When I researched the Jaffer story for my blogpost about the Blatcher, I thought that it was odd that Ms "I Luvs Me Some Mens in Uniform" seemingly insinuated that the evidentiary support for the charges was a 'dog's mess' (her words).Then I saw that the cop who originally stopped Jaffer was female. Bingo. Not worthy of Blatcher's bottomless admiration.
This may ruin my reputation among my peers on this blog but this is too much even for me.1. At common law, the “presumption of innocence” is a description of the Crown’s burden of proof. It is an evidentiary principle; not a logical principle. Nobody actually believes that every single time the police make an arrest they have made a mistake. 2. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is not and never was the standard of fitness for public office. People who stand for public office bear the burden of proving fitness. 3. 93 in a 50 is a good stop in anyone’s book.4. I agree the UBAL was thin. If the machine measured .08, his actual blood alcohol content was probably .05. It takes an expensive expert witness to prove that but I assume that for the “formerly Hon.” Rahim Jaffer, money is not an object. 5. Whether or not the Crown can prevail on the UBAL at trial, the custodial arrest was righteous. A righteous custodial arrest means a righteous custodial search. I cannot buy the “immature OPP constable fucked up the strip search” theory. The strip search takes place at goal, not on the street, whatever you preverts might think. There probably was a sergeant present for the strip search, if any. Besides, how do you fuck up a trip search?6. The $64 question in this case is where the cocaine was found. Possession requires “dominion and control.” As a matter of law, the driver of a motor vehicle has dominion over it. (This is the physical element of the offense of possession.) But — the driver cannot intend to exercise control over something unless he knows the stuff is there. (This is the mental element of the offense of possession.) It is completely credible to me that some other person, unknown to the formerly Hon. Rahim, hid her stash in his car. If so, and if he is not aware of it, he is not guilty of possession of that cocaine. Show of hands for who wants to go there. Besides, part of being “a man” in our culture is that you always say her stash is yours. I’ve never seen a guy let a girl take the fall.7. One way or another, they gave him the coke count. Free. Out of the goodness of their hearts. I actually used to do this stuff. Heartless. Ungood. 8. The next step down from UBAL is not careless. As a minimum, it’s reckless. Ontario has some other things Ontario can charge. As the judge said, he knows the formerly Hon. Rahim ought to be able to recognize charity when he sees it, or words to that effect.9. IMHO, the Tory-appointed judge is blameless in the premises. The judge tries the case the Crown brings to court. Technically, the judge has supervisory authority over plea bargains, but that’s only a technicality. This decision was made by Crown Counsel.10. 91.3% sounds like a solid figure for plea bargains in criminal cases. But — this is another important but — UBAL is not generally considered a criminal case, it’s considered a traffic case. They don’t plea bargain traffic cases because as a general rule, a driver cannot win a traffic case, even if the arresting constable is immature. In my jurisdiction, you cannot get a plea bargain for UBAL or drunk driving. You either plead on the nose or you try it. If you try it, the jury does it’s Solomon thing: they give either the UBAL or the drunk driving to you and give the other one to the Crown. Crown’s happy. Same sentence for both.One more plea for understanding of the Minister’s plight on her birthday at PEI: Maybe what’s really bugging her is whether the formerly Hon. Rahim is going to snitch just to save his own sorry ass?
To claim that it is evidence of a double standard for an Opposition to make fun of government-related misfortunes is pretty laughable. Blatchford needs to get out more. Or less. Hard to say. She needs an editor.
I propose the word "blatch" be used as a verb.I'd prefer it as a noun, defined as: "a journalist currently employed writing copy for greeting cards."Canada has had quite enough of Christie Blatchford.
My post here went "poof" - was it something that I wrote?
Trainwreck writer Christie Blatherford will pen anything to keep her job at the Globe. Usually she spins melodrama (you can practically see her weeping into her typewriter), but I suppose she's decided she needs to increase her support for Reform douchebags, the party the Globe and Mail supports.
I'd prefer it as a noun, defined as: "a journalist currently employed writing copy for greeting cards."AAARRRGGHH! Ti-Guy! NO! We don't her writing poetry for greeting cards...No! Let go write for "I'm coocoo for coco-puffs" or somethingMoon Rattled: thanks, you just gave me an idea for my next satirical image to create. I like that ; weeping in her typewriter
I like that ; weeping in her typewriter...Well, that's why I think she'd be perfect for the greeting card industry...the mawkishness, the gush the overwrought sentimentality. It's the only way I can think of exploiting her limited set of skills without potentially causing harm to herself or others.Otherwise, she's unemployable and becomes a welfare burden for the rest of us.
i'd go with the noun. careful! don't step in that pile of blatch.
There's nothing wrong with Blatchford's columns a good editing couldn't fix.
Sooey! There's nothing wrong with Blatchford's columns a good editing couldn't fix.Not without rewriting the entire column they couldn't; perhaps even a completely different topic. Obituaries perhaps?
I rarely share her point of view, but that's what I like about reading her - every Saturday.
Sooey used to write for CanWest. She's biased.
Lawrence Martin's column is even more offensive than Blatchy's."Tory triumph: They know where they're going:Stephen Harper has never articulated a vision. He just enacts one."Wingnuts have taken over the Globe and Mail.
Moon Rattled, you're only figuring this out now about the Grope & Fail? That said, Lawrence Martin is sadly correct for the most part. St-STevie really doesn't have to do much for the electorate to all stand by him and vote for him no matter what he says, does or not. The only thing that isn't correct about Martin's column is that Harper does indeed have a vision that he will make damned sure he realizes if we let him loose with a majority. All one has to to is read everything he said back in NCC and Reform days. It's shocking that so many would forget.
Post a Comment