Stacy Clarke...should be fired...

[Frankfooter]

Uhhhhhmmmmmm. the Police Services Act RSO 1990 is a law. It is not a policy, nor a guideline. It is Law. Well it was the law until April 1st of this year when it was repealed and replaced.

She committed at least 7 offences under that LAW. She pled guilty to breaking them. She did not dispute the factuality.

There has never, and will never be a policy enacted that allows "cops to sneak the questions" to a test. Are you saying that cheating on tests, like lying in Affadavits to get search warrants, to commit perjury on the witness stand etc... should be commonly accepted police practice?

I think what you are saying is that she had a politically and racially motivated reason to cheat, so therefore her cheating was justified. And that she was charged while white Superintendents, Inspectors etc are not charged because why? Because they are white?


Then I can't see how you can argue against @mitchell76 bleating that Trump got charged with various crimes, while claiming that "The Biden Crime Family" gets away with the same thing.


But the funniest part is you saying "There was no law broken, to suggest so is hyperbole." You don't even know enough about the law to even speak with any credibility as to the most basic knowledge of the case.

Do you ever admit that you are wrong? Because I only see you dig yourself even deeper when you are factually wrong.

Where in the act does it say its illegal to give questions to applicants for promotion? Where is it stated as law? You can't just site the title of an act and then declare this specific action was illegal.

The charges are misconduct, but there are no legal penalties, she would not be fined or sent to prison. Just disciplined or fired.

You're still pushing falsehoods here, schlong. Both Kautilya and I have said she broke policy, even if that policy change had been approved by the board and then cancelled by someone above her, its still wrong. She should be punished for that act, but not seriously. Then policy should change to improve process for all applicants and to end the 1.7% promotion rate for black cops.

Mitch would argue rules don't apply to people I back, I say the rules apply but this action was not a serious one and not done to do anything but correct systemic issues in the TPS, issues that the board thought serious enough to pass changing the 'law' as you call it.

Police Services Act, RSO 1990, c P.15 |

qweri.lexum.com

 

[Frankfooter]

There you go again. Imputing malicious motives that the only evidence of is your self-admitted prejudice against the guy because of his positions on other matters.

You've done it to me before. Claiming you "know" how I am thinking, or why I said something. *I* know what I am thinking or why I said something, and most times you say you know better than me what I am thinking, you are wrong.

I hear of guys who have bitter wives that project their insecurities onto their husbands when they get flustered and things aren't going their way. You're arguing like a bitter housewife who knows everything about everything and everyone. A mind reader!

Schlong, I know you're upset because I called you out for racism in the Palestine threads.
You may think you're unbiased but your statements towards Muslims clearly were.
It wasn't a matter of talking about what you were thinking, it was clear in what you posted.

If you really do support dialogue and moderation we'd discuss why those statements read as racist, whether you really believe them and how to move forward. Instead you've decided to join skoob on the attack here yourself.

Now you're intentionally inflating claims instead of engaging in honest discussion here.

Both you and skoob want her fired when even the prosecutor in this inquiry doesn't ask that much.
Prosecutor Scott Hutchison, however, told the hearing Clarke's conduct as a senior officer is serious and would normally result in dismissal. But he said Chief Myron Demkiw believes there is still work for Clarke to do as a Toronto officer.

Hutchison proposed that Clarke be demoted two ranks to staff sergeant and be given the opportunity to reapply to become superintendent after two years.

Why? Because the chief said she did more to work with the black community than anyone else.
The former chief said he believes the superintendent has been more successful than anyone in tackling the problem of racism in law enforcement.
From the community:
"She cannot be the person that is punished the hardest... How do you justify that, when you should have implemented the system that would have eliminated the necessity for this?"

 

[SchlongConery]

Schlong, I know you're upset because I called you out for racism in the Palestine threads.
You may think you're unbiased but your statements towards Muslims clearly were.
It wasn't a matter of talking about what you were thinking, it was clear in what you posted.

If you really do support dialogue and moderation we'd discuss why those statements read as racist, whether you really believe them and how to move forward. Instead you've decided to join skoob on the attack here yourself.

Now you're intentionally inflating claims instead of engaging in honest discussion here.

Both you and skoob want her fired when even the prosecutor in this inquiry doesn't ask that much.
Prosecutor Scott Hutchison, however, told the hearing Clarke's conduct as a senior officer is serious and would normally result in dismissal. But he said Chief Myron Demkiw believes there is still work for Clarke to do as a Toronto officer.
Hutchison proposed that Clarke be demoted two ranks to staff sergeant and be given the opportunity to reapply to become superintendent after two years.

Why? Because the chief said she did more to work with the black community than anyone else.
The former chief said he believes the superintendent has been more successful than anyone in tackling the problem of racism in law enforcement.
From the community:
"She cannot be the person that is punished the hardest... How do you justify that, when you should have implemented the system that would have eliminated the necessity for this?"

You call everyone out for racism.

I have not responded to your response in that thread because you are not interested in anything except the righteousness of your opinion.

Here is my considered opinion on Palestine-Israel. It is fucked up beyond my ability to comprehend or come up with any idea of any practical solution. I agree with everything in that 13 page document you posted of the recommendations of charges, that Netanyahu is leading Israel into committing war crimes. I agree that Palestinian people have a right to live on their ancestral lands and that they have been oppressed and they are fighting for that right that Great Britain et al gave away. It was not their right to promise the land to anyone.

However, it is not the right of Hamas Palestinians to fight back with rape, murder, torture and other methods of terrorism. This is terrorism. And they are lining up to become martyrs in the name of God, not Palestine.

How to work it out? Unlike you, I have NO fucking clue how to work it out in PRACTICAL terms. Israel is NOT going to pack up and leave. Full stop. Never. Are Palestinians going to keep self-immolating their own people by continuing to terrorize Israel with the predictable Israeli response?

While I really resent and have lost almost all respect for you over your insolence in ascribing racist motives to me and others, I will say that I believe this about your state of mind. (Notice how I didn't say that I KNOW your state of mind etc. How fucking arrogant would that be?)

What I am about to say will not satsify you. Nothing short of me flying to Israel and arresting Netanyahu and bringing him to the Hague myself will ever satisfy you. THAT'S why I won't engage with you on the matter. And that you express more biased racism and bigotry against anyone who doesn't agree with you than the nutbars like @Addict2sex. Calling me a fucking racist because you read YOUR OWN meaning into what I or anyone posts.? Fuck you. Now I see why so many people have you on ignore or have active hostility towards you. You' act like an asshole.

Having said that, I can and do support the plight of both Palestine and Israel. I do not support the methods of either side and condemn the actions of all parties involved. I have NO idea how to settle this. But I think it is likely to go on for another 50 years. This region is so fucked up with so much I don't think peace will ever be possible there. None of them are going to give up



As for the police thing. Again, you deflect and won't even admit that LAWS were broken. You just use REPLY to tee off on your own agenda and have no respect for the person who took the time to refute your ignorance. SHE ADMITTED TO BREAKING THE LAW! You won't even admit that!

I am principled on integrity. I do not believe in the end justifying the means. I I think any police officer who lies, cheats, steals, assaults or otherwise breaks the trust of the public should not be in a position to take away my liberty or my life.

She, and you, are the ones making race an issue. I don't care what colour anyone''s skin is in this. She seemed to think that these officers needed to cheat because they might not be suitable for a leadership position as a Sargeant. These officers will be forever tainted as a result of her meddling.

And finally, your words and participation in this discussion prove that you are supremely unqualified to opine on the matter. You don't even know the basics of how the promotion system works in the TPA. But y ou do so with such certainty that lose respect for what y ou have to say elsewwhere, like in the Palestine-Israel discussions... because I DON"T KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW WTF is going on, what has gone on etc. I only learned of Great Britains role in this mess a month ago. I am a voracious consumer of information generally, am quite accomplished and highly proficient in many things in life but only have so much time. I don't know much about Israel because I'm not jewish. First I ever heard of Palestine was when the PLO killed a bunch of people in the Munich Olympics. I'm not attuned to the conflict because I can only have so much going on in my brain. And having been deeply involved in the PC party during the Mulroney era, I have completely lost my taste for politics. TBH, I didn't even pay attention when eastern Ukraine/Crimea was first occupied.

But I'm no longer going to engage in discussion with you. For no other reason that I wouldn't put up with a bitter housewife telling me what *I* am thinking nor would I have a beer with anyone who would be so arrogant as to do that.

 

[Mrboobs]

Why do you think the people she talked to were unqualified, because they were black?

Can you come up with a better argument?

 

[Frankfooter]

You call everyone out for racism.

I have not responded to your response in that thread because you are not interested in anything except the righteousness of your opinion.

Here is my considered opinion on Palestine-Israel. It is fucked up beyond my ability to comprehend or come up with any idea of any practical solution. I agree with everything in that 13 page document you posted of the recommendations of charges, that Netanyahu is leading Israel into committing war crimes. I agree that Palestinian people have a right to live on their ancestral lands and that they have been oppressed and they are fighting for that right that Great Britain et al gave away. It was not their right to promise the land to anyone.

However, it is not the right of Hamas Palestinians to fight back with rape, murder, torture and other methods of terrorism. This is terrorism. And they are lining up to become martyrs in the name of God, not Palestine.

How to work it out? Unlike you, I have NO fucking clue how to work it out in PRACTICAL terms. Israel is NOT going to pack up and leave. Full stop. Never. Are Palestinians going to keep self-immolating their own people by continuing to terrorize Israel with the predictable Israeli response?

While I really resent and have lost almost all respect for you over your insolence in ascribing racist motives to me and others, I will say that I believe this about your state of mind. (Notice how I didn't say that I KNOW your state of mind etc. How fucking arrogant would that be?)

What I am about to say will not satsify you. Nothing short of me flying to Israel and arresting Netanyahu and bringing him to the Hague myself will ever satisfy you. THAT'S why I won't engage with you on the matter. And that you express more biased racism and bigotry against anyone who doesn't agree with you than the nutbars like @Addict2sex. Calling me a fucking racist because you read YOUR OWN meaning into what I or anyone posts.? Fuck you. Now I see why so many people have you on ignore or have active hostility towards you. You' act like an asshole.

Having said that, I can and do support the plight of both Palestine and Israel. I do not support the methods of either side and condemn the actions of all parties involved. I have NO idea how to settle this. But I think it is likely to go on for another 50 years. This region is so fucked up with so much I don't think peace will ever be possible there. None of them are going to give up



As for the police thing. Again, you deflect and won't even admit that LAWS were broken. You just use REPLY to tee off on your own agenda and have no respect for the person who took the time to refute your ignorance. SHE ADMITTED TO BREAKING THE LAW! You won't even admit that!

I am principled on integrity. I do not believe in the end justifying the means. I I think any police officer who lies, cheats, steals, assaults or otherwise breaks the trust of the public should not be in a position to take away my liberty or my life.

She, and you, are the ones making race an issue. I don't care what colour anyone''s skin is in this. She seemed to think that these officers needed to cheat because they might not be suitable for a leadership position as a Sargeant. These officers will be forever tainted as a result of her meddling.

And finally, your words and participation in this discussion prove that you are supremely unqualified to opine on the matter. You don't even know the basics of how the promotion system works in the TPA. But y ou do so with such certainty that lose respect for what y ou have to say elsewwhere, like in the Palestine-Israel discussions... because I DON"T KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW WTF is going on, what has gone on etc. I only learned of Great Britains role in this mess a month ago. I am a voracious consumer of information generally, am quite accomplished and highly proficient in many things in life but only have so much time. I don't know much about Israel because I'm not jewish. First I ever heard of Palestine was when the PLO killed a bunch of people in the Munich Olympics. I'm not attuned to the conflict because I can only have so much going on in my brain. And having been deeply involved in the PC party during the Mulroney era, I have completely lost my taste for politics. TBH, I didn't even pay attention when eastern Ukraine/Crimea was first occupied.

But I'm no longer going to engage in discussion with you. For no other reason that I wouldn't put up with a bitter housewife telling me what *I* am thinking nor would I have a beer with anyone who would be so arrogant as to do that.

Thanks for the reply, schlong.

First off, I don't accuse everyone of racism. Growing up here racism was rampant, I remember as a kid yelling out 'paki' or other racist slander at people as being the norm. I don't think you're racist either, I think there are vestiges of previous social norms that, hopefully, we are all trying to change to get better. Same with me, I'm trying to get better and trying to address systematic issues that hit my friends and coworkers. So no, I'm not arguing that you are racist but that you need to be careful with historic arguments that are based on racism. Its the same way with sexism, attitudes that I grew up with are now offensive and I try to work to correct them and sometimes people have to point them out so I can be better and make others around me more comfortable. Times change and we must as well.

That's all I see in your posts, arguments that have historically been linked to racist attacks but I'm not sure that you seem them the same way. I'll take one and show you what I mean.

And they are lining up to become martyrs in the name of God, not Palestine.

Historically this line has been used to try to label Palestinians as religious extremists as a way to discount legit arguments about being indigenous to the land. Hamas are Islamic and pretty hard core religious but in their statements they are clear that they are fighting for the recovery of Palestine for Palestinians. Arguing that they are fighting for religion is factually wrong. They are religious and they are fighting for their land can both be correct.

As for Clarke, I have yet to see you admit that there are systemic issues with the TPS that need addressing and that Clarke was trying to address those issues but the system wasn't changing. Nobody on this board has argued that what she did wasn't wrong, its really just about the punishment. What I'm curious about is why you argue for a stronger punishment than the chief or prosecutor want for Clarke. From my point of view just because its a rule or law doesn't make it always correct.

Giving her a harsh punishment or firing her will be seen by black cops and the black community as epitomizing the systemic issues she was acting against. Do you really want a system that works towards maintaining the systemic status quo or do want a system that continues to evolve?

 

[Skoob]

One of the hallmark features of systemic racism, is that it does not happen for no reason. There are always reasons. For example, and purely hypothetical - say a black man assaulted a police officer - which is absolutely against the law. But when the prosecution brings the guy to court, they will seek to impose the maximum possible penalty on him, regardless of what the context was. However a white guy for the same crime, may for one reason or another, face a lower charge and a smaller penalty.

If you bring this up, they will always have the crime to point to, and shrug the racism accusation off. This is how systemic racism persists. One great example was in this recent Netflix TV series "Man in Full", where an otherwise law abiding black man, punches out a police officer and faces all kinds of hurdles in court, especially with the judge, even when the prosecutor was more agreeable.

This is one such case. This particular officer has no prior record and has displayed exemplary behaviour throughout her career. This was one occasion when she broke laws. But notice how the calls are for strict application of the law, and the severest possible penalties, while ignoring the context in which it was committed, which is persistent systemic racism, essentially trying to discredit it, by using her violation of the law as an excuse.

You are also right in reading between the lines here and not taking things at face value. Infact, I have never found taking things at face value to be useful at all in life. You gotta read between the lines. People can also say anything, but their intent matters. So once again your observation is perceptive.

Justice, fairness, equality etc are not an intellectual/academic exercise. They are emotional exercises which is why the law often times works against these things, because the law can only interpret things as black and white. But most things are a shade of grey and therefore common sense needs to be used, and not just robotic decision making based on the law.

A firing therefore is unnecessary. A demotion is the only appropriate punishment for her wrong doing. Even the prosecution seems to think so.

Are we now just making up hypothetical situations to justify why someone in a trusted high-level police position should be shown leniency for cheating?
Are we now using fictitious Netflix shows to distract from reality?

Intent? Your intent from the very beginning here was to excuse her and show leniency simply because she's a black officer. No other reason other than that. That's racist.
There is no reading between the lines here. She should be fired. Stop making excuses.

 

[Skoob]

Schlong, I know you're upset because I called you out for racism in the Palestine threads.
You may think you're unbiased but your statements towards Muslims clearly were.
It wasn't a matter of talking about what you were thinking, it was clear in what you posted.

If you really do support dialogue and moderation we'd discuss why those statements read as racist, whether you really believe them and how to move forward. Instead you've decided to join skoob on the attack here yourself.

Now you're intentionally inflating claims instead of engaging in honest discussion here.

Both you and skoob want her fired when even the prosecutor in this inquiry doesn't ask that much.
Prosecutor Scott Hutchison, however, told the hearing Clarke's conduct as a senior officer is serious and would normally result in dismissal. But he said Chief Myron Demkiw believes there is still work for Clarke to do as a Toronto officer.
Hutchison proposed that Clarke be demoted two ranks to staff sergeant and be given the opportunity to reapply to become superintendent after two years.

Why? Because the chief said she did more to work with the black community than anyone else.
The former chief said he believes the superintendent has been more successful than anyone in tackling the problem of racism in law enforcement.
From the community:
"She cannot be the person that is punished the hardest... How do you justify that, when you should have implemented the system that would have eliminated the necessity for this?"

I am entitled to my opinion in that I think she should be fired. I've stated multiple times that I would hold the same opinion for anyone in a similar situation.
As per the story, this would "normally result in dismissal" so I'm not wrong as far as a typical outcome of punishments.

Ironically, we have a black officer that's saying black officers are not given the same opportunities when she herself was promoted by a black police chief.

This excuse doesn't hold water. Sorry.
She should be fired.

 

[Skoob]

It's an example. If you want an actual example then this discussion where you are attempting to ignore Stacy Clarke's assertions on systemic racism is another.

Yes my intent has been to take her testimony of systemic racism seriously and given that context agree with both the PROSECUTION's and the defence's recommendations on a demotion being more than sufficient.

The excuse-making continues.

 

[Skoob]

There are no excuses for systemic racism.

Except when it's an unrelated issue and someone is just a cheater.

 

[Skoob]

As stated in the case it is not an unrelated issue. It is infact the cause.

Honesty, and integrity or lack thereof, are not related to racism.
Misconduct of a senior officer is not related to racism.
Cheating is not related to racism.
Breach of trust is not related to racism.
Risk to public safety is not related to racism.
Doing the wrong thing is not related to racism.

You can stop making excuses now.

 

[SchlongConery]

Honesty, and integrity or lack thereof, are not related to racism.
Misconduct of a senior officer is not related to racism.
Cheating is not related to racism.
Breach of trust is not related to racism.
Risk to public safety is not related to racism.
Doing the wrong thing is not related to racism.

You can stop making excuses now.

My opinion is that racism, real, imagined, random or systemic is no excuse for lying, cheating, breach of trust, violation of a police officer's oath to secrecy and upholding the law. No matter how noble the goal. At least in our rules based society.

Ironically, the two strident accusers of racism miss the only actual proven racist individual in this matter. Supt Stacey Clarke.

Supt Clarke only gave the black officers the information. Why?

At the very core of this issue is why did she think the black officers were not able to pass the exam on their own merits, abilities and hard work to study hard enough to pass the exam?

Personally, I''d be insulted if someone gave me cheat codes where I was being tested. Do they think I can't learn and earn myself a passing grade?

 

[SchlongConery]

Honesty, and integrity or lack thereof, are not related to racism.
Misconduct of a senior officer is not related to racism.
Cheating is not related to racism.
Breach of trust is not related to racism.
Risk to public safety is not related to racism.
Doing the wrong thing is not related to racism.

You can stop making excuses now.

They aren't making excuses, they are very principled and stridently advocate for cheating, terrorism, rape, kidnapping, ransom, mass murder of innocent concert goers shot in portable toilets in the furtherance of whatever their personal interests, experiences and place in life they feel justifies such unethical behaviour.

It's really that simple. To some people, cops included, the end justifies the means. No matter what.

 

[Skoob]

My opinion is that racism, real, imagined, random or systemic is no excuse for lying, cheating, breach of trust, violation of a police officer's oath to secrecy and upholding the law. No matter how noble the goal. At least in our rules based society.

Ironically, the two strident accusers of racism miss the only actual proven racist individual in this matter. Supt Stacey Clarke.

Supt Clarke only gave the black officers the information. Why?

At the very core of this issue is why did she think the black officers were not able to pass the exam on their own merits, abilities and hard work to study hard enough to pass the exam?

Personally, I''d be insulted if someone gave me cheat codes where I was being tested. Do they think I can't learn and earn myself a passing grade?

Agreed.
It's a slippery slope when the ones we entrust with upholding honesty are the ones that break that trust and then look for an excuse after the fact to justify their reasons.
Imagine if that happened in the medical field? Or airline safety, etc. i.e. people breaking policies and trust for reasons they believe are justified.

 

[Skoob]

You cannot put someone in such an unfair system that vilifies them and expect them to be subservient, obedient and stick to rules, that do them no good.

An "unfair" system that promoted her and entrusted her with a high ranking position and who was promoted by a high ranking person of colour themselves.

That's not an unfair system.

The prosecutor actually said that normally someone would be fired.

 

[Skoob]

They aren't making excuses, they are very principled and stridently advocate for cheating, terrorism, rape, kidnapping, ransom, mass murder of innocent concert goers shot in portable toilets in the furtherance of whatever their personal interests, experiences and place in life they feel justifies such unethical behaviour.

It's really that simple. To some people, cops included, the end justifies the means. No matter what.

Imagine a society whereby individuals skirt rules, responsibility and ethics because they believe the ends justify the means.
And of course, there are those here that conveniently accept that type of society when a situation fits their current narrative but then cry foul when it doesn't.

 

[Frankfooter]

Except when it's an unrelated issue and someone is just a cheater.

Its the entire reason that this thread started and continues, skoob.
Do you care that DoFo uses the OPP plane as his private transportation? No.
Do you care about other bad cops in the TPS? No
Do you have a pattern of supporting racism in other threads? Yes

 

[Frankfooter]

Supt Clarke only gave the black officers the information. Why?

Because the TPS has a success rate of 1.7% for promotions of black officers.

Because she tried to get policy changed that other cops use to continue systematic racism, had it approved at the board, but someone above her cancelled it. So she acted as if that policy went through.

Can you prove that the cops she offered the questions to weren't cops she thought were the best candidates and that this was the best way to get cops past that 1.7% promotion rate?

 

[Skoob]

An unfair system that did not promote many, many officers, hired only 1.7% of black applicants etc., Tokenism is not fairness. And the prosecutor is right. Given the context, she is not being fired.

It's interesting that you are using point-in-time percentages as your basis that there is systemic racism within TPS that inspired Clarke to cheat.

In that particular pool that you are getting your number from, there were 58 black applicants. 13.7% were interviewed. 1.7% were hired.
That's all that your 1.7% number means. It's not a smoking gun that proves racism. Too many variables to consider here without more data over time with the interview outcomes provided. Such as other visible minorities that were interviewed/hired, how large or small were subsequent pools of applicants, what was the interview/hiring criteria, etc.

In other words, you have it backwards if you think a certain percentage of any race needs to be hired to make things fair otherwise there is "systemic racism".

But keep coming up with excuses.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's interesting that you are using point-in-time percentages as your basis that there is systemic racism within TPS that inspired Clarke to cheat.

In that particular pool that you are getting your number from, there were 58 black applicants. 13.7% were interviewed. 1.7% were hired.
That's all that your 1.7% number means. It's not a smoking gun that proves racism. Too many variables to consider here without more data over time with the interview outcomes provided. Such as other visible minorities that were interviewed/hired, how large or small were subsequent pools of applicants, what was the interview/hiring criteria, etc.

In other words, you have it backwards if you think a certain percentage of any race needs to be hired to make things fair otherwise there is "systemic racism".

But keep coming up with excuses.

Excuses?

Toronto Police Admit Systemic Racism: Damning Statistics Show Police Targeting of Black Torontonians and Other Racialized Communities - Falconers LLP

Leading human rights and police accountability firm Falconers LLP responds to Toronto Police admission of systemic racism.

falconers.ca

 

[Frankfooter]

It's interesting that you are using point-in-time percentages as your basis that there is systemic racism within TPS that inspired Clarke to cheat.

In that particular pool that you are getting your number from, there were 58 black applicants. 13.7% were interviewed. 1.7% were hired.
That's all that your 1.7% number means. It's not a smoking gun that proves racism. Too many variables to consider here without more data over time with the interview outcomes provided. Such as other visible minorities that were interviewed/hired, how large or small were subsequent pools of applicants, what was the interview/hiring criteria, etc.

In other words, you have it backwards if you think a certain percentage of any race needs to be hired to make things fair otherwise there is "systemic racism".

But keep coming up with excuses.

Where is your source for this claim, skoob?