Thursday, September 24, 2009
A little surprise from Vaughn Palmer
.
Cabinet minister makes a few slips about the Document Destruction, err, Disposal Act
BC Mary says: Like, isn't that the story of our lives in B.C.? Sure, Gordo's guys can make a few slips ... or even a dozen slips ... but we can always count on Vaughn Palmer to keep saying Just keep movin' along folks, ain't nuthin' to see here except, oh, right:
Ye gods, how did we miss that?! Of course ... it was the NDP Opposition which failed ... of course! Gee. Thanks, Vaughn. - BC Mary.
Vancouver Sun - Sept. 22, 2009
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Or, as Skookum1 says [Skookum1 has left a new comment on your post "A little surprise from Vaughn Palmer"]:
He'll do more than appear before a committee, I'm thinking. Look for Loukidelis to conduct a full-blown inquiry into the document disposal controversy, once (if?) the matters before the courts have been sorted out.
Palmer is playing the old irrelevancy sleight-of-hand, while pretending to be critical of his favourite governing party/clique/cabal. The deletion of emails is NOT before the courts - it has YET TO GET THERE.
What's in court is influence peddling, money laundering, sale of benefits etc. The deletion of emails relates to the proceedings only insofar as destruction of evidence goes; it does not relate in any way to the specific matters "before the court". Especially because the court hasn't taken any action to deal with those missing emails.
Saying something is before the courts and so can't be discussed is just a way of keeping it from getting TO the courts.......
Blaming the NDP for Liberal/Socred wrongdoing is such an old, old game, I presume only newcomers to BC are sucked in by it....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Cabinet minister makes a few slips about the Document Destruction, err, Disposal Act
BC Mary says: Like, isn't that the story of our lives in B.C.? Sure, Gordo's guys can make a few slips ... or even a dozen slips ... but we can always count on Vaughn Palmer to keep saying Just keep movin' along folks, ain't nuthin' to see here except, oh, right:
Still, NDP makes little headway in ascertaining whether Liberals obeyed their own legislation
Ye gods, how did we miss that?! Of course ... it was the NDP Opposition which failed ... of course! Gee. Thanks, Vaughn. - BC Mary.
Vancouver Sun - Sept. 22, 2009
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Or, as Skookum1 says [Skookum1 has left a new comment on your post "A little surprise from Vaughn Palmer"]:
He'll do more than appear before a committee, I'm thinking. Look for Loukidelis to conduct a full-blown inquiry into the document disposal controversy, once (if?) the matters before the courts have been sorted out.
Palmer is playing the old irrelevancy sleight-of-hand, while pretending to be critical of his favourite governing party/clique/cabal. The deletion of emails is NOT before the courts - it has YET TO GET THERE.
What's in court is influence peddling, money laundering, sale of benefits etc. The deletion of emails relates to the proceedings only insofar as destruction of evidence goes; it does not relate in any way to the specific matters "before the court". Especially because the court hasn't taken any action to deal with those missing emails.
Saying something is before the courts and so can't be discussed is just a way of keeping it from getting TO the courts.......
Blaming the NDP for Liberal/Socred wrongdoing is such an old, old game, I presume only newcomers to BC are sucked in by it....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
Well they can call it a Freudian slip. BUT, re"The Document Destruction Act," Stewart called it at one point.
"The Document Disposal Act," corrected Routley, adding that the reference could easily be taken as a Freudian slip.
check this out LOL, it is Australia ( I sen Victoria and got very excited when I read it.
Document Destruction Act 2006
CRIMES
[Assented to 4 April 2006
The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows:
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the Crimes Act 1958 to create a new offence in relation to the destruction of a document or other thing that is, or is reasonably likely to be, required as evidence in a legal proceeding.
read it all here
http://tinyurl.com/yano6dj
Imagine if We had that law here, is Stewart from Australia?
EM
"The Document Disposal Act," corrected Routley, adding that the reference could easily be taken as a Freudian slip.
check this out LOL, it is Australia ( I sen Victoria and got very excited when I read it.
Document Destruction Act 2006
CRIMES
[Assented to 4 April 2006
The Parliament of Victoria enacts as follows:
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the Crimes Act 1958 to create a new offence in relation to the destruction of a document or other thing that is, or is reasonably likely to be, required as evidence in a legal proceeding.
read it all here
http://tinyurl.com/yano6dj
Imagine if We had that law here, is Stewart from Australia?
EM
# posted by 
: September 24, 2009 at 7:01 p.m.
: September 24, 2009 at 7:01 p.m.
I meant to post this with the above post.
Conclusion (note associate)
The Act appears to increase the requirements of document retention to include documents that are likely to be required in litigation that may take place in the future. If an individual has knowledge that the documents may be required in evidence in such proceedings, destroys or authorises the destruction of those documents, and intends to prevent them from being used in the proceedings, that individual will be criminally liable under the Act. A body corporate may also be liable if the actions of the individual can be attributed to the body corporate.
All bodies corporate should review their document retention policies as a matter of priority to ensure that they, and their officers, employees and agents, will not be susceptible to prosecution once the Act comes into effect, at the latest, on 1 September 2006.
So sad We do not have that Legislation In BC.
Maybe the NDP could introduce it, LOL.
EM
Conclusion (note associate)
The Act appears to increase the requirements of document retention to include documents that are likely to be required in litigation that may take place in the future. If an individual has knowledge that the documents may be required in evidence in such proceedings, destroys or authorises the destruction of those documents, and intends to prevent them from being used in the proceedings, that individual will be criminally liable under the Act. A body corporate may also be liable if the actions of the individual can be attributed to the body corporate.
All bodies corporate should review their document retention policies as a matter of priority to ensure that they, and their officers, employees and agents, will not be susceptible to prosecution once the Act comes into effect, at the latest, on 1 September 2006.
So sad We do not have that Legislation In BC.
Maybe the NDP could introduce it, LOL.
EM
# posted by : September 24, 2009 at 7:27 p.m.
: September 24, 2009 at 7:27 p.m.
He'll do more than appear before a committee, I'm thinking. Look for Loukidelis to conduct a full-blown inquiry into the document disposal controversy, once (if?) the matters before the courts have been sorted out.
Palmer is playing the old irrelevancy sleight-of-hand, while pretending to be critical of his favourite governing party/clique/cabal. The deletion of emails is NOT before the courts - it has YET TO GET THERE. What's in court is influence peddling, money laundering, sale of benefits etc. The deletion of emails relates to the proceedings only insofar as destruction of evidence goes; it does not relate in any way to the specific matters "before the court". Especially because the court hasn't taking any f**king action to deal with those missing emails. Saying something is before the courts and so can't be discussed is just a way of keeping it from getting TO the courts.......
Blaming the NDP for Liberal/Socred wrongdoing is such an old, old game, I presume only newcomers to BC are sucked in by it....
Post a Comment
Palmer is playing the old irrelevancy sleight-of-hand, while pretending to be critical of his favourite governing party/clique/cabal. The deletion of emails is NOT before the courts - it has YET TO GET THERE. What's in court is influence peddling, money laundering, sale of benefits etc. The deletion of emails relates to the proceedings only insofar as destruction of evidence goes; it does not relate in any way to the specific matters "before the court". Especially because the court hasn't taking any f**king action to deal with those missing emails. Saying something is before the courts and so can't be discussed is just a way of keeping it from getting TO the courts.......
Blaming the NDP for Liberal/Socred wrongdoing is such an old, old game, I presume only newcomers to BC are sucked in by it....
<< Home
