• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

VAdm Norman - Supply Ship contract: Legal fight

What do the rules say about posting online (Facebook, Twitter) about your support for a senior leader charged with a crime? Would it be considered against regulations, or just inappropriate, to claim the RCMP and/or PMO are, say, wrong, borderline corrupt or at least  inept?
 
Lumber said:
What do the rules say about posting online (Facebook, Twitter) about your support for a senior leader charged with a crime? Would it be considered against regulations, or just inappropriate, to claim the RCMP and/or PMO are, say, wrong, borderline corrupt or at least  inept?

I personally don't care about the regulations. He's got my support. I won't go so far as to call the PMO corrupt but it strikes me that the Liberals, who seemed to yap all the time about transparency while they were in opposition, have carried secret backroom deals and disdain for the Canadian Forces to a new all-time low.

:cheers:
 
Well, Lumber, I am not bound by any rules anymore, so I'll say it out loud:

The RCMP and the PMO are wrong, borderline corrupt and inept, not to mention they truly don't give a damn about this country, but only about being in power for their own personal gain, or in the case of the PM himself, only in it for his own narcissistic self-image as living up to his image of his father [cue Freud here].

But that's just my personal opinion.  :D
 
I hope he comes out on top of this and boot fucks whomever is behind it.
 
FJAG said:
I personally don't care about the regulations. He's got my support. I won't go so far as to call the PMO corrupt but it strikes me that the Liberals, who seemed to yap all the time about transparency while they were in opposition, have carried secret backroom deals and disdain for the Canadian Forces to a new all-time low.

:cheers:

When one of your first moves in government is to remove two transparency bills, one for Native spending, the other for Union spending, it speaks a fair bit about their motives.
 
Lumber said:
What do the rules say about posting online (Facebook, Twitter) about your support for a senior leader charged with a crime? Would it be considered against regulations, or just inappropriate, to claim the RCMP and/or PMO are, say, wrong, borderline corrupt or at least  inept?

There have been high placed emails on the DWAN telling everyone in uniform to stay away from making any public comment on this case.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
There have been high placed emails on the DWAN telling everyone in uniform to stay away from making any public comment on this case.
It was interesting looking through the GoFundMe donation list

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 
I would stay away from making specific comments against any government entity specifically.  But I can't see anyone getting nabbed for sharing articles and wishing him the best.
 
Stuart Thompson takes aim at the meaning of the charge laid against the Admiral in today's gazette.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-breach-of-trust-charge-against-mark-norman/wcm/f3aae1b3-c64a-4453-9cdd-f9c0806a9989

Again, I have a hard time believing that the Crown is in a position to make its proof to the extent required by the Supreme Court, particularly the need to prove he was acting for a dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose. Reading this, I am even more convinced that the charge has been laid as a result of some form of government political interference. I still think this will blow up in their face.
 
There are those involved in this issue for whom "dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose" certainly applies, but VAdm Norman is not one of them.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Stuart Thompson takes aim at the meaning of the charge laid against the Admiral in today's gazette.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-breach-of-trust-charge-against-mark-norman/wcm/f3aae1b3-c64a-4453-9cdd-f9c0806a9989

Again, I have a hard time believing that the Crown is in a position to make its proof to the extent required by the Supreme Court, particularly the need to prove he was acting for a dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose. Reading this, I am even more convinced that the charge has been laid as a result of some form of government political interference. I still think this will blow up in their face.

Nailed it.

:cheers:
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Stuart Thompson takes aim at the meaning of the charge laid against the Admiral in today's gazette.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-breach-of-trust-charge-against-mark-norman/wcm/f3aae1b3-c64a-4453-9cdd-f9c0806a9989

Again, I have a hard time believing that the Crown is in a position to make its proof to the extent required by the Supreme Court, particularly the need to prove he was acting for a dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose. Reading this, I am even more convinced that the charge has been laid as a result of some form of government political interference. I still think this will blow up in their face.

Is this a case of hubris (already an issue in Trudeau's PMO) making a bad decision worse? Is there nobody of influence within the government that is telling them to cut their losses before the court case brings the sorry affair to light?

As much as I will enjoy the likes of Irvings, Scott Brison and JT being made fools of, I deplore the amount of time and money that will be wasted to make me happy!
 
This could be significantly worse than the Duffy trial, and likely will be popping up right at election time.
 
Irrelevant.  This is the Federal equivalent of a SLAPP - "We won't cover your legal bills, and we'll hang you out to dry in public".  Senior bureaucrats, horsemen and military personnel understand how the game is played.  Innocent or guilty, he's been stripped of influence, stripped of the ability to get things done, and parked on a shelf as an example "pour encourager les autres".

With another year or so before the trial, and four years after that of appeals up to and including the supreme court, I'm certain that the Crown will spare no expense, since they have unlimited resources to persecute the RAdm.
 
[quote author=dapaterson]

With another year or so before the trial, and four years after that of appeals up to and including the supreme court, I'm certain that the Crown will spare no expense, since they have unlimited resources to persecute the RAdm.
[/quote]

It's a SLAPP for sure. Ammo for the Conservatives at election time perhaps? To go along with their "more than we can afford to give" stance.

His GoFundMe raised $82'000 in a month, I have a feeling he'll get significant help from CAF members and civilians alike.
 
dapaterson said:
. . .  I'm certain that the Crown will spare no expense, since they have unlimited resources to persecute the RAdm.

While It is likely that one dream of the Crown is that, if things go their way, a reduction in rank will follow (probably more than one step down to RAdm), however let's not jump the gun on the future retired title of Vice Admiral Norman.
 
Blackadder1916 said:
While It is likely that one dream of the Crown is that, if things go their way, a reduction in rank will follow (probably more than one step down to RAdm), however let's not jump the gun on the future retired title of Vice Admiral Norman.

Nice catch.  Mea culpa on that.


...clearly I need to increase my minimum caffeine load before posting... :coffee:
 
Or, when speaking generally and exact rank or seniority is irrelevant to the point being made, you can simply call any level of general rank by the broad moniker "general" and any flag officer by the moniker "admiral".

Works of me, and for the public at large.
 
Back
Top