Monday, March 01, 2010
We're "Blog of the Week" at The Tyee. Read why.
From The Tyee, March 1, 2010
Welcome to the new BC Blogs
But this is where we are taken to:
The Tyee wants us to LOGIN....... please clarify
The first one is to the Tyee's blog roll.
The link is to the Tyee home page. Put your cursor on the Blogs heading and choose BC Blog Directory from the drop down menu, then choose the appropriate blog.
It's pretty simple, but then again perhaps you're just a PABster trying to sow confusion where-ever possible. It would be understandable if you PABsters and your boss got a bit overconfident about your ability to buffalo the folks of BC, after all, we've sent the Crime Lord to Victoria three times now as Capo. If I was a Pabster I would use my spare time to polish my resume - and maybe try to finesse the part about your recent career as a professional LIAR!
Is the link from the actual page. See if that works- Just clicked through fine on it.
Very, very well deserved.
Heck - I think, if they were smart, as things get closer to the trial, they'd cross-post your stuff to their 'Hook' blog.
And, as a sidenote, you (and Koot) do realize, of course, that your PAB-alert rating just went up by a factor of about infinity - ha!
Keep up the good work.
And there are several excellent Bloggers out there, but your's tops them all!
Can't seem to post to the comments section in "The BC Rail Unabridged' article so I'll try posting my comment here.
Parzone raised a good question in the comment section there about the mention of drug money being laundered through the BC Liberal party.
Did we ever determine finally if Jag Bains is the same person as Jasmohan Singh Bains ?
Because if they are the same person it is of some consequence to the political/drug laundering questions and connections to this case as Jag Bains was introduced in the legislature by Gary Collins in March, 2001. He was introduced, along with others, as a member of the UVIC BC Young Liberals.
"The Victoria address was that of his brother, Jagmohan Bains, who is but one year younger and of similar size and weight. It is therefore not beyond doubt that the package of money might have been delivered to Jagmohan Bains, and not the accused, but it matters not. Based upon the transcripts of intercepted communications, I find that the accused Jasmohan Bains directed Scallon to send a different package of money to that address. Ms. Vernon used the same address for her delivery package. There is confirmation in the transcripts that the accused Bains had telephoned his brother prior to instructing Scallon in order to ascertain his brother’s address. I find that this was done for the express purpose of facilitating the shipment of money. I am certain that it ended up in the hands of Mr. Bains."
March 2nd, Throne speech debate, and what do ya know, more talk on BC RAIL.
The language of the throne speech does have that sense of obfuscation. One of the classic examples of it — and it's one of the things, a legacy of this government and of this Premier that I think will be a lasting shame, and I use that word with all seriousness — is the language in this throne speech about B.C. Rail. The statement is: "B.C. Rail will be brought into government and wound down as a…corporation." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Remember all of the things? "We won't sell B.C. Rail. We're not going to do it. We never sold B.C. Rail." In the '05 election, when we went through that election, the government members said: "We never sold it." Even though CN was operating on it and acting as if they owned it. "We never sold it." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We asked questions in here about that deal in the fall of '05, in the spring of '06. The language of the government was: "What are you talking about? We still own the rail lines. B.C. Rail is still a viable entity." Then we asked some questions in the House a little while ago about how much we were paying for folks that were managing a short piece of track, and you get in the throne speech: "We're going to wind up B.C. Rail." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's the language of obfuscation. The government needs to admit that they sold it. They sold B.C.'s railway. They did it deliberately. There are implications for that, and how are they going to redress those implications, including implications that are still before the courts? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sorry I am not annonymous/ google account troubles.
Links to this post: