News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

Max Sterling said:
Is it really that much to ask for anyone who posts an article to simply add a few lines on the facts of the story and especially so on such a controversial topic that can easily be mistook by people and create unnecessary anger and perceptions?

Do you not think that in this day and age in the social and political climate that we live in where stories like these could easily spiral out of control needlessly that we all shouldn't be more careful and be as accurate as possible on what we post? Look at the Regis Korchinski-Paquet case where the baseless claim that police pushed her off the balcony blew up into a national story immediately and even though it was quickly disproven, the family never apologised and plenty of people believed that the police killed her and the damage was done.

That's the kind of thing that we should be AVOIDING at all costs so why is it so tough to add a few lines of the facts of a story so that people will have at least the basic info of the case and if they like they can read more about it. Does it really take that much more effort to do that and avoid any misunderstandings and confusion?



Yes I'd say these days MSM is more untrustworthy now than I can ever remember in the past where these days they care so much more about pushing narratives and brainwashing people to believe certain things than they are of doing their job and simply reporting the facts of the story. Social media and the internet has plenty of faults and issues, but at least if you're willing to do a little research into a story you can usually find most of the facts that the media often purposely chooses not report or only barely does depending on who the perpetrators and victims are.
Click to expand...

Good lord. He posted the headline and first paragraphs of an article written by someone else, then provided the link to the complete article. I'll hazard a guess that if he added "a few lines on the facts of the story" you'd take exception to those. You are free to post context, additional details, facts as you see fit.

I get a newspaper tossed on my driveway every morning. I don't yell at the guy who tossed it because I have a problem with the content.
 
Northern Light said:
I believe in being polite; and considerate in posting, even with those with whom I disagree.
Click to expand...


This is HIGHLY DEBATABLE.

With as much restraint as I can muster; you need to be called out for being a troll.
Click to expand...

I'm a troll for simply having a different opinion that you disagree with? Ok. Who knew that we weren't allowed to have a different view on issues and aren't able to voice them and engage in a discussion without being personally attacked for being a troll because someone's opinion on a subject goes against what you believe in? :rolleyes:

Threads in which you regularly engage in victim-blaming;
Click to expand...

What a time we live in where asking pedestrians to take some responsibility in preventing themselves from getting hit by a vehicle and getting seriously injured or even killed is considered 'victim blaming'. Man who knew that asking people to take a few seconds out of their busy lives to look both ways before crossing a street (you know something that we use to teach our children to do all the time) is now considered offensive and 'blaming the victim'.

often wander up to, if not across several lines of fair public comment; and do so while being aggressive with and rude to other posters.
Click to expand...

Can you please tell me in which posts I've made here where I've been very rude with someone I've responded to? I'd really like to know and if true I will have no problem acknowledging it.
 
lenaitch said:
Good lord. He posted the headline and first paragraphs of an article written by someone else, then provided the link to the complete article. I'll hazard a guess that if he added "a few lines on the facts of the story" you'd take exception to those. You are free to post context, additional details, facts as you see fit.
Click to expand...

The headline and the first paragraphs of the article linked provides no information or context to the case at all and completely paints a picture very different from reality. Why not add an extra few lines to provide some details as to what happened before the beating happened especially when its so important to this incident? Or how about picking an article on the case that does explain the story more?

Hypothetically imagine if someone wrote a headline and an article that involved you in a serious incident? For example 'Lenaitch was charged with murdering a man with a utility knife during an altercation on Yonge and Bloor'. Sounds bad doesn't it and people who simply read that and nothing else might have an incorrect view about what you did don't you think?

But what if we added more context to the incident and stated 'Lenaitch was involved in an incident where he was punched in the head from behind and knocked to the ground by a random person and the violent attack continued where this random person didn't stop punching the victim in the face breaking several bones and Lenaitch in trying to defend himself pulled out his utility knife and stabbed the suspect in the heart and he died on the scene.'

Don't you think that paints an entirely different picture of what actually happened on that day and that it'd be nice those details were included so that people didn't think you killed someone for no reason or justification?

That's why I'm saying posting a little extra helps especially if a post is going to be presevered for a while and someone glancing through postings simply sees 'Officer gets jail time for beating a young black male' and nothing else.
 
The above is simply too much; a few times over.
 
It sounds like your argument is with headline writers more than forum posters. If all people read is the headline then, you are right. distilling an entire story down to one line is fraught with peril and if that's all people read and draw information and conclusions from, perhaps the knowledge vs. information fight has been lost.

I recently realized there is software for writing headlines (of course there is) although I doubt major papers use them.
 
Some updates on 'Police Reform' coming to the next Toronto Police Services Board Mtg, next week.

I'd highlight, in particular, the expansion of the Mental health Crisis Intervention Units; with that report linked below.

24/7 coverage, set to begin in January 2021.


Other Reports include a broad initial response to the intiative passed by Council:


A report on diversity in policing:


And on early intervention programs:

 
jayme2016 said:
The media pushes the cut police budget saying this will help end racism but very few will cover or talk about what if will happen if groups get there way.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how cutting the police budget will help end racism. What you may see is a reduction of policing in the traditionally black areas of the city. I’m not sure that’s a good thing. Is that really what POC want, they see a violent drug dealer intimidating their neighbourhood but there’s no police available when they call?

As for the rest of us, IMO a reduction in police budget seems impossible. How could they possibly do less than they do now? I almost never see police outside of traffic enforcement and paid duty. I could today get on my bicycle and ride 30 km around this city and not see a single police officer on their feet, walking the beat. What do our cops do all day?
 
Admiral Beez said:
I don’t see how cutting the police budget will help end racism. What you may see is a reduction of policing in the traditionally black areas of the city. I’m not sure that’s a good thing. Is that really what POC want, they see a violent drug dealer intimidating their neighbourhood but there’s no police available when they call?

As for the rest of us, IMO a reduction in police budget seems impossible. How could they possibly do less than they do now? I almost never see police outside of traffic enforcement and paid duty. I could today get on my bicycle and ride 30 km around this city and not see a single police officer on their feet, walking the beat. What do our cops do all day?
Click to expand...

What some groups in Ottawa have said if the police budget is small 80-100 million they won't have enough police to cover the city and respond to many calls which could be true as a budget that small would see the city only have 1000-1500 cops.It could be groups in Toronto have the same feeling you cut the budget to the point police are more or less crippled and can't respond to many calls leading to less blacks being arrested.
 
jayme2016 said:
What some groups in Ottawa have said if the police budget is small 80-100 million they won't have enough police to cover the city and respond to many calls which could be true as a budget that small would see the city only have 1000-1500 cops.It could be groups in Toronto have the same feeling you cut the budget to the point police are more or less crippled and can't respond to many calls leading to less blacks being arrested.
Click to expand...

For the record, no one of any consequence (influence) is arguing for material cuts to the police budget.

The highest numbers being bandied around are ~10%; they aren't that likely to get traction.

So can we please move away from this subject as its really a Seinfeldian one........about nothing.

Police reform and Criminal Law reform are both real; and in the full-ness of time, done properly, should lead to at least modest reductions in police; but I expect, should we see that happen; it will come in the form of budget and hiring freezes, not deep cuts.
 
Northern Light said:
For the record, no one of any consequence (influence) is arguing for material cuts to the police budget.

The highest numbers being bandied around are ~10%; they aren't that likely to get traction.

So can we please move away from this subject as its really a Seinfeldian one........about nothing.

Police reform and Criminal Law reform are both real; and in the full-ness of time, done properly, should lead to at least modest reductions in police; but I expect, should we see that happen; it will come in the form of budget and hiring freezes, not deep cuts.
Click to expand...

Groups in Ottawa are calling for a 50% cut to the the budget.
 
jayme2016 said:
Groups in Ottawa are calling for a 50% cut to the the budget.
Click to expand...
I’d also support a cut to Toronto’s police budgets, but not because of any progressive notions. 10.5% of total annual city spending, equal to $1.4 billion in annual spending for 4,900 police officers is nuts. Cut that back to 2015’s $1 billion or less, and give that money back to the taxpayers. If we don’t stop, the TPS budget will be $2 billion by 2025.

tps-2018-budget-request-infographic.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Police Services Board will meet next week, on Dec 15th.

One of the items on that agenda is regards to the use of Conducted Energy Weapons (colloquially, Tasers), over the period May 1 to August 31st 2020.

From that report, I gleaned this statistic that I thought was interesting: (Types of calls for service); I assume for the time period above noted.

1607551499607.png


PIC Calls for Service stands for 'Persons in Crisis'

MHA is Mental Health Act

The link to the actual report is here:

 
Yes, I agree those are two separate things. But defunding the police will never end police racism. You end police racism through equitable hiring up to the top level, better training, and community outreach. Three things alone that cost more, not less.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top