[Asterix]

I think that what happened at Queen and Spadina on the Saturday actually proves how only a small group of mostly senior officers and officials were "in the know". In the video we see how a very large force of Riot police in full Riot gear showed up just BEFORE the first abandoned car was set on fire and had the area completely secure. The SENIOR officer who ordered them to this area was probably not in on the "plan" . From the command centre - where live video was being fed from overhead circling aircraft - the planners would have seen this large force in the area of the "bait cars" and gave an order to clear the area so that things could proceed as planned. Even after the first car was set on fire no attempt was made to remove the second cruiser just a few feet away. The police would AGAIN completely clear the area so that this second cruiser could be set on fire.

You missed most of the questions asked, namely the ones that show your theory so full of holes it makes a lace doily impermeable to fluids.

Occam's razor.

 

[Peepers]

What about the supervisors of these cops who flagrantly abandoned their vehicles in such a slipshod manner? Wouldn't they be roasting their hides for neglect of duty to just park their cruisers so as to invite torching? Or were these captains and lieutenants also sworn to secrecy by this cabal of senior cops, CSIS, top government officials and told not to worry about the loss of thousands of dollars of police equipment (to say nothing of the safety hazard posed by the ammunition that can be heard cooking off in some of the news videos)?

Who is going to discipline these supervisors? Certainly not the senior police leadership who gave them the orders to abandon their cars. The senior leadership who in turn are not being held accountable for their actions by the politicians and media or for that matter the majority of the public.

 

[Asterix]

Who is going to discipline these supervisors? Certainly not the senior police leadership who gave them the orders to abandon their cars. The senior leadership who in turn are not being held accountable for their actions by the politicians and media or for that matter the majority of the public.

These supervisors (lieutenants, captains, etc) are not the high ranking officers who are part of your conspiracy. All they see is that some of their subordinates were negligent in their duties and left thousands of dollars in police vehicles out inviting rioters to trash them. Any boss worth the name would rightly tear a strip off the hides of those faulty officers.

But apparently they didn't. Either they were told by the secret conspiracy crowd not to discipline obvious dereliction of duty (for which they would surely have demanded a rational explanation and therefore would be added to the 'small' group of cops in on 'the plan'), or there is no such conspiracy.

So if your theory is to hold any water, not only have we got the senior Toronto police leadership in on the caper with CSIS, but also mid level police officers as well as the handful of frontline cops who were ordered to abandon their vehicles in such a manner that it appeared they were about to be overrun (as described in the papers). And yet not a single one of these officers who have sworn to uphold the law have breathed a word of this to the media, to a spouse, family member or drinking buddy. Why not?

Occam's razor.

 

[Peepers]

. And yet not a single one of these officers who have sworn to uphold the law have breathed a word of this to the media, to a spouse, family member or drinking buddy. Why not?

Give it time. This information will start to drip out sooner or later. The Toronto Sun has already published some accounts from unamed sources INSIDE the force that raise a lot of questions:

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/06/30/14564416.html

An interesting comment from a Police officer from this story:

"The chief is rattled because he knows that circus at Spadina and Queen was unlawful and it is going to come back to bite him in the ass," said one copper. "If one of us had detained people like that, we would be hammered with Police Act charges."

If it's deemed criminal, who investigates? The very people who ordered it?

 

[PinkLucy]

Ah yes, the famous "unnamed source" ... although this is more along the lines of said source questioning behaviour than alluding to undercover ops.

 

[tkip]

I really don't understand why some people automatically go to conspiracy theories, especially when there is a complete lack of evidence to support them and yet, still want others to join in their paranoid fantasy.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I really don't understand why some people automatically go to conspiracy theories,

I think it's human nature to like to think things are bigger or deeper than they really are, and that somehow the real truth is being hidden. Looks at the Birthers and Truthers, and moon landing deniers, we think they're wacky, but in their own minds they're the champions of truth.

 

[Coltaine79]

OK, while you guys continue to babble about conspiracy this conspiracy that, it's good to know this issue is still in the news and still being investigated on a number of fronts. This one is particularly promising:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/834461

No-name officers investigated
Critics fear individual police deliberately removed their required name tags to skirt accountability

I'll bet that the thug who punched the Guardian journo that Paikin and his police escort witnessed, was one of these douches... find him and strip his badge!

 

[Peepers]

I really don't understand why some people automatically go to conspiracy theories, especially when there is a complete lack of evidence to support them and yet, still want others to join in their paranoid fantasy.

I really don't understand why some people automatically label anyone who challenges the "official version" of any story a "conspiracy theorist" . This is a term that governments have successfully used to discredit anyone who questions the "official truth" (dating back to the JFK assassination).

In this case the "official version" is that the Police did an outstanding job. David Miller, Dalton McGuinty and Police Service Chair Alok Mukherjee have nothing but praise for the cops as do the City council which passed a unanimous resolution proclaiming what a great job they did.

I'm not buying this "official version".

 

[Coltaine79]

I really don't understand why some people automatically label anyone who challenges the "official version" of any story a "conspiracy theorist" . This is a term that governments have successfully used to discredit anyone who questions the "official truth" (dating back to the JFK assassination).

In this case the "official version" is that the Police did an outstanding job. David Miller, Dalton McGuinty and Police Service Chair Alok Mukherjee have nothing but praise for the cops as do the City council which passed a unanimous resolution proclaiming what a great job they did.

I'm not buying this "official version".

Even some people at the highest levels are beginning to question the "official version".

From today's Star article:

“It’s as if whoever was in charge is using Black Bloc tactics. They’ve taken off their uniform and dispersed into the crowd – nowhere to be found,” said Toronto police board member Hamlin Grange

 

[gristle]

I should add to my second last post that lest there be any doubt that the police car torched in front of Steves' Music Store was in fact left there by the police as bait - about hour later a second police car - parked just a few feet away - was also set on fire. Again the police had completely cleared the area. You would think that after the first car was set on fire the cops would have driven ( or towed ) the second vehicle away. Instead it was left as bait for another headline grabbing incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ukCHgaUtHg

What point was there for police to break out large numbers of officers to retrieve already destroyed cars and then possibly leave other areas unsecured or open to attack? No tow truck driver would approach because they were fearful of reprisal, and it was dangerous for firefighters to put themselves and their equipment at risk. If you have idiots willing to burn cars and dance around them like they were campfires, and loads of other people standing around snapping pictures like it was moron festival, it makes approaching the area very risky.

Your overwhelming desire to blame everything on the police leaves me with no other conclusion but to indicate that you were one of the rioters marching around smashing out windows and destroying public and private property. You could not care less if you injured, maimed or killed the people who happened to be inside the stores you destroyed. You covered your face, too afraid to expose your identity, took up arms and marched on the city with an aim to destroy for ends that you cannot reasonably support other than to satisfy your own base desire to create chaos.

 

[insertrealname]

I haven't followed this thread in the last couple of days, but I wonder if we can take a different approach to the problem of property destruction and anti-establishment demonstrators.

The motivations and the symbolic values of property damage are two entirely separate things. What motivates property damage can be anything from a basic adrenaline-stoked urge to smash things to act out aggression and anger, right up to elaborate arguments about the tactics necessary to combat the evils of property ownership personified in the corporation. But determining the symbolic value of such damage almost always is the work of people and institutions separate from, and often by nature opposed to, the people doing the damage: the main-stream media, politicians, and opinion leaders, as well as the authorities of justice and law enforcement, who will view damage to corporate property by demonstrators to be violence directed against those corporate citizens, to be punished with the severity appropriate for assault against persons.

In other words, when people engage in property damage in an anti-establishment demonstration, they've already let any hope of determining their own public message slip outside their grasp--it will be done for them by their opponents, with a very different content.

And though the balance of power may be very different, something similar occurs when there is blatant unlawful conduct by the authorities, they undermine just as surely their legitimacy. George Monbiot, in commentary published in the Guardian after the London G20 climate demonstrations of April 2009, put it very nicely:

The police have been talking up violence at the G20 protests for weeks. They briefed journalists and companies in the City of London about the evil designs of the climate campaigners intending to demonstrate there, but refused to let the campaigners attend the briefings and put their own side of the story. They also rebuffed the campaigners when they sought to explain to the police what they wanted to do.

The way officers tooled themselves up in riot gear and waded into a peaceful crowd this afternoon makes it look almost as if they were trying to ensure that their predictions came true. Their bosses appear to have failed either to read or to heed the report by the parliamentary committee on human rights last week, about the misuse of police powers against protesters. "Whilst we recognise police officers should not be placed at risk of serious injury," the report said, "the deployment of riot police can unnecessarily raise the temperature at protests."

But there has always been a conflict of interest inherent in policing. The police are supposed to prevent crime and keep the streets safe. But if they are too successful, they do themselves out of a job. They have a powerful interest in exaggerating threats and, perhaps, an interest in ensuring that sometimes these threats materialise. This could explain what I've seen at one protest after another, where peaceful demonstrations turn into ugly rucks only when the police attack. The wildly disproportionate and unnecessary violence I've sometimes seen the police deploy could scarcely be better designed to provoke a reaction.

If this is so, they lose nothing. They might get the occasional rap over the knuckles from MPs or the police complaints commission. It doesn't seem to bother them. By planting the idea in the public mind that the streets could erupt into catastrophic violence at any time, were it not for the thick blue line thrown around even the mildest protest, they establish the need for a heavy police presence. While the public lives in fear, no government dares to cut the policing budget.

The UK Parliament select committee report that Monbiot mentions is really worth reading, even if details concern only the UK context, as it sets out a general framework for the policing of demonstrations that the Toronto G20 Integrated security Unit seemed to have little awareness about, especially the recommendations on good practice in policing, "no surprises" policing and anti-riot policing. (It should be said that UK civil organisations were not happy with the report's mild conclusions concerning the UK Police that the committee "found no systematic human rights abuses in the policing of protest". And of course the policing at the April 2009 London G20 was not exactly brilliant.)

 

[poppajojo]

Your overwhelming desire to blame everything on the police leaves me with no other conclusion but to indicate that you were one of the rioters marching around smashing out windows and destroying public and private property. You could not care less if you injured, maimed or killed the people who happened to be inside the stores you destroyed. You covered your face, too afraid to expose your identity, took up arms and marched on the city with an aim to destroy for ends that you cannot reasonably support other than to satisfy your own base desire to create chaos.

In my opinion, this kind of accusation hurts your credibility more than Peeper's. Just because people can be anti-police it doesn't give you the right to make these kinds of accusations, it's faulty, fear tactics. You have no basis for your accusation other than him obviously being really unhappy with police conduct during the summit and possibly making unpopular, less likely claims. It's the worst type of fear mongering, you're either for the police or you're a raging property damager. So because you're strongly supportive of police actions you must be a undercover police protester inciting herd behavior? You're worse than Peepers. I suppose if you're not for the war in Iraq, you're not American either.

 

[gristle]

In my opinion, this kind of accusation hurts your credibility more than Peeper's. Just because people can be anti-police it doesn't give you the right to make these kinds of accusations, it's faulty, fear tactics. You have no basis for your accusation other than him obviously being really unhappy with police conduct during the summit and possibly making unpopular, less likely claims. It's the worst type of fear mongering, you're either for the police or you're a raging property damager. So because you're strongly supportive of police actions you must be a undercover police protester inciting herd behavior? You're worse than Peepers. I suppose if you're not for the war in Iraq, you're not American either.

Hurts my credibility?

The statement has no credibility - that's the point. Glad to see that it was so obvious that even you managed to pick it up.

This thread is rife with unfounded, unproven accusations and silly conspiracies regarding the police. I see that you have decided to show your colours by solely questioning my statements, but not those of others. As they say: there it is.

As for people being anti-police, it is rather comical to think that global leaders would show up together in a time where there have been acts of mass murder and terror and presume that there would be no policing, or that police would be armed with water pistols. It's also rather comical that very little of this G-20 thread is about what was done during the G-20 summit. I bet many of those who are so terribly worked-up about their anti-police views probably know nothing about any of the legitimate protests that were hijacked by a bunch of whackballs who decided that it was a-okay to go around busting windows and stealing things. I bet they could not care less about what others thought about having windows smashed while they were stuck inside a store. No, all that matters is their anti-police views. That's what this is all about.

As for your insinuations poppajojo, good to see your display of prejudice regarding all Americans. I went after one guy, but you, you go for a whole population.

And you question my credibility.

 

[poppajojo]

Hurts my credibility?

The statement has no credibility - that's the point. Glad to see that it was so obvious that even you managed to pick it up.

I don't see the obvious point, unless it was to make yourself seem stupid if your intention wasn't to label Peepers a raging property damager.

This thread is rife with unfounded, unproven accusations and silly conspiracies regarding the police. I see that you have decided to show your colours by solely questioning my statements, but not those of others. As they say: there it is.

As for people being anti-police, it is rather comical to think that global leaders would show up together in a time where there have been acts of mass murder and terror and presume that there would be no policing, or that police would be armed with water pistols. It's also rather comical that very little of this G-20 thread is about what was done during the G-20 summit. I bet many of those who are so terribly worked-up about their anti-police views probably know nothing about any of the legitimate protests that were hijacked by a bunch of whackballs who decided that it was a-okay to go around busting windows and stealing things. I bet they could not care less about what others thought about having windows smashed while they were stuck inside a store. No, all that matters is their anti-police views. That's what this is all about.

As for your insinuations poppajojo, good to see your display of prejudice regarding all Americans. I went after one guy, but you, you go for a whole population.

And you question my credibility.

I haven't been reading all the posts, but saw yours and you're missing my point. My prejudice against Americans? Note to you: improve reading comprehension.