Please continue any discussion on random news items here.

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Wonder if they end up part of TNS now...  I read there is a connection between the new board of MLCC and the Chipman's.

There has always been background noise that this was going to happen 

24 minutes ago, bustamente said:

There has always been background noise that this was going to happen 

Yeah.

Goldeyes final game of the season/series is being streamed free tonight.

https://pointstreakaa11.eduvision.tv/watchlive.aspx?q=yae235ysELc%3d

Edited September 20, 20169 yr by FrostyWinnipeg

Too lazy to link but its everywhere anyway.  Angelina Jolie files for divorce from Brad Pitt.

MB Cons won't cancel BipoleIII plan.

3 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

MB Cons won't cancel BipoleIII plan.

hydro going bankrupt.

9 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

MB Cons won't cancel BipoleIII plan.

They were never going to cancel it. If they were, it would have been a bigger in McFad's last election.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/monty-pythons-terry-jones-has-been-diagnosed-with-dementia/

http://regina.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=888232

10 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

http://regina.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=888232

Ridiculous.  Police should be ashamed of themselves for doing this.  They do it here too, to catch people looking at their phone when they are stopped at red lights.  Once again proving the cell phone law is not about safety, its about collecting revenue.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cue-closing-credits-shomi-thanks-201500854.html

World heavyweight champion Tyson Fury will never fight again, leading British promoter Eddie Hearn has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/37465746

 

4 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

http://regina.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=888232

Shame on them....  

They can get tickets on people in a much less dirty way.     In Winnipeg they can go to any corner and find a tonne of people driving with cell phones on.

6 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Ridiculous.  Police should be ashamed of themselves for doing this.  They do it here too, to catch people looking at their phone when they are stopped at red lights.  Once again proving the cell phone law is not about safety, its about collecting revenue.

Waa waa waa! If a person doesn't obey the law then they deserve the ticket. And using your cell when stopped at a red light is against the law.

I do feel for the guy getting the seat belt ticket if he put his seat belt on before he started driving again.

Edited September 27, 20169 yr by Jacquie

11 hours ago, Jacquie said:

Waa waa waa! If a person doesn't obey the law then they deserve the ticket. And using your cell when stopped at a red light is against the law.

I do feel for the guy getting the seat belt ticket if he put his seat belt on before he started driving again.

So any law that is created is just?  That's not true.  If the government making the law tells is its for reason A but its really for reason B, then its an unjust law because they wouldnt have to lie about it.  They do shady enforcement, not because its about safety, but because its about revenue generating.

The School Zone traps are an even better example of this.  An event lets out at 6PM, area crowded with kids, no enforcement.  School lets out at 4, area deserted at 5, enforcement.  If it was about safety, they would enforce when its needed.  My direction to the trappers would be, when that neighborhood is clear, leave.  Dont be nickel and diming someone going 35km/h at 5:20PM.  Same goes for 2PM really, when there is no one around.  They did enforcement before school was even back!  its about money.

Dressing as homeless people to catch those that glance at their phone at a red light is not about safety.  There is nothing unsafe happening.  its revenue.  Period.  WPS was doing it at a train.  A TRAIN!  People stopped for 20 minutes and a cop is walking through the cars looking for people looking at their phones.  Ludicrous.  That isnt safety.  its revenue. 

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

  That isnt safety.  its revenue. 

I think WiseUp has a bunch of reports and stats about different methods of increasing safety which the city doesn't use as it doesn't generate revenue.

I remember one of them was adding an extra second to the yellow light and/or an extra few seconds for the red lights.   They had a study where doing this simple adjustment dropped the accident rate quite a bit in where it was tested.

 

Police are losing money as it is.  The last thing they want is people to all obey these laws and generate no money.  But dont worry, along comes MPIC who will fund the police on the backs of our rates.

7 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So any law that is created is just?  That's not true.  If the government making the law tells is its for reason A but its really for reason B, then its an unjust law because they wouldnt have to lie about it.  They do shady enforcement, not because its about safety, but because its about revenue generating.

 

Agree 100%.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/archaelogists-discover-200-year-old-underground-pub-in-manchester-astley-arms-a7332706.html

14 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So any law that is created is just?  That's not true.  If the government making the law tells is its for reason A but its really for reason B, then its an unjust law because they wouldnt have to lie about it.  They do shady enforcement, not because its about safety, but because its about revenue generating.

The School Zone traps are an even better example of this.  An event lets out at 6PM, area crowded with kids, no enforcement.  School lets out at 4, area deserted at 5, enforcement.  If it was about safety, they would enforce when its needed.  My direction to the trappers would be, when that neighborhood is clear, leave.  Dont be nickel and diming someone going 35km/h at 5:20PM.  Same goes for 2PM really, when there is no one around.  They did enforcement before school was even back!  its about money.

Dressing as homeless people to catch those that glance at their phone at a red light is not about safety.  There is nothing unsafe happening.  its revenue.  Period.  WPS was doing it at a train.  A TRAIN!  People stopped for 20 minutes and a cop is walking through the cars looking for people looking at their phones.  Ludicrous.  That isnt safety.  its revenue. 

School zones signs have times that indicate when they are enforced - 7:00 am to 5:30 pm - not on weekends and not during the summer. Do you expect them to include "or when there is a special event at a local school that we don't know about" on each sign? They are there for before, during and after school hours - not other events. Do you expect them to put up different signs every year for the different days school starts in different divisions? The signs say clearly when they will be enforced. Obey the law and you won't get a ticket.

The law says you have to pull over to use your phone. Being at a stop light or a rail crossing is not pulled over. Obey the law and you won't get a ticket. Simple.

 

Edited September 28, 20169 yr by Jacquie

10 hours ago, Jacquie said:

School zones signs have times that indicate when they are enforced - 7:00 am to 5:30 pm - not on weekends and not during the summer. Do you expect them to include "or when there is a special event at a local school that we don't know about" on each sign? They are there for before, during and after school hours - not other events. Do you expect them to put up different signs every year for the different days school starts in different divisions? The signs say clearly when they will be enforced. Obey the law and you won't get a ticket.

The law says you have to pull over to use your phone. Being at a stop light or a rail crossing is not pulled over. Obey the law and you won't get a ticket. Simple.

 

Yu defeated your own argument.  I expect them not to create a situation that gives them the ability to create revenue rather then enforce safety.  They know damn well that a school zone is not filled with kids throughout the entirety of the posted hours but its that way to give them the ability to enforce an unneeded law to generate revenue.  Again, if they cared about safety, they would instruct their enforcement team to end enforcement when no kids are present and conduct random enforcement when kids are present - and rather then looking for people at a set speed limit, look for reckless driers.

There was ZERO need to school zone laws.  ZERO.  It was political and designed for revenue creation.  That's it.  That is an unjust law.

If we had today's nonsense back when car radio's were invented, they would be banned.  There are laws about reckless and distracted driving.  Dont need "cell phone" laws specifically.  And paying cops to dress as homeless people to catch someone doing something that is not actually unsafe?  Just ridiculous.  Is there no better use of police resources?  Ofcourse there is...but those dont generate the quick and easy revenue.  Not to mention the inverse impact it could have on people not giving to legitimate homeless people.

I also like the strategic placement of photo enforcement... always found it bizarre that they would set up a ghost car far away from a school across a field where no kids walk.  You would think for safety that they would have that ghost car right in front of the school where they cross to catch buses and what not....

11 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yu defeated your own argument.  I expect them not to create a situation that gives them the ability to create revenue rather then enforce safety.  They know damn well that a school zone is not filled with kids throughout the entirety of the posted hours but its that way to give them the ability to enforce an unneeded law to generate revenue.  Again, if they cared about safety, they would instruct their enforcement team to end enforcement when no kids are present and conduct random enforcement when kids are present - and rather then looking for people at a set speed limit, look for reckless driers.

There was ZERO need to school zone laws.  ZERO.  It was political and designed for revenue creation.  That's it.  That is an unjust law.

So you expect the police and drivers to know what school hours are for all schools*, what days there are in-services or events (concerts, sports) at each school, etc. even though they can vary from division to division and school to school. FYI - kids are outside a school at various times during the day. Kids who live close to schools are expected to go home (or daycare or wherever) at lunch time and not all kids have their lunch periods at the same time. 

*FYI - not all schools are 9:00 am to 3:30 and some schools do have after-school programs.

 

34 minutes ago, Jacquie said:

So you expect the police and drivers to know what school hours are for all schools*, what days there are in-services or events (concerts, sports) at each school, etc. even though they can vary from division to division and school to school. FYI - kids are outside a school at various times during the day. Kids who live close to schools are expected to go home (or daycare or wherever) at lunch time and not all kids have their lunch periods at the same time. 

*FYI - not all schools are 9:00 am to 3:30 and some schools do have after-school programs.

 

4 hours ago, Jacquie said:

So you expect the police and drivers to know what school hours are for all schools*, what days there are in-services or events (concerts, sports) at each school, etc. even though they can vary from division to division and school to school. FYI - kids are outside a school at various times during the day. Kids who live close to schools are expected to go home (or daycare or wherever) at lunch time and not all kids have their lunch periods at the same time. 

*FYI - not all schools are 9:00 am to 3:30 and some schools do have after-school programs.

 

Again, you're arguing your point. You explaining why the current plan makes no sense for safety. 

You know why police did in the old days? Police work.   In my area there is a three way stop at a corner where there is a school  it's also where they set up photo enforcement  every so often, years ago, police would set up and do enforcement at the intersection  

firstly there was no issue in the first place

Neighbourhoods were not littered with the bodies of children. So that's the first point. It's fixing a problem that didn't exist.

Secondly it's laughable as a legitimate enforcement method. Like these kids are unsafe a few feet from school but a block away?  No problem. Lol. Just silly. 

Thirdly if in 2016 the only way to respond to traffic issues is blanket enforcement and monitoring then we're doing something wrong   It's not about safety   

No one can possibly think that