a result of the subsequent investigation of which involved the use of an undercover operator.
The CFNIS is an independent Military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, DND employees and CF personnel serving in Canada and abroad.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
MCG said:
Anybody but me notice how they never fail to mention the 5 soldiers charged, yet they fail to point out that some of them had the charges withdrawn/were found "not guilty" last year as well??
Guess that doesn't play as well into their theme ...
For example, here's Cpl Robinson's Court Martial date (4 Dec 2007) on that public site the MSM has access to:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/calendarDec_e.asp
http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/chargesheets/robinson.pdf
and here's his results from the public site link the MSM also has access to (just scroll down to Dec Court Martial results):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/cmj/CMresults_e.asp
You know, the shit they leave OUT of stories is sometimes just as important as the stuff they put into them. Omission of details like the above, when not failing to mention the charges were laid against the 5 or mentioning the one found guilty, is utter trype, is misleading, and is on par with outright lying. Their constant misleading of the Canadian public disgusts me.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Vern, you are soooo right.
It's like when the MsM was presenting huge exerpts of
1. KAF ramp ceremony
2. Trenton ramp ceremony
3. Actual final service
There was so much media coverage that it appeared to John Q Public that there were 3 times the casualties we were actualy experiencing....
MsM... utter morons!
It's like when the MsM was presenting huge exerpts of
1. KAF ramp ceremony
2. Trenton ramp ceremony
3. Actual final service
There was so much media coverage that it appeared to John Q Public that there were 3 times the casualties we were actualy experiencing....
MsM... utter morons!
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
ArmyVern said:
Most of the article is boilerplate. I went over to DND News Room and none of their news releases were follow-ups to any charges.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Shamrock said:
Why should they be?
They don't issue press releases every time a soldier is charged, why should the be expected to issue press releases on court martials when they are found not guilty of the charge? They don't need to --- it's ALL publicly available on the JAG site.
The MSM finds out who's getting court martialled via the linked site ... then use their Freedom of Info requests to access greater details for "their" stories ...
This is about the MSM failing to use that same site to put "their" stories into context. That's THEIR doing NOT the CFs.
DND has already provided them with the info on a silver platter via the JAG site. They choose to ignore (or rather yet just omit) the bits about the "not guiltys/withdrawns" because it doesn't fit the slant of their story. They are fully aware of those "not/guiltys & withdrawns" too. It's not ignorance. It's deliberate ignoring of posting those FACTS to enable their ability to keep the general Canadian populace ignorant as to the actual realities of "those 5 that were charged (mentioning 1 who was found guilty)" but NOT mentioning the ones who weren't found guilty.
It's how they play the game and spin the story -- and it's how the myth perpetuates itself. It's a case of a "reporter" using the only bits that suit his slant, vice actually "reporting" the full details and known facts of the matter. Don't think for an instant that the MSM did NOT follow these cases to see the outcomes. They DID, obviously-- they reported the "guilty" verdict. But, they only chose to report the "guilty" ... and chose not report nor mention the "not guilties".
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Shamrock said:
Uhhh hello.
Canada has an open court system that we must comply with. That site IS the CFs compliance with that requirement to be public and open. You want the CF to issue press releases for every charge that never sees the light of day and every finding? Cripes ... that is what the JAG site is for.
And the MSM is very well aware of it's existance. THAT's where they get the "so and so was charged" bits from or this guy "is being court martialled for this" from.
I have no issues with them reporting the guiltys.
I DO have issues when they are fully aware that of the "5 charged" that they mention -- they bring up only the "guilty" and fail to mention the "not guiltys" that they are also aware of.
The article should more accurately have read:
But then, that would be factual and actual reporting ... vice spinning or perpetuating the myth.
I think I could count on one finger the number of actual "reporters" there are these days. Lots of journalists -- distinct lack of "reporters" and there is indeed a HUGE difference.
One "reports" ALL the facts and nothing but the facts. Someone reading a reporters story would have difficulty in determining which side of the fence that reporter "personally" sat on.
The other "spins a story (usually slanted to their personal opinion -- quite often even included their personal beliefs in writing) using only some facts or partial truths and omitting other known facts which do not play well with their own personal agenda." One can tell easily which side of the fence "non-reporters" sit on.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Shamrock said:
Because the MSM is aware of the other results ... and isn't it THEIR job to fact-check, and report the facts and the WHOLE story?
Or is everyone expected to do that for them now?? It's not thier fault they got the facts wrong and only spin half the story.
I guess we should just start writing the damned stories for them too. I could find a use for that paycheck they earn to do this ... :
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
ArmyVern said:
They're often made aware of these results through news releases. You must also consider the topicality of the subject "Soldier charged 6 months ago had charges withdrawn" does not a cutting story make. Hell, you'll notice retractions and apologies are often given microscopic consideration.
ArmyVern said:I guess we should just start writing the damned stories for them too. I could find a use for that paycheck they earn to do this ... :
The bulk of the original story was written by the DND. News media routinely publish non-staff written articles. Some they get for free in the form of news releases and letters to the editors, while for others they will pay freelance writers. Indeed, quite a few papers prefer freelance writers as it eases their burthens of having to maintain a staff.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Yes, they often are -- with that I agree.
But they are all very much aware of the JAG site too, I do not agree that it's the CFs job to do the MSMs homework for them. That's the reporters job, and his editor job to ensure that the reporter has done his job and fact-checked and presented ALL the facts to the story they are going with.
Not a whole lot of homework getting done these days and even less "reporting"; ergo the reason I no longer susbscribe to the many newspapers and other publications that I used to.
No thanks. Half the facts does not a factual report make.
But they are all very much aware of the JAG site too, I do not agree that it's the CFs job to do the MSMs homework for them. That's the reporters job, and his editor job to ensure that the reporter has done his job and fact-checked and presented ALL the facts to the story they are going with.
Not a whole lot of homework getting done these days and even less "reporting"; ergo the reason I no longer susbscribe to the many newspapers and other publications that I used to.
No thanks. Half the facts does not a factual report make.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
You're right regarding the non-reporting of Not Guilty/Dismissed verdicts, Vern.
But I don't think it's confined to the Military system. A very similar complaint exists regarding civilian charges and court appearances (of civilians). Shamrock pretty much has it right - a spicy accusation is NEWS! - a dull Not Guilty/Dismissed is NOT NEWS! Equally public records of civilian court cases are available.
I think Edward Campbell has it right when it comes to the MSM - their job is to fill the blank spaces between ads with NEWS! (A major oversimplification of what Edward has said on the subject).
But I don't think it's confined to the Military system. A very similar complaint exists regarding civilian charges and court appearances (of civilians). Shamrock pretty much has it right - a spicy accusation is NEWS! - a dull Not Guilty/Dismissed is NOT NEWS! Equally public records of civilian court cases are available.
I think Edward Campbell has it right when it comes to the MSM - their job is to fill the blank spaces between ads with NEWS! (A major oversimplification of what Edward has said on the subject).
ArmyVern said:
HUH?
The simple fact that the story says one person, of 5 arrested was found guilty is telling you that the other 4 were not convicted.
You call that leaving out facts?
I think the Canadian public is more interested in soldiers being convicted of drug trafficking than soldiers who are not.
It is, in all likelihood , tax payer that is trading hands here
Similar threads
