- Reaction score
- 17,786
- Points
- 1,010
FSTO said:
Because the CBC is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal Party of Canada? ;D
VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight
- Thread starter brihard
- Start date
Because the CBC is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal Party of Canada? ;D
- Reaction score
- 17,786
- Points
- 1,010
I read CBC (amongst other news sources).
It was a joke.
It was a joke.
FSTO said:
Why was it weak?
I'm not actually arguing one way or another. I'm just curious as to why you think it was weak? A quick google search shows that aside from Robert Fife, that PP commentary and the CBC article not much else has been said or reported at all about it. Other than the unacceptable length it is currently taking what more is there to say?
You first posted a that CBC was keeping the story alive then state later that they seem to be to only one quiet about it.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Points
- 1,010
Remius said:
Actually, the National Post and all its various associated newspapers ran a two full page article only two week-ends ago that recapped the whole story timeline from the beginning, reviewed the "evidence" released as part of the release of the affidavits in support of the search warrants, exposed how these warrants were exercised apparently abusively by the RCMP, such as seizing the Admiral's wife's material and personal items, such as family pictures that can't possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the alleged crime, how the RCMP is still holding to those irrelevant items even though they have been ordered by the court to return them, who the players were in all these things (including a certain ex-CBC journalist who somehow "broke the story" in public and somehow ended up on the political staff of the Minister).
So there is a lot to say here, because the whole thing stinks of political interference and scheming.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Points
- 1,010
Remius said:
You cannot drop charges that have not been laid yet. And mark my words, none will. The file is allegedly in the hands of the prosecutors now to review and decide whether to lay charges or not. They won't: Any prosecutor worth its salt knows damn well that there is no evidence whatsoever on one of the essential element of the offence: personal gain. The Admiral has gained nothing and has nothing to gain from the alleged actions, if they even took place.
And the fact that no charges are being laid is part of the Admiral's legal quandary. Until they are, he has no access to any of the evidence. Once they are, then he would have to be given everything that has been accumulated by the RCMP to make his defence, including any exculpatory evidence. In the present case, that means that all the evidence relating to the civil servant who allegedly also had access to the info and could have leaked it but was never suspended or investigated would come out, raising even more question on the political side of things, not to mention that the whole matter of why, how, and to which extent, the deliberations of the Privy Council (the Cabinet) and any or all documents prepared for it are, or ought to be, considered secret and therefore protected under the Criminal Code would then come out before the Courts. Trust me, the government does not want to open that can of worms which is very politically charged (because if they were found to be so covered, any "leaks" by members of the government to journalists would be equally criminal and anyone, including the members of the opposition, could file a complaint with the RCMP, who would have to investigate).
Now, the Admiral is currently under the effect of an administrative decision of the CDS that may itself have some holes in it. But what to do? The normal way would be to file a redress of grievance, but who would hear it? The CDS who made the original decision? Or do you go to his superior, which happens to be the Governor-General! I don't think she would agree to hear such a thing or that her office is set up for that. So civilian review? That would be my choice: bring the whole matter of the appropriateness of the CDS' decision to the federal Court acting in administrative review of the CDS' action. But first hurdle: establishing that such a hearing is even possible - i.e. that it is permitted in law under the circumstances.
Difficult situation in all cases, but of course, it would not look good on the Government to try and argue before a court that the most senior members of the CAF are not allowed the same legal protection as all other members of the CAF where administrative impropriety occurs. But arguing that is not beneath our governments, unfortunately.
- Reaction score
- 2,280
- Points
- 1,160
Charges for what, exactly. That's the thing that really seems rotten. I smell a commission of inquiry coming. Agreed Norman needs to get into court on some procedural grounds (civil, criminal or administrative) asap before documents get shredded, hard drives wiped and memories get re-wired.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,395
- Points
- 1,160
I think the politicians and government have worked themselves into a corner and struggling to find a way out. In classic form, they hope to grind him down and get him to sign some sort of payment and non-disclosure deal.
- Reaction score
- 2,889
- Points
- 940
Accompanied by some staffer remembering suddenly that the removal was contrary to the advice given by the Deputy-Minister or some such, and the CDS is the evil one who now needs to be fired forColin P said:
:Tin-Foil-Hat:
op:
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Points
- 1,010
Yeah! I would be getting the popcorn out too, if Mark didn't deserve a better treatment. It's not a game to those innocent victims, even high up, who get caught in these political games aimed at getting and maintaining politicians in power, even at the expense of individual's lives and reputations.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
"House of Cards" on the Ottawa River, anyone?
https://www.netflix.com/title/70178217
"You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment."
https://www.netflix.com/title/70200744
Mark
Ottawa
https://www.netflix.com/title/70178217
"You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment."
https://www.netflix.com/title/70200744
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 1,528
- Points
- 1,160
If the CDS believes one of his troops, who happens to be directly under him, is not being traded fairly, what should he do?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,424
- Points
- 1,010
Rifleman: The problem here is that it is the CDS himself who mistreated his own troop who happens to be directly under him.
The even more concerning aspect is that he seems to have done so for no other purpose than to placate his political master's political agenda, not for any purpose related to the good of the service he heads.
... But that's just my humble opinion.
I wonder what would happen if he just admitted that he was wrong, or acted in haste, and simply reversed his own administrative decision ,,, leading to the reinstatement of Admiral Norman in his job of VCDS. Hmmmmm! ???
The even more concerning aspect is that he seems to have done so for no other purpose than to placate his political master's political agenda, not for any purpose related to the good of the service he heads.
... But that's just my humble opinion.
I wonder what would happen if he just admitted that he was wrong, or acted in haste, and simply reversed his own administrative decision ,,, leading to the reinstatement of Admiral Norman in his job of VCDS. Hmmmmm! ???
I wonder if the other option that was put in front of the CDS was a RCMP raid on the admiral's home, with him carted away in irons with all the public humiliation than entailed? And of course, the media tipped off in advance with live coverage and trial by media and pundits, and perhaps the cancellation of the project.
Just speculating.
Just speculating.
- Reaction score
- 1,528
- Points
- 1,160
The other option would be, as it seems to what we know, a bigger embarrassment to Trudeau et al. To be embarrassed, first you must feel that you have done something wrong, in this case, to a senior officer with considerable years of honourable service. Trouble is the guy making the decision was a part time drama teacher/snowboarder and has no concept of anything.
Oldgateboatdriver - Of course. My question was posed simplistically.
I have asked this question before: When are some of these senior officers/CWO's going to resign in protest because the service they love is being destructed and their troops will face enemies with equipment that is in the LPC's interest not theirs.
Oldgateboatdriver - Of course. My question was posed simplistically.
I have asked this question before: When are some of these senior officers/CWO's going to resign in protest because the service they love is being destructed and their troops will face enemies with equipment that is in the LPC's interest not theirs.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,395
- Points
- 1,160
I suspect that he is holding out for his day in court to clear his name, something they hoped he would not do. because they likely don't have the same moral standards. Either way I suspect this is going to court, either civil or criminal.
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Somehow I doubt that a hearty welcome back, let's let bygones be bygones just won't cut it in this case. While I don't believe that the VCDS is of a vindictive nature, he cares too much for his beloved navy to allow this type of insult to his uniform to go unanswered.
Similar threads
- Article
